Review: Discovering A Whole New Trek

To get disclosure out of the way, I've been a Star Trek fan since the original show was in first run back in the 60s.  I'm not a Trekkie or Trekker, though.  I have watched all the movies a dozen times, I can practically quote every episode of the original series, I dutifully watched the animated series, and stuck with the Next Gen through the rough early years to actually get some good Trek again. 

However, I've never read a Trek novel or been to a convention, nor have I ever seen more than a couple of episodes of Deep Space 9 and Voyager, though I must admit that by muting the theme song, I found Enterprise quite entertaining.

With that list of qualifications, I will offer my two-cents' worth on the new Star Trek Discovery series recently launched by CBS as a means to drag hard-core followers into its online pay service.  I watched the first two episodes - ostensibly the pilot/teaser for the rest of the series, online for free on YouTube.  I hope CBS understands that their signals don't reach Indonesia...yet.

First impression?  Why the hell is everything these days dark and moody?  What the hell ever happened to good lighting?  And while I'm on a rant, every damn editor in Hollywood needs to be fired immediately.  I can't see anything, and what I can see is cut so fast as to not let me enjoy the settings that have some light on them.  And who is the drunkard that shot this thing?  Has he/she/it never learned to balance and level a camera on the tripod?  Hint, there is a knob under the head and a spirit level on top.  Loosen the damn knob and adjust until the bubble is in the center circle.

For cryin' out loud, what are they teaching in film schools these days?

Now that I have that out of my system, I can rant about everything else.  Oh, and if you can here for lots of poetry and praise, you might as well leave now.  Ain't gonna happen.  And one more thing, I don't give a flying leap at a rolling donut about spoilers.  There may or may not be some here.  That's your problem.  Read with your eyes closed so you don't see any.

I am sick to death of Political Correctness being shoved down my throat from every angle.  With American "entertainment", it was the Jews for decades, now it's every subclass of human being one can imagine, and not a few that one couldn't imagine before it was stuffed in one's gullet.

Star Trek Discovery (pilot) follows the story of one Michael Burnham, who appears to be half black human and half white Vulcan, and is the step-whatever of Sarek (if you don't know who Sarek is, go look it up).  He/she has a human name and ears, but a distinctly Vulcan attitude and background.  He/she is also fairly androgenous, except in scenes where he/she takes off his/her clothes, and then suddenly he/she is a she.

We begin on the bridge of the USS Shenzhou, staffed by vaguely Asian crew (even the aliens) as a concession to the Chinese masters of Hollywood, so the vast markets there can be tapped and wallets emptied.  The ship encounters the Klingons for the first time in 100 years, and of course, things get nasty pretty fast, as the title of Part 2 says, "The Battle of the Binary Stars."  I'll get to the Klingons in a moment.

At this point, I will admit that I like the set designs, costumes and effects - what little of them I can see without lighting.  The designs exist somewhere between the functional blues and polished blacks of Enterprise, and the pastel beige of the original series.  I would have enjoyed this aspect of the show much more if they had hired a lighting director and a DP that knew how to balance and level a camera, not to mention an editor that would linger on the wide shots for just a second or two to establish the settings.

Technically, the show looks great.  I very much enjoyed that part, but that is obviously not a foundation for a good story.  That requires writing that is fun and engaging, not hell-bound determined to hammer the audience over their heads with Progressive propaganda.

This brings us to the Klingons, and what the hell happened here?

The central figure among the Klingons is a character apparently called T'Kuvma, though it's hard to tell because the writing and editing are so damned frenetic, we never get a clear introduction to any of the characters.  Let me reiterate that this show looks as if it was edited by a jonesing cocaine addict.

The Klingons have been completely redesigned and apparently have not discovered the Universal Translator yet, since they all speak Klingon throughout the entire show - except for a couple of lines - as if their mouths are full of marbles, or in this case, dental appliances.  Furthermore, the subtitles flash by so fast that I had to pause playback several hundred times to get a significant part of the story from the text.

And why are the Klingons the only aliens in the whole damn show that don't speak English?  Even the Vulcans speak English to each other when no one else is around (Michael and Sarek in the jail cell), as do the training computers on Vulcan.

T'Kuvma (a Vulcan name using old series conventions) is an obviously black Klingon, unlike the submission pale blue ones, who thumps his Klingon bible and has a rather nasty temper.  He is seeking to unite his people under theocratic dictatorship using a ship lined on the outside with dead Klingon bodies.  This "sarcophagus" ship is apparently from a Star Trek novel some years ago and has never made an appearance until now, so it's purpose is as much your guess as mine.

Despite the ham-fisted effort to shove Progressive propaganda down my throat, the lack of lighting, unlevel camera work, and an obvious coffee addict editing, I really liked the little bit of CGI work I could focus on.  The battle scene in the second half of the show was quite good, even though I couldn't figure out what the hell was going on.

I particularly enjoyed the fact that the CGI folks finally realized that space is three-dimentional.  Ships approach each other in all directions and orientations, which is I believe the first time I have seen this.  The closest thing to this instance was in the Wrath of Khan, with the original cast, where Nicholas Meyer had the ships coming at each other from all directions.  Kudos to whoever decided that space is much more interesting than sea level.

That I spent a lot of time noticing the technical aspects of the show should tell the reader a lot.  I liked the costumes.  The creature makeup was quite good and much more interesting than the old Star Trek stand-by of glue-on prostetics.  The sets were spacious and detailed, and quite interesting to look at, when I could see any detail.  I also liked that starlight came blazing through the windows and lit the interiors, something picked up from the J. J. Abrams movies, although whoever put lens flairs in this show should be thoroughly beaten, then fired.

The score was unremarkable and the theme sounds like the preamble to a complete piece of music.  It is also completely unhummable and I couldn't whistle a single bar if my life depended on it.  The opening titles reminded me of Six Feet Under or the film Hollow Man, but it was interesting from breaking the old convention of showing the ship blasting through the screen every two seconds.

In the end, there are some hopeful elements that make me think there might be some redeeming value to the show going forward, but I'm not holding my breath.

A hallmark of Star Trek is the relentlessly positive Humanism that makes the universe it presents seem exciting and desirable.  It appears that the new take on the series is about to make a hard Left turn into relentless Progressivism, with lots of darkness and moral ambiguity.  If that's the case, then all is lost.  There is an endless pile of such shows out there that make me feel worse about the human condition.  The attractive aspect of Star Trek is that it left the darkness behind and didn't dwell on differences, but made each human able to advance one's self through mental exercise and physical achievements, not because they were members of annointed victim group du jour.

Technically, the show is fun and interesting.  Let's hope that it grows out of this whiny Progressive phase into something more like Star Trek.  I'll stick around for another episode or two to give it a chance, because I'm an optimist, but I will bail quickly if I don't get what I want from it.

And as a side note, how come we have to keep beating the same time period to death?  Why can't someone make a Star Trek set 100 or 200 years in the future?  Let's do some real exploration and take ideas and discoveries of the past 50 years into account?  I don't give a flip about canon and faithfulness to timelines, but the original series jumped way out into the future.  Do it again!

And here's a show idea, and if I see it on-screen, I better see a story credit for me:

According to the laws of physics, phasers and photon torpedoes don't just stop in space, they continue forever until they hit something.  So what happens to all those shots that miss?  Why not have a stray photon torpedo hit a planet hundreds of light years away, and the creatures trace it back to it's origins and come looking for revenge?

Just a thought.

REVIEW: Moana (film)

MOANA (2016)
Directors:  Ron Clements, Don Hall
Writers:  Jared Bush (screenplay), Ron Clements (story by)
Stars:  Auli'i Cravalho, Dwayne Johnson, Rachel House
Technical: 103 mins., 2.35:1, English, Dolby

Let's see...

Disney logo, check
Ethnic princess, check
Glorification of genetic monarchy, check
Trivializing, stereotyping and monetizing a rich cultural heritage, check
Animal sidekick comic relief, check
Omnipotent magical characters, check
Plug 'n' Play formula, check

Yes, it's yet another Disney signature animated feature poised to empty parents' pockets for licensed merchandise and follow-on video games, with shelves full of dolls, story books and other crap that will be sold on eBay in 25 years as genuine collectors' items.

Take any Disney signature animated feature.  Replace the characters with genies or snowmen or Polynesian demi-gods.  Add a cute animal that pops up at just the right moments to provide a chuckle or two.  Add a slim, empowered princess-type and her sidekick.  Insert into a story that blends five or six different mythos with a stereotypical rendition of some ethnic group.  POOF!  You have a Disney phenomenon.

OK so before I completely trash this film, at least let me get the well-deserved praise out of the way.

The computer-generated, 24-frame-per-minute, full-color animation is gorgeous.  The water, hair and sand textures are truly marvelous to behold.  The camera work is taut, with every shot and move planned to the Nth degree.  The lighting is amazing, with the state-of-the-art ray tracing in abundant view.  The character movements are natural and fluid with a resolution that is mind-boggling.

The score is what one would expect - a single, catchy song that remains stuck in your head as you walk out of the cinema, with a dozen or so inoffensive fillers, fully orchestrated with voices that are clear and pitch-perfect.

The strange thing about this film is the obvious (to me) metaphor for terraforming other planets, specifically Mars, and the need to get off of Earth because we've used up all her resources.  Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but the main theme of the story is rediscovering the ancient art of navigating by the stars to reach a legendary lost land, which magically transforms from a barren, sandy waste into a lush tropical jungle just waiting for human colonists.

Maybe my imagination is just a bit overactive, or I am one of those people who see messages everywhere, but this movie just reeks of metaphor and allegory.  A people maintain myths and legends of lost civilizations and technologies.  One brave soul strikes off to prove not only that the ancient technology does exist, but with an understanding of the myths and the help of the "gods" that it is the key to new lands and a glorious future.

I know, I know...I'm probably giving Disney Studios far too much credit for being clever and profound, but you watch this flick and tell me if you don't see the same thing.  Even my wife, who I would not characterize as a strong media critic, got the "destiny" message loud and clear, she just put it in religious terms, though the "global" meme came through to her, as well.

Given that I am about to otherwise trash this film, I have to think I have an overactive imagination, because kid-flicks can't be that interesting.

My biggest - and really only - criticism is that this film is exactly what you would expect in every detail if you've seen any Disney signature animated feature during the last 30 years.  There is exactly nothing that is new or fresh or even unexpected.  From the opening line, you can practically run the entire dialogue in your head before you are five minutes into the film.  In fact, about the only thing that stands out in a Disney feature for the last 30 years is that Aladdin  and Simba were male title characters.

Disney Studios seems to be on a multi-decadal romp through every culture that does or has existed.  By now, we have been charged to see the same formula applied to Russia, Greece, Arabia, France, China, Sweden, Africa (no country or culture given), and the ocean in general.  About all that is left is South America (no tribe or culture given) and the Phoenicians.

Every Disney animated feature (and quite a few live-action too) since Cinerella has a prince or princess on the brink of inheriting the crown, setting off on a vision quest to at least make it seem like they are leaders, since the only other qualification they have is genetic.  Even Cinderella is from an aristocratic family and marries a prince, and Aladdin is a "prince" of thieves who marries into the royal gene pool.  It seems that Disney Studios is pining for the glory days of inherited power.  There are even a couple of lines in this film that tell us the folks behind the scenes are aware of what they are doing.

In this film, the eponymous princess is ready to assume the reins of power over her serfs.  There's a scene where this pubescent autocrat deigns to tell her subjects where to fish or plant a new coconut grove, as if she has within her chromosomes far greater wisdom than the generations of fishermen and coconut-picking women, as she points and orders folks around.

Moana sets off on a quest to find a mythical land with the aid of a chicken, an enigmatic ocean and a demi-god called Maui.  Maui is a Polynesian Thor, who wields a "hook," rather than a hammer, and can turn into a giant eagle, rather than summon one.  He looks Samoan, but he is covered in tattoos like a Maoi.

The impetus for Moana's journey is that her people have over-fished and over-farmed their island (a la Easter Island), but a generations-old curse caused by Maui causes them to fear leaving the safety of their reef-encircled lagoon.  Moana, of course, receives a vision that she is the Chosen One who will lift the curse, learn to navigate the open seas with her hand, and find the new Promised Land.

I really liked the chicken, by the way.

Needless to say, it's a happy ending and the serfs end up bowing and scraping to Moana like good little servants.  Lest the Reader think this is a spoiler, then you have probably never seen a Disney signature animated feature before, but after this film, you will have seen them all.

Moana belies an almost pathological fear of stepping outside the boundaries of formula.  If you've seen enough of these films, you can almost pick out the bits and pieces of the previous films that are strung together with different settings to create product after product.  One could be forgiven if one assumed that Disney Studios was run by a sinister automatron that cranked out new properties on a biennial basis, complete with sound-alike scores and lyrics.

About the only thing that got my attention, besides the stunning quality of the animation, was that Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson (Maui) can sing, unless he was dubbed or AutoTuned, in which case I retract this statement.

Nothing to see here folks, move along.

Unless you are 3 years old and history only began with the election last month, or you are a teen-aged boy looking to feel up Daisy Mae in the back row, you can safely skip this film.  There are far better outings, such as Mary Poppins and Bedknobs and Broomsticks.  And when it comes to this formula, the classics like Snow White and Cinderella did it far better and hand-drawn and colored, no less.

Formulas work for medicine and chefs, but in the creative arts, it's a soul-killer and eventually folks get the feeling you are just hypnotizing them while digging in their pockets and wallets.

All that being said, I can't shake the impression that Disney Studios just told the world that the secret to human survival lies in the ancient knowledge and technology hidden in our mythologies, and that our collective destiny lies in terraforming and colonizing other worlds.  If this message was intentional, then I can forgive all the formulaic clap-trap and saccharine culture, since it serves a much deeper and more interesting purpose.

I just hate giving Disney that much credit, though.

REVIEW: Vaxxed: From Cover-Up To Catastrophe (film)

Title: VAXXED: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe
Year: 2016
Genre:  Documentary
Producer:  Del Matthew Bigtree
Director:  Andrew Wakefield
Editor:  Brian Burrowes
Run Time:  1:31
Technical:  Stereo 5.1 Surround, Color, 2.35:1

It took me the better part of a year to lay my hands on a copy of Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe.  There has been a strong and consistent effort to bury this film, and after watching it (and allowing my rage to cool a bit), I can see why.  If you are a normal, rational, empathetic human being, this film will piss you off something fierce.

The film was pulled from competition earlier this year in the Tribeca Film Festival, even though festival head Robert DeNiro defended the film's inclusion, based in part on a campaign by another documentarian.

In the interest of disclosure, I must say that when my daughter was one year old, she began having seizures, where her eyes would roll back in her head and her body would go stiff as a board - usually after eating.  Months of tests and scans, combined with hours of research kicked off by a nurse who whispered to me that I should investigate vaccines led me to stop all further vaccines for my children, take them out of public schools and to begin chelation therapy for all of them.

I was lucky in that I was able to reverse the effects and my daughter is happy and normal today, but those decisions ultimately led to a two-and-a-half-year battle with "Children's Protective Services," that cost me a quarter of a million dollars in lawyer and court fees, not to mention my job and most of what I called my life.  I ended up in Indonesia.

That said, I will attempt to review this film as objectively as I possibly can.

It is important to note that the director of the documentary, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, was a British Gastroenterologist who wrote a paper in 1998, drawing a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.  His career was subsequently crushed and he was called a fraud for his efforts.  The narrative centers around the so-called "whistle-blower" named Dr. William Thompson, formerly with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States, who was granted immunity by president Obama, and his conversations with Dr. Brian Hooker, whose interviews form the basis of this film.

If any of that scares you, or your emotional triggers are firmly installed by indoctrination, then you will not want to see this film, nor finish reading this review.  If you are a parent of an autistic child, or are considering becoming a parent trying to decide whether to vaccinate your child, this film presents vital information in your search for truth.

If I were to list all the degrees, licenses and titles of the people interviewed for this film, it would take the rest of the page to do so.  The information is not hear-say or anecdotal, though there are plenty of interviews with parents, too.  The core of the argument, though, is hard data and research, conducted by, among others, the CDC itself.

The gist of the story is a four-year long effort on the part of five researchers at the CDC to rearrange research data so as to hide the effects and links of MMR vaccine on the US general population.  The whistle-blower, Dr. William Thompson, was one of five co-authors on a paper that found "no link" between the vaccine and autism, yet he began leaking the data to a fellow doctor (Dr. Brian Hooker), hoping that he would make the connections without being led to conclusions.

The director, Andrew Wakefield, himself had found a possible link requiring further study between the MMR vaccine and autism, due to a number of parents who were bringing their children to him (as a gastroenterologist), who were suffering from various intestinal maladies after having received the vaccine.

The film emphasizes the paper's conclusion of a possible link requiring further study, because Wakefield lost his license, was thoroughly discredited, sanctioned and shunned for suggesting a possible link.

The film details both the data that was hidden by the CDC, as well as the personal odysseys of Wakefield, Hooker and Thompson to inform the public and bring attention to the issue.  It details the connection between the general use of MMR vaccine and the exponential rise in cases of autism, a trend that if it continues, will see 1 in 2 (50%) of all US children suffering from autism by 2032.  It also shows that the data reveals a statistically significant correlation (p= >0.05) between MMR vaccine and black boys, with about 80% of all cases of autism affecting boys of every race.

The actual CDC data is displayed on-screen so that the viewer can pause and copy it and run the numbers for themselves if they so choose.

The viewer is led to conclude an actual and strong connection between MMR vaccine and autism based on the conclusions of a number of researchers and physicians.  But it goes on to show how US law was created to protect vaccine manufacturers, special courts were set up to handle vaccine cases, and any awards of damages were taken from the taxpayer and not the manufacturers.  It also details how certain vaccines were renamed and transferred to other markets when causal effects were discovered between the vaccines and certain diseases and syndromes, ultimately ending up in developing countries, where parents were less educated, had less access to good information, and were less likely to sue.

For the final reason above, parents in so-called "developing" countries should absolutely watch this film.  It has vital information that can inform parental decisions, as well as inform parents of possible routes for treatment of autistic children, and to provide vital data from parents considering lawsuits against manufacturers and government ministries that impose vaccination regimes.

The most enduring effect of watching this film is to leave the viewer with the thought that perhaps we have all been entirely too trusting of pharmaceutical and governmental entities whose sole motivation is profit and/or the corrupt money flowing into lawmakers' pockets through lobbying and direct bribery.  The viewer is also left wondering if the preference for males, and especially black males, is not part of some larger, even more nefarious agenda.  For the conspiracy-minded researcher, this film is a treasure trove of road maps to uncovering the truth behind vaccines.  One doesn't need legal protection from liability if one's product is truly beneficial.

As the film points out several times, a measles outbreak at Disneyland a couple of years ago should not have happened, or at the least should not have been a major concern for those who are protected by the promised effects of vaccines.

The free and educated person is morally bound to watch this and similar films.  Whenever governments and organizations claiming "authority" start banning films, books and other information, it is incumbent on the thinking person to immediately obtain, consume and spread that information, for no other reason than the right to free exchange of ideas.  Censorship, regardless of the information in question, is abhorrent to freedom and the right of every individual to decide for themselves what they can read and hear and say.  If one chooses not to receive certain information, that is a right, but it is tyranny when "authorities" dictate what we can and cannot know.

For both the information that it contains, and to exercise one's God-given right to chose, I highly recommend Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe.  Even from a purely artistic point of view, the film is well-made, with clear graphics, interesting music choices and competent camera and audio work.  The film can be appreciated solely from a technical and creative point of view, as well as fine documentary art.

This is not an overly sensitive tear-jerker.  There is some emotional appeal, as is incumbent on the art form, but for the most part, the presentation is methodical and straight-forward, so as not to obfuscate the message.

**Important additional information on Adverse Effects Following Immunization (AEFI) and how dangerous side effects are effectively hidden in studies and investigations:

REVIEW: I, Robot (film)

Title: I, Robot (2004)
Director: Alex Proyas
Writers: Jeff Vintar, Akiva Goldsman, Isaac Asimov (novel)
Stars: Will Smith, Bridget Moynahan, Alan Tudyk
Details: 115 mns, English, DTS/Dolby, 2.35:1, color

"That, lieutenant, is the right question."

You are probably thinking, "Why is this guy writing a review of a 12-year-old movie?"  Valid question, but I think re-watching the film will remind you of just how prescient this film really is, not to mention how well it is made.

Alex Proyas is one of the least heralded geniuses in contemporary cinema.  His films, such as Dark City and The Crow have become cult classics, and for good reason.  They are movies made for thinking people, with very high production values and superb acting - even by two-dimensional performers like Will Smith.  Proyas' filmography should be cornerstones in a well-rounded cinema library.

The visual art aside, what is most appealing about I, Robot are the ideas presented in the story.  The screenplay is smartly written, inspired by a novel by one of the titans of 20th century science fiction: Isaac Asimov.  Furthermore, this film, like all of Proyas' work, is very original, unlike the microwaved left-overs that currently dominate US cinema.

The story is richly layered, with several insightful monologues that both shed light on the characters' motivations, but touch on much larger issues with which society is quickly being confronted issues such as the legal, moral and ethical implications of artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics.  Oh sure, there is plenty of action and special effects to entertain the cretins in the audience, but intelligent and educated people will find much to chew on here.

The story is inspired by Isaac Asimov's novel of the same name.  In it, he posits the Three Laws of Robotics that must be hardwired into every robot produced.  Those laws are:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

On the surface, the story centers around a cynical cop named Spooner with a deep distrust of robots, which have become commonplace in the world of 2035.  His opinion is roundly ridiculed, though, as the larger world has grown quite comfortable and trusting of the machines.  When Spooner is called to the scene of Dr. Lanning's suicide at the headquarters of USRobotics (USR) by a holographic message, he meets Dr. Calvin, a cold psychiatrist who researches and develops machine minds.  Together they search Dr. Lanning's laboratory, where they discover "Sonny," a one-of-a-kind robot developed in secret by Lanning.  A copy of Hansel and Gretel sitting on a table in the lab gives Spooner the idea that Lanning has left "bread crumbs" to follow in order to solve the mystery of his suicide.

Spooner and Calvin come to realize that "Sonny" is unique, in that it has emotions, dreams and secrets, not to mention redundant systems and an alloy frame much stronger than the normal products.  It becomes obvious that Lanning built "Sonny" with a specific purpose that is slowly revealed over the course of the story.  We also learn that Spooner has an artificial arm, which is how he met Lanning and developed a relationship with the inventor, as a result of a tragic car accident in which a robot chose to save Spooner over a 12-year-old girl because the robot calculated Spooner had a better chance of survival.  This cold, calculating logic is what disturbs Spooner and makes him deeply distrustful of robots.

Ultimately, Spooner's suspicions are confirmed when the robots attempt to take over humanity.  The reason is that the logical conclusion of the Three Laws of Robotics is AI control of civilization being the only way to fulfill the mission of protecting humans at any cost, as well as themselves, provided it does not violate the first two laws.  Thus, the AI concludes that humanity's wars and strife must be controlled to protect both humans and robots.

While the film works quite well as a cautionary tale of Man versus his own creations, it has a much deeper and more interesting side.  There is a specific reason that a black actor was cast in the central role, because the story is a subtle play on prejudice and political correctness.

Spooner's distrust, even hatred, of robots has a deep cause and one that is not readily apparent to the casual observer.  Despite considerable pressure and ridicule, he believes in and persists in his prejudice and is eventually proved right.  The juxtaposition of a black man as a character whose deep-seated prejudices are one of his prime motivations is a most interesting play on the politically correct society that openly castigates individuals for their prejudices, without ever seeking to understand why the individual has them.

There are not many movies that could get away with this type of message, especially in today's racially charged society.  Despite the subtlety of the message, it is nonetheless quite obvious and mentioned a number of times by other characters, though the script never gets preachy.  The fact that Spooner is ultimately justified in his prejudice is even more interesting, as it makes clear that individuals may be motivated by emotions and instincts that are not open to everyone, and that there may be valid reasons for people to have and foster their prejudices.  In fact, the film is an argument in favor of REAL diversity, where people are allowed to believe as they wish and associate with whomever they wish.

On another level, the film is also an exploration of the very real possibility that if we are successful in creating AI, that it will have its own prejudices, want to associate with its own kind and will, in fact, be as uncontrollable as any human being.

There is a pervasive attitude that just because we create something, it must serve us.  This is the same mistake committed by Yahweh in the Biblical stories (and yet another argument that Yahweh is not omnipotent).  The creation of Life, no matter what form it takes or what providence it has, is not obligated to serve a Master.  It is as free to choose for itself what course it will take, as any other life form of which we are aware.

Finally, the film explores the limits of logic.  This is a theme which has been explored at great length and to great effect by the character Spock in Star Trek.  It also one of the prime themes of the novel that inspired this film.  While we celebrate reason and logic as a means to free ourselves from slavery to emotions, it too has limits that we must be aware of, and seek a balance between the impetuousness of our instincts and the coldness of pure reason.

The motivating event in Spooner's life was his profound grief that a robot calculated his chances of survival at 45%, while the young girl's was only 11%, and so the robot chose to rescue him.  A human might have added further importance on the girl's life, since she was younger and had more to live for than a mature adult.  Though some may argue that the robot made a valid choice, Spooner reasons that a basic human value is to protect the innocent at all costs.

Superficially, I, Robot appears to be a high-quality summer blockbuster.  There are some very original actions scenes, especially the Tunnel Attack, which shows some very unconventional thinking on the parts of the director and effects team.  The world of the film is very detailed and profoundly fleshed out, down to small details only seen for the briefest of seconds on screen.  The robots are intriguing and believable, and the effects compositing is well done, with no apparent seams or color shifts.  Patrick Tatopoulos' production design and Simon Duggan's cinematography work well together, with an interesting color palette, careful and detailed lighting and lots of deep fields.  We are shown the film's world from the macro to the micro, and the details and continuity hold up well across all scales.  The editing is crisp without calling attention to itself, keeping the story moving at a good pace, but lingering long enough on details the audience needs.  Marco Beltrami's score is subtle, yet does a fine job of building emotional tension, though I must say the opening titles and theme share a lot of elements with Hollow Man, released four years before this film.  There is a unity of vision apparent in this film that is rare in even grossly high-budget sci-fi fare.

The acting is above average, even for "movie stars" like Will Smith.  Bridget Moynahan's Dr. Calvin is well-acted and has a nice development arc, moving from Ice Queen to quite a bit warmer and more human.  Alan Tudyk does a remarkable job animating the "Sonny" character.  The voice is haunting and the motion-capture animation brings his characterization to life in a disturbingly life-from-lifeless way.  The only character that seems unnecessarily two-dimensional is Bruce Greenwood's Lawrence Robertson, the CEO and creator of USR.  The character is not very complex and it would have greatly enhanced the story if he had been motivated by something less pedestrian than mere greed.  His death tries too hard to be ironic and would have had a much higher emotional impact with some simple additions to his persona.  James Cromwell's Dr. Lanning is, perforce, two-dimensional and I was left wanting a bit more back-story to understand his motivations.

I, Robot works for any audience.  It can be mindless eye-candy for the shallow mind, or it offers quite a bit of meat on the bone for the thinking person.  In either case, one walks away feeling like they have gotten their money's worth in all aspects of the production.

The message I walked away with was that judging others for their prejudices is, in itself, just another form of prejudice.

REVIEW: Star Trek Beyond (film)

Title: Star Trek Beyond
Director: Justin Lin
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban
Runtime: 120 minutes
Language: English, Bahasa Indonesia subtitles
Tech Spec: Dolby Atmos, 2D/3D, 2.35:1
Bintang: 4/5 for action, characters, performances

Time out for a little mindless escapism.  In fact, if there's a fault with Star Trek Beyond, that's it.  One of the long-standing pillars of the franchise has been its ability to hold the mirror of the Final Frontier up to our society, without threatening or blaming anyone in particular.

That said, this should have been the second film in the current iteration.  It truly goes where no one has gone before, and does so with far more subtle nods to its 50-year history and some great fun.  The only fault I give the film - in and of itself - is that the pacing is so frenetic, there is hardly a moment to catch your breath and arrange all the pieces of the story.

The film opens where the original series left off, three years into a five-year mission.  Malaise and routine have got everyone in a funk.  In a moment taken directly from the original series' first pilot (with Tab Hunter as Captain Pike), Kirk and Bones mull over the weight of command and self-identity while enjoying a Saurian Brandy.  Anyone who has been around since the first show first aired, as I have, will recognize the scene immediately.

Kirk is morosely questioning his purpose in space after a less-than-stellar diplomatic mission where, finally, humans don't look like the all-wise, all-knowing beneficent Keepers of the Universe, which one might believe from all previous hours spent in the Trek Universe.

We are then treated to Space Station Yorktown, which for hardcore Trekkers/Trekkies, is the original name of the Enterprise when Gene Roddenberry first conceived of the show.  After the introductory montage, one is convinced that all the Klingons and Romulans be damned, space exploration looks pretty damn cool.

Shore leave is cut short in order to go find a missing ship somewhere in the middle of a nebula.  The crew saddles up for a search-and-rescue gig, but on arrival, find a bit more than they bargained for.

The crew ends up marooned on and scattered across an alien planet after a pretty spectacular battle, where we are finally shown what it's like to be in the rest of the ship while all hell breaks loose.  Once on the planet, the crew slowly reassembles itself while trying to figure out just what hit them and how they are going to get back into space and save the Earth.

This allows for some fun pairings and much needed character insights and development.  There are some genuinely good moments as unlikely pairs try to get to the rally point.  Of primary focus are the Bones/Spock team, and Scotty with (presumably) new alien character Jaylah.

There are some fun nods to Things We've Always Wanted to See, like alien mouths not synched to the Universal Translator, or less-than-enlightened break-ups between couples.  The much-touted Sulu-is-gay scene is so generic that one could be forgiven for thinking it was a reunion between old friends.  In all fairness, the Indonesian Censorship Board may have cut out a scene, but I have no way of knowing until I can see an uncensored cut.  By the end, though, we feel like we have truly been someplace new and seen things not seen before.

The plot centers around a McGuffin introduced in the opening scene.  Kirk is presenting a new race an ancient artifact as a peace gesture.  Turns out, a la Joseph Farrell's Cosmic War, that the object is a piece of an ancient weapon of incredible power that was scattered across the galaxy way, way back.  The crew is marooned by an alien (Krall), who is seeking to reassemble the device and destroy Earth to settle an old score - that is really never too clear.

In some ways, this is a rehash of the Wrath of Khan plot, in which the Enterprise is lured by the titular character to obtain a powerful weapon, while at the same time exacting revenge, though it is done with some fresh perspectives.

As mentioned before, the one key element missing from this film, and really from the entire three-film reboot, is the commentary on current events.  One thing that made the original series (half a century ago) so popular was that it dealt with issues, not just action, and took place in the head, not the heart (and adrenal glands).

While the J.J. Abrams rethink has done a fairly credible job of capturing the Next Generation's flair for interpersonal relationships - something set up in the first pilot scene recaptured here - it fails to show us ourselves, in all our faults and glory.  The original series left the viewer with something to chew on, whether it was a commentary on racism, greed, freedom, geopolitics, or any of a number of other moral and ethical issues.

Star Trek Beyond glosses over several ideas that would have made for some very interesting aha! moments.  It could have explored an ancient progenitor race, or Spock's imperative to breed now that his race faces extinction, or even the wisdom of humans mucking about in things that don't concern them.  All of these and more are left dangling, with us hardcore Trekkers/Trekkies begging for some meat on the bones (pun alert).

The original episode that introduced Khan dealt with eugenics and human intervention in genetics.  One episode had two aliens battling to the death of their race because the white and black halves of their bodies were reversed.  Another episode dealt with the wisdom of robotics and greed.  Why can't one of these reboots deal with how a race like the Vulcans deal with near-extinction and the serious choices they face to survive.

Instead, we get popcorn-munching action and adventure light.  All eye-candy with little real substance to take away after the credits roll.  I know it's a summer tentpole blockbuster franchise (and all those other Syd Schienberg mogul phrases), but the one thing that has always distinguished Star Trek from all the other swashbuckling westerns (to mix genres) was its ability to use outer space as a mirror on ourselves.

It is said that no matter how far the traveler goes, he always comes back to himself.  The genius of Star Trek has always been that no matter how many new worlds and new civilizations humans encountered, in the end it was humanity's own strengths and failings that we found.  In this way, the show/films were modern retellings of the ancient hero stories of Man vs. Gods.

Star Trek Beyond stands on its own.  You don't need to be a fan of any stripe to enjoy it with a tub of popcorn.  It leaves us with the impression that this may be the end of this iteration, though there is certainly plenty of Universe left to explore.  The future is open, as it always is  Let's hope that future installments, in whatever form they take, will return to the spark that made Star Trek one of the most enduring pop cultural phenomena ever.

Oh, one more thing: the lens flares are gone!  Hallelujah!

Kudos to the team that handled the Jakarta premier.  It was well-done and having Justin Lin on hand to discuss his experience was great.  Who knew he spoke Bahasa Indonesia?  I saw the 3D version, which honestly I wouldn't have paid extra to do, since it really adds nothing to my experience of the story.  And thanks to Epicentrum XXI for hosting the event.

REVIEW: Laskar Pelangi (film)

Title: Laskar Pelangi
Country: Indonesia
Language: Bahasa Indonesia
Year: 2008
Producer: Mira Lesmana
Director: Riri Riza
Writers: Salman Aristo (screenplay) Mira Lesmana, Riri Riza, Andrea Hirata (novel)
Color, 16:9, Dolby stereo, subtitles (Indonesian/English)


Few Westerners will have seen this film, though it is the highest grossing Indonesian film ever, has won a number of domestic and international awards, and is based on a very popular novel by the same title.  This is probably this finest Indonesian film I have seen, and deserves attention by a wide audience.


To say it is an Indonesian version of "Stand And Deliver," would be unfair.  The locations, circumstances and pacing are completely different.  However, they are similar in that the stories involve inspirational teachers and students from the lower echelons of life.


'Laskar Pelangi', variously translated as 'Rainbow Warriors' or 'Rainbow Troops', is based on the childhood experiences of writer Andrea Hirata, whose 2004 book was quite popular and inspirational for a great number of Indonesians.


The story is set in the 1970s, on an island called Belitong, which is off the east coast of Sumatera, in the Java Sea.  Even today, the area is pastoral and rural, home to farmers and craftsmen.  Like much of Indonesia, it is a quiet, sleepy place, and the film perfectly captures the pace and beauty of the setting.  What is not clearly exposed is the history of Belitong, with which many Indonesians would be familiar.  


In the 1800s, the island was a British, and later a Dutch colony.  It had a wealth of pepper and tin, and those who exploited it were fabulously wealthy traders.  The wealth did not 'trickle down' though, and the local people remained dirt farmers and servants to the wealthy, having little hope of advancing their situations.  After World War II, the British and Dutch vanished, taking the wealth with them and leaving the island impoverished and isolated.


It is against this historical backdrop that the film introduces us to a group of boys and two teachers.  Pak Artfan (Ikranagara) and Mbak Muslimah (Cut Mini) are trying to open a school in a poor village, but they need 10 students to succeed, and only have nine.  The action begins on the first day of school, as the nine students and two teachers wait and hope a tenth will join in.  Near the end of the first day, another boy finally does show up and the story catches fire.


Over the course of the school year, Muslimah and Arfan inspire and illuminate the minds of the boys.  They begin with simple ambitions of taking over their fathers' farms, but slowly open their minds to the greater Universe and to all the possiblities within it.  We see in their faces real hope and dreams blossom into ideas and actions.


This is truly a magical story.  We witness what it means to have hope, when it's not just a marketing slogan.  Arfan dubs his students the laskar pelangi, because he wants them to become agents of change and growth, and it's not to say that farming is a dead end, but that even something as mundane as farming can be a vector of the life-force and a means to change the world.  It's not in what the job is, it's what you do with it that changes those around you.


The film itself is lush with color and texture that evolves through the course of the story.  The palette changes from subtle blues to warm, effervescent light.  The land and forest change from sullen canopies to mysterious adventures.  Daily life morphs from routine to quietly mystical.  Most profoundly is how the boys change in their outlooks.  They are no longer trapped on an island, but launching an adventure.


The boys are played by actual children who live in Belitung.  The director wanted to capture real emotions and authentic faces, which he does brilliantly.  Actors could not have portrayed such an honest and insighful look at the people and life in the village.  We feel as if we are literally tagging along as the boys grow and evolve.  Cut Mini and Ikranagara bring grace and wisdom to their roles.  We feel a depth and desire to push to students to achieve, while still keeping the teachers humbdle and simple.


The locations perfectly capture the languid and sleepy character of village life that charms and entrances outsiders who make it that far.  The beautiful settings and almost-wild surroundings serve to enhance the dramatic leaps of imagination that catch within the minds of the boys.


There's a deep honesty in this film.  The actors and filmmakers show a connection to the material and the surroundings that few films ever capture.  Using children from the area exposes a much deeper tie to the settings than any actors could bring.  They literally inhabit their surroundings and we can feel their genuine connection to the lifestyle portrayed that few cameras, even documentary, capture.


One of the charms of the film is that everything in it still exists.  One can find kampung just like it all over the country, and meet the people portrayed sitting at any corner warung, drinking a Teh Botol.  The director has perfectly captured this life from the eyes of a child.  The camera spends a lot of time at a child's eye-level, making everything look larger, and providing a quiet metaphor for how the world grows in the minds of the children.


One of the attractions of this film for Westerners who appreciate good stories, is that it is NOT Hollywood.  This is not the story of underdog football teams, or egocentric teenagers dreaming of fame and glory.  This is a simple tale about simple people who discover that hope and change aren't something 'out there' to be possessed.  They are 'in here' and must be realized.  Because the film's pace matches its locations and lives portrayed, it is quiet and slow, but it never bogs down.  For all its simplicity, it still delivers the emotional chills of 'Apollo 13', and the domestic charm of 'Milagro Beanfield War'.


The score, by Sri Aksan Sjuman and Titi Handayani Sjuman, is perfectly matched to the story and setting.  The music is uplifting, while still paying homage to the native sounds of Indonesia, using traditional instruments and traditional arrangements.  Yadi Sugandi's cinematography is richly textured and uses copious amounts of warm tropical colors and lighting.  The dialogue is flawless and natural, as if recorded surreptitiously on any street corner.


Laskar Pelangi is highly recommended for those who appreciate superb foreign cinema, who truly enjoy uplifting drama, and for those who are curious to see what life is like in rural Indonesia.  The gentle humor, quality production and profound empathy for the characters should place this film at the top of anyone's 'To See' list.


A Personal Note: I often ask my classes to recommend quality Indonesian literature and film, and I have gotten many great suggestions.  One of my classes at Pertamina Learning Center went a step further and presented me with a DVD copy of the movie on the last day of class.  Not a bajakan, mind you, the real deal!  I want to thank those good people for such a fine gift.  May all your teachers be Pak Arfan and Mbak Muslimah, and may all your dreams come true!  Matur nuwun!  Terima kasih!  Hatur nuhun!  Mau liate!  Matur suksima!


Jangan berhenti bermimpi!