Lexington, KY Summer began early this year. Three big movies with high hopes and eager fans, me included, opened in May. The verdict? I suppose one out of three isn't bad.
Star Trek
Tinkering with tradition can be risky. But J. J. Abrams (creator of hit TV show "Lost") and Paramount Pictures embraced that challenge when they decided to reinvent the aging "Star Trek" franchise for a new audience.
As a fan, I had my reservations. But darn if they didn't pull it off. Director Abrams has infused this prequel with a ton of energy. It's big, fun and confident, a perfect summer action flick even for those not into Trek lore. And the young cast has literally pumped new blood into the characters of Kirk, Spock, Uhura and the rest.
The film puts the pedal to warp nine in the very first frame and doesn't let up. A Federation starship commanded by Kirk's father is under attack by a massive Romulan vessel at the moment that his son is being born. The pace continues years later as we see an angry young Kirk on a personal mission of self-destruction.
Everything about this new Star Trek is jacked up. Warp drive, black holes and battle scenes have all been given a bold makeover. At the same time, the picture never loses its sense of fun, especially when introducing the youthful versions of the familiar crew.
Chris Pine adds a whole new facet to the Shatner incarnation of Kirk. Zachary Quinto is uncanny as a young Spock, wrestling with the logic vs. emotion dilemma that figures prominently in the entire Star Trek mythology.
A time travel element in the plot allows the writers to play a little fast and loose with the established storyline. That may be a bit unsettling for some of the Trek faithful. But playing fast and loose is what this movie is all about.
"Star Trek" pays respect to an honored tradition but still tells a stirring story. It's a welcome return, truly worth the wait.
Angels & Demons
Theology and thrillers may be an unlikely mix, but author Dan Brown has combined those elements in a winning formula for his blockbuster novels "The DaVinci Code" and "Angels & Demons." In those books, Professor Robert Langdon uncovers clues from the church's murky past to solve murderous modern-day plots.
Maybe because of the hype, audiences and critics were underwhelmed by the movie version of "DaVinci" in 2006. Now we have the next screen adaptation, again with Ron Howard directing and Tom Hanks playing Langdon.
"Angels & Demons" takes us to the Vatican where a conclave of cardinals is meeting to elect a new Pope. Langdon is summoned to stop a secret society of scientists from killing off a cardinal each hour on the hour and to defuse a ticking bomb.
The film takes a while to get going, then finds its suspense groove as Langdon and scientist colleague Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer) race across Rome to stop the murders. But the final act tries a little too hard to throw in the required surprises and appease all elements of the audience.
Ron Howard is one of our very best directors, and he does all in his power to make a farfetched story plausible. He masterfully manufactures some sweeping and gorgeous shots of the ancient sites in Rome and the Vatican where the action takes place - the actual sites were off limits to the filmmakers.
Brown's novels succeed in creating page-turning suspense while peeling away layers of fascinating history. "Angels" has clearly done a better job than "Da Vinci" of capturing the suspense. But in Brown's novels, the real villains were the ones from centuries ago, blocking the search for truth and manipulating the faith of believers. It's the impact of those villains and their ancient secrets that are lost in translation to the screen.
Terminator Salvation
Killing off a terminator is hard to do. That applies to the scary cyborg assassins and also, apparently, to the movie franchise.
After three installments about an apocalyptic future where the machines take over the earth, the creative forces behind the hugely successful series, including James Cameron and the Governator himself, Arnold Schwarzenegger, moved on to other things. It seemed that the story had played itself out.
But in Hollywood no idea is ever truly dead if there's still the hint of hitting the box office jackpot. So a new director (McG, mostly known for directing two of the "Charlie's Angels" movies) and a new team of writers and producers dusted off the concept. They recruited Christian Bale to play the central role of John Connor, even though he reportedly said three was enough and there was no reason for more. But money talks, and he signed on.
Bale should have stuck with his first inclination. This Terminator is a huge disappointment on many levels. I can't believe I'm saying it, but I missed the acting of Schwarzenegger. In this picture, his presence might have actually raised the bar.
The action takes place in 2018. Earth is a massive junk heap, and John Connor is a lowly lieutenant in the resistance against the machines. A mysterious stranger (Sam Worthington) shows up, and a major assault is planned by the resistance on Skynet.
All of that is just an excuse for some overwrought battle scenes, explosions and mayhem. McG has borrowed elements of "Transformers," "Road Warrior" and "Blade Runner" to achieve the look he wanted, but ultimately it comes across as a cheap cut-and-paste.
The appeal of the earlier Terminator films was the idea of deadly killing machines from the future inserted into our current world, and the life-and-death struggle involving characters we care about. In this bleak landscape of "Terminator Salvation," with characters who are not fully developed and one mindless fight scene after another, the film takes on the feel of just another comic book screen adaptation.
McG has made a valiant effort to give this Terminator life. But one more loud explosion, one more battle and one more Terminator movie is one too many.