My THOR REVIEW

By Barry Dutter

Rather than write a traditional review, I decided to just list a bunch of random thoughts. Overall I liked the movie, but as a longtime comics fan, naturally I had my quibbles…

1) It’s possibly the best Marvel movie after the first IRON MAN.

2) Chris Hemsworth is perfect for this role -- the best casting on a Marvel super-hero since Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark. Hemsworth brings the right amount of strength, charm and dignity to the part. It’s nice to have a Marvel super-hero movie that doesn’t, at some point, treat the hero like a joke. (I will still never forgive Hollywood for such atrocities as: a pigeon pooping on the THING’s shoulder in FANTASTIC FOUR, SPIDER-MAN delivering pizzas in SPIDER-MAN 2, etc.)

3) The SHIELD agent character who was in IRON MAN 2 and appears in this movie, as well, is kind of bland. (I’m not talking about SAM JACKSON as NICK FURY -- he’s cool. I’m talking about the white guy. I can’t even remember his name!) They really should have tried to make this character more interesting -- perhaps basing him on an actual character from the comics. I mean, Dum Dum Dugan or Jasper Sitwell would be more interesting that this no-name pencil-pusher.

4)With Hemsworth, the newly buff CHRIS EVANS as CAPTAIN AMERICA, and RYAN REYNOLDS as GREEN LANTERN, this is the first summer ever where all the major super-heroes did not need to have muscles painted onto their costumes. Perhaps we’ve finally reached the end of the era of wimpy super-heroes that began with MICHEAL KEATON in BATMAN.

5) The movie should have been longer. I would have liked to have seen the story fleshed out more. I mean, THOR does not exactly have what you call, um, what do you call those things ... a plot! THOR is banished to Earth, he finds his hammer, big fight, the end. I would like to have seen an extended sequence with THOR trying to adjust to his new life on Earth.

6) The romance with Natalie Portman should have been given a lot more room. I mean, Thor’s feelings for Jane Foster are a crucial plot point -- the whole movie hinges on him falling in love with this girl -- and yet, we are never given any reason why he falls in love with her, other than the fact that she’s hot. Overall, the movie seems to have had about a half hour worth of story cut out of it. Guess we gotta wait for the DVD.


7) The HAWKEYE cameo redefined the word “gratuitous.”

8) It’s great that they showcased the FROST GIANTS, but I didn’t hear any mention of the FLAME GIANTS. I really feel they were slighted! Somewhere, SURTUR is not happy!

9) A couple of the shots of THOR flying reminded me of the first SUPERMAN movie from 1980 in terms of the quality of the SFX.

10) I got a little nervous when I saw that J. Michael Straczynski had come up with the story for this movie. After all, his major contribution to the THOR mythos is having the city of Asgard floating a mile above the Earth. Not one of his better ideas.

11) The recent Marvel movies seem to be hewing closer to the ULTIMATE versions of the Marvel heroes than the original versions. This means that SHIELD plays a huge part in every origin story, and the origins of HULK and CAPTAIN AMERICA are forever linked. I liked the origins from the 1960s better, when you didn’t have SHIELD sticking their noses in everything. I mean, in the original THOR origin, the guy just finds his hammer in the forest. He didn’t have to break into a SHIELD base to get it back. Basically the Marvel Comics of the 60s were about ordinary people coming to grips with fantastic powers. The Marvel Comics of the Ultimate Universe are about a super-secret government agency learning of the existence of various super-powered individuals and finding ways to contain and control them. It was a lot more fun before the government got involved.

12) If Odin strips THOR of all his powers before banishing him to Earth, how come THOR is able to summon a storm when he sneaks into the SHIELD camp?

13) I like that Stan Lee’s character this time around is listed as “STAN THE MAN” in the credits.

14) I get that the filmmakers were trying to do a “King Arthur/Sword in the Stone” homage with Thor’s hammer, but really, it was not necessary to have the hammer embedded in the ground. The whole point of Thor’s hammer is that no one can lift it except Thor when he is at his most worthy. Rather than having people try to pry Thor’s hammer out from a rock, they could have just had people trying to pick the hammer up off the ground. (Remember, not even the HULK can lift THOR’s hammer off the ground!) Screenwriters think they are being clever when they take an old myth and try to tie it in to another myth. It’s not clever, it’s just lazy.

15) The DESTROYER kicked ass! He looked exactly the way I remember him from the comics. Well done!

16) Thor overhears a trucker mention a fallen satellite in the desert and instantly knows this must be his hammer. Wha? Huh? How does Thor even know what a satellite is?

17)  Kudos to the Marvel marketing people for not using the slogan “It’s hammer time!” and for not using the M.C. Hammer song in the movie. (Look, when it came time to find a theme song for the IRON MAN movies, they just used an old Black Sabbath song called “Iron Man.” It didn’t exactly take a lot of originality to think of that one!)

18) The bit about Natalie P. hitting Thor twice with her SUV was a little too cutesy. Once was enough.

19) I don’t think that even a de-powered THOR could be taken out by a taser gun. After all, he was still strong enough to be hit twice by a car and walk away unscathed.

20) Are SHIELD agents so dumb that they will release a dangerous prisoner to anyone who wanders into their camp with a fake driver’s license? Very sloppy plotting.

21) Why does Thor copy IRON MAN’s pose on the movie poster?

22) It’s always fun to sit through the end credits of a Marvel movie to get to the bonus scene, but why do the credits have to be so long? Sheesh, that was a long wait!

23) The day after THOR premiered, the SyFy channel aired a cheesy, low-budget made-for-TV movie called ALMIGHTY THOR. Their THOR had blonde hair. Strange -- the THOR of Norse myth always had RED hair and a full red beard. How did SyFy ever get the idea of doing a blonde version of THOR?

24) All in all, Marvel’s THOR is a fun movie, and a solid introduction to the character to those unfamiliar with him. Now that we got the origin out of the way, next time, we can see him spending a lot more time with his cape and hammer!

25) When the cast of the AVENGERS movie was announced last year, my thought at the time was: Other than Robert Downey Jr., the rest of the cast is very low in star-wattage. With the release of THOR, and the rise of Jeremy Renner’s profile after his role in Ben Affleck’s THE TOWN, suddenly the cast of the AVENGERS is looking more and more impressive. Will Chris “Captain America” Evans have what it takes to lead these guys in the AVENGERS? We’ll find out next summer!

My Best & Worst of 2010

By Barry Dutter

BEST SONG: This is a tough one. 2010 was a good year for music -- way better than 2009. But there wasn’t any one song that really stood out as the best. I mean, “Like a G-6” was the most sonically innovative song of the year, but it’s hardly a great song. I guess I’ll pass on this category this year.

BEST NEW ARTISTS: B.o.B. and Bruno Mars both impressed me with their ability to write catchy pop songs that generally don‘t get ruined by having a guest-rapper come in and do a cameo.

WORST SONG: “The Time” by the Black Eyed Peas (It‘s the hip-hop update of “I‘ve Had the Time of My Life.”). Funny, the Black Eyed Peas had the best song of 2009 with “I Got a Feeling.” But their remake of the beloved pop song from DIRTY DANCING was a complete disaster.

WORST SONG LYRIC: “Boom boom boom, even brighter than the moon, moon, moon. “ Katy Perry, “Firework”


WORST SONG LYRIC (RAPPED): “Bikinis, tankinis, martinis, no weenies.” -Snoop Dogg describing his idea of the perfect Hollywood night in “California Gurls”

WORST SONG LYRIC (RUNNER-UP): “Don't be fancy, just get dancey.” - Pink, “Raise Your Glass”

WORST SONG LYRIC (2ND RUNNER-UP): Steve Miller Band, “Hey Yeah”
“Hey now's your chance - you even got the perfect circumstance.
If you can't find someone to dance - just move your hips baby and shake your pants.”

WORST SONG LYRIC: THIRD RUNNER-UP”: “We Are Who We Are” by Ke$ha:
“We’re dancing like we’re dumb
Our bodies go numb
We’ll be forever young”

(That one is bad on so many levels!)

LAZIEST SONG-WRITER: The guy from Train. Whenever he can’t come up with a rhyme, he just throws in a reference to an 80s band like Mr. Mister or Winger.

BEST SONG LYRIC: “It seems to me that ‘maybe’
It pretty much always means ‘no.’” -Jack Johnson, “Flake”

BEST SONG LYRIC (RAP): "Maybe that's what happens
When a tornado meets a volcano."
-Eminem describing a tempestuous relationship in "Love The Way You Lie"


BEST NEW WORD: “Slizzered” You know, as in, “When we drink we do it right, we get slizzered!” It’s ok to make up a new word as long as everybody instantly understands what it means.

WORST CELEBRITY: Charlie Sheen. It’s kind of sad that a crappy show like TWO AND A HALF MEN makes so much money for CBS that even if Charlie Sheen murdered someone, he would still keep his job.

BEST MOVIE: THE FIGHTER (And Christian Bale's performance was easily the best of the year.)

BEST MOVIE NOBODY SAW: HACHI: A DOG’S TALE with RICHARD GERE. Rent it on DVD and you will blubber like a baby. I guarantee it!

WORST MOVIE: INCEPTION (Sorry, it just didn’t work for me)

BEST NEW TV SHOW: WALKING DEAD. I think every show would be better if it had zombies in it!

WORST TV SHOW: THE DEFENDERS starring Jim Belushi and Jerry O’Connell. Finally, my two least favorite actors, together in one series! (I never actually watched it, of course!)


SHOWS THAT I STILL WATCH EVEN THOUGH THEY’RE NOT THAT FUNNY ANY MORE: SIMPSONS and FAMILY GUY

SHOW THAT HAD THE BIGGEST DROP IN QUALITY FROM THE FIRST SEASON TO THE SECOND: MODERN FAMILY. (Still good, but no longer great.)

WORST IDEA: I’m the biggest Spider-Man fan in the world, but I think $65 million Broadway show based on ol,’ Web-Head is a bad idea.

My EXPENDABLES Review

THE EXPENDABLES REVIEWED by Barry Dutter

THE EXPENDABLES concludes Sylvester Stallone’s comeback trilogy that began with ROCKY BALBOA (2006) and continued with RAMBO (2008.) The new film, which unites most of the major action heroes of the last 30 years in one movie is easily the worst of the come back trio (with ROCKY BALBOA being the clear favorite).
All three of Stallone’s comeback movies are throwbacks to films he made in the 80s. The first two revive his most popular characters, and the latest brings back the style of action movies Stallone helped popularize back in the days of Pac-Man, Members Only jackets and Duran Duran. Prior to his comeback, Sly had not appeared on the big screen since he played the villain in SPY KIDS 3-D back in 2003.
THE EXPENDABLES was written and directed by Stallone, which pretty much tells you all you need to know. Traditionally, when Stallone the writer strays away from Rocky or Rambo, his movies aren’t very good. As an actor, his speech is hard to understand; as a writer, his work is stilted and full of cliches; and as a director, well, there’s only so much any director can do with a weak script and a slurring leading man.
Stallone is possibly the worst actor in THE EXPENDABLES, and that’s really saying something in a cast that includes Jet Li and Dolph Lundgren.
The movie starts off with a cameo by Arnold Schwarzenegger, making his first appearance on screen since … well, ok, technically since TERMINATOR SALVATION last summer.
In this long-awaited meeting of the muscles, Stallone and Schwarzenegger exchange quips with each other in a scene that recalls the homoerotic overtones of TANGO & CASH. Bruce Willis asks Stallone & Schwarzenegger if they are going to suck each other’s dicks, and the two actors look like they are seriously considering it.
There is no real reason for Schwarzenegger to be in this movie, other than the coolness factor of having three of the biggest action heroes of the 80s together in one scene. All in all, it’s a wasted opportunity, but at least Stallone gets off one funny line about Arnie wanting to be president.
Mostly THE EXPENDABLES is a buddy/comedy movie between Stallone & Jason Statham, who probably comes off the best of any of the actors in the movie. The jokey script has Stallone and his partners exchanging many quips as they shoot bad guys -- but anyone who has ever seen Stallone do comedy knows that this is not his main strength as a writer.
The movie answers some intriguing questions: 1) Who would win in a fight -- a kung fu master or a giant? 2) Could a pro wrestler beat a mixed martial arts fighter? 3) Can a group of five guys take on an army of thousands and win?
You should be able to answer that last one without seeing the movie. THE EXPENDABLES has the most gunfire of any movie I’ve ever seen. Amazingly, no one ever told the bad guys they should actually try aiming. The last third of the movie seems to consist of nothing but explosions. Who needs a story when you can just blow stuff up?

SPOILER WARNING! Something happens in this movie that is so stupid, I have to comment on it. If you haven’t seen the movie yet, skip this part.
At one point, Dolph Lundgren betrays the teams and tries to kill Stallone and Jet Li in a huge car chase with machine guns blazing. This chase takes place on city streets in broad daylight, but luckily no pedestrians or other motorists are injured during this chase.
The battle ends when Stallone puts a bullet in Lundgren’s chest, and it is strongly implied that Lundgren is going to die. But in a ridiculous twist at the end, we learn that not only did Lundgren survive the shooting, but he has fully recovered, and is now happily welcomed back to the team.
Let’s clarify here: a member of your team with a known drug problem betrays you and tries to kill you, but you let him back on your team so you can all go for a motorcycle ride together at the end.
Okay, whatever.
Clearly, Stallone is not trying very hard here.
THE EXPENDABLES could almost be called BOYS AND THEIR TOYS. There is no room for women in this world, it’s all about guys and guns and bikes. Who needs some screwy dame coming along and messing up all that macho tough guy fun?
Toward the end of the movie there is scene where Stallone looks like he might kiss the woman he has just rescued, and thankfully, he gives her a hug instead. At this stage of his career, you just don’t want to see Stallone kissing anyone.
Charisma Carpenter has two scenes as Jason Statham’s girlfriend, but those scenes mostly exist as an excuse for Statham to kick the asses of a bunch of guys on a basketball court.
This is not the worst screenplay Stallone has written (I mean, come on, the guy has written such stinkers as Rhinestone, Over the Top, Cobra, Rocky V, Staying Alive…) but it’s not the best, either. (That award goes to Rocky I-III, First Blood, and Cliffhanger.)
Maybe it’s time for the 80s revival to be over.
All in all, The Expendables is okay as a plotless time-waster. For those people who’ve always complained that the A-Team is a little too realistic, this is the movie for you!

2000-2009: WORST DECADE OF MUSIC EVER!

2000-2009: WORST DECADE OF MUSIC EVER!

By Barry Dutter

Quick – name the best rock album of the past ten years. Can’t do it, can you? How about the best new band? Best song?
The fact is, it can’t be done, because 2000-2009 comprise the worst decade of rock music, EVER!
The best new band of the past decade was arguably the Killers, a group which has released some catchy tunes, but their best work pales in comparison to groups such as the Beatles or the Rolling Stones.
The most memorable songs of the past 10 years are Coldplay’s “Viva La Vida,” “Rehab” by Amy Winehouse, and “I Kissed a Girl” by Katy Perry. “Viva La Vida,” was apparently plagiarized from two other songs by Joe Satriani and Cat Stevens. “Rehab” and “I Kissed a Girl” were mostly novelty songs. As talented as she is, Amy Winehouse was basically a one-hit wonder, and while Katy Perry seems poised to become the It Girl for the next few years, based on the reaction to her subsequent songs, it seems “I Kissed a Girl” was a fluke. None of her other songs has had the same mass appeal.
A quick stroll through rock history recalls the British Invasion and Woodstock music of the 60s, Super-Groups like Kansas, Yes and Boston and the birth of Heavy Metal in the 70s, the rise Rap and New Wave in the 80s, and the birth of Hip-hop and Grunge in the 90s. Compared to those epochal events, the 00’s lack a musical identity.
It seems there was no great innovation. Some might point to Emo, but I would argue there is nothing new in Emo. Singers being overly dramatic and emotional? They’ve been doing that since Elvis checked into the Heartbreak Hotel and announced he was so lonesome that he could die. .
Most people would be hard-pressed to find something good to say about the music of the past 10 years.
But surely the 00s were better than the 1950s, some would argue. Those songs from the fifties were very simplistic and some of them, like “Splish Splash,” or “Yakkety Yak,” were downright silly.
That may be, but those 1950s tunes, as nonsensical as they sometimes were, hold up better than just about anything released in the past decade. And the 1950s saw the birth of Doo-Wop, and you’ve got to respect that.
Some people might say that an old fogie like myself just can’t appreciate what the young kids are into today. But I would argue I have always loved good music at any age, and I would gladly appreciate a great new album if someone would just release one.
What about older acts from the 80s and 90s, one might ask. Surely there are some classic rockers still doing great work today. Well, the two best groups from the past that are still relevant today are U2 and Green Day, and I would say that neither band has released anything in the past decade that was as good as their earlier work.
True U2 fans would say the band has not released any great songs since the 80s, and even Green Day fans must admit that the work they’ve done in the 00s was not as good as the edgier work they did in the 90s.
These days when I turn on the radio, I mostly listen to classic songs from the 70s and 80s. I still try to find new music to enjoy, but I usually find myself heading back to the familiar stuff I grew up with.
When I was a kid, I used to go to record conventions, where people would buy & sell old vinyl albums. There would always be an old guy at these shows who would play nothing but Big Band music from the 1930s. I figured he hadn’t listened to any new music since the thirties. I kind of felt sorry for that old guy. It always seemed to me that that guy was frozen in time.
Now I find myself in a similar opposition. I can’t imagine myself listening to anything other than classic songs from the 70s and 80s from this point forward.
But that’s ok.
It’s traditional for every new generation to bash current music and praise the older tunes from long ago.
The words that Bob Seger sang in 1979 have never been truer than they are today: “Today’s music ain’t got the same soul. I like that old time rock and roll.”

MY MOVIE REVIEW: ORPHAN

I like a good horror movie, and ORPHAN is a pretty good up until the end, when, like in most horror movies, the killer becomes an indestructible terminator.
This movie has been touted as having a shocking twist in it. Since the movie is about an evil young girl who is adopted by an unsuspecting family, I figured there were only 2 or three possible "twists" the movie could have.
1) The little girl turns out to be an alien
2) The little girl turns out to be a ghost
3) The little girl turns out to be...something else.
Since the movie did not seem to have any supernatural elements to it (based on the trailer), I figured it had to be "something else." If you think about the premise for about 2 seconds, you should be able to figure out what the "something else" is.

MY REVIEW OF THE ARTIE LANGE SHOW (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE HOWARD STERN SHOW)

The Howard Stern Show has settled into a disturbing pattern of late, where Howard talks less and less, and Artie Lange talks more and more. Worst of all, Howard’s memory is so bad that he keeps asking Artie to repeat the same stories he has told before. And Artie loves talking so much, he is happy to oblige.
Here is the rundown of how a typical show goes these days:
1) The show starts with Howard trying to figure out how many more days are left on his contract.
2) Howard asks Artie how his weekend went. This allows Artie to go on for 20-minutes talking about his stand-up gigs/book signings/encounters with Whack Packers.
3) Time for Artie to tell one of his long showbiz stories, usually one he has told many times before, like the time Don Rickles called him a baby gorilla.
4) A pretty girl comes in. Artie calls her “the hottest girl we’ve ever had in here” and offers her money for sex. Again.
5) Time for Artie to do his patented Godfather impression for the 300th time
6) Howard asks Artie to tell the story of the time he wore a pig costume and got busted for cocaine possession, thus killing another 20 minutes of radio
7) Forgetting that he has told it before, Howard asks Artie to re-tell the story of the time his dad fell off the roof. Another 30 minutes gone.
8) A guest comes in. Artie winds up getting in a huge fight with the guest. Again, the segment becomes all about Artie, who claims that by attacking the guests, he is "doing his job."
9) A caller calls in with a question that has nothing to do with Artie. Somehow Artie manages to crowbar in another showbiz story, this one about either MAD TV or the Norm Show. Howard, realizing he won’t have to talk for another 20 minutes, kicks back and lets Artie do his thing.
10) It’s time for Robin’s news!
Total time Howard talks: About 15 minutes.
Total time Artie talks: About 3 hours and 45 minutes.
Oh, and after the show is over, Artie stops in for a visit to the WRAP-UP SHOW, which is supposed to be a recap and behind-the-scenes look at the Stern Show... but instead often winds up being a recap and behind-the-scenes look at Artie's drinking stories and yes, still more tedious showbiz tales. You know, it's possible that Artie is not as interesting as he thinks he is.
At this point, Howard might as well walk away from Sirius now. It looks to me like he has already retired.

A NERD’S GUIDE TO WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE NEW STAR TREK MOVIE

(SPOILER: DO NOT READ UNLESS YOU HAVE SEEN THE MOVIE!)
First off, let me state that overall, I found the new STAR TREK movie to be enjoyable. It is fast-paced with lots of action, easily the best ST movie since THE WRATH OF KHAN.
Now, let’s get what’s wrong with this picture. Basically, the plot is a mess. Any time you do a time-travel story, you open yourself up to all kinds of contradictions and inconsistencies (I’m talking to you, Terminator movies!), but this movie has so many, it seems to violate the Prime Directives of the Movie-Making Federation!
The basic plot, as it is written, makes no sense. The Romulan homeworld is facing imminent destruction from a star that is going supernova. The greatest minds of the Federation figure out a way to try to prevent this from happening. Mr. Spock is sent to try to save Romulus. But he does not arrive in time. Romulus is destroyed. In the ensuing explosion, Spock’s tiny ship and a huge Romulan warship are tossed through time. The Romulan ship, led by an angry guy named Nero, emerges first from the timestream, not sure of where – or when -- they are.
Nero vows to find Spock and destroy him, blaming Spock for the destruction of his homeworld. The Romulans encounter a Federation vessel and they destroy it. The Romulans learn that they have traveled over 120 years back in time, to a period before their homeworld was destroyed.
Now, do the Romulans decide to pay a visit to their homeworld and try to save or at the very least evacuate their planet before it is destroyed? No. Instead, they vow to destroy all the planets in the Federation, since after all, it was clearly the fault of those Federation eggheads that a random star went supernova and fried Romulus. In other words, the Romulans are trying to get revenge for something that has not even happened yet and will not happen for another 120 years!
Now, here’s where the story really falls apart: after destroying that first Federation vessel, the Romulans vow to sit and wait for Spock to arrive. Spock is still trapped in the timestream, and he finally arrives –25 years later!
In other words, the villains of the piece sit and wait and do absolutely NOTHING for 25 years while they wait for Spock to arrive! These have got to be the most patient villains ever. And to add even more holes to the plot, the Federation makes no attempt during that 25 years to confront them. You would think they might want to investigate the destruction of one of their vessels, but no, they just ignore the problem for 25 years!
This is just sloppy plotting. Basically, the writers of the movie needed there to be a 25-year gap in the story to allow baby Jim Kirk to grow up to become James T. Kirk so he could fight the guy who killed his dad.


When Spock finally does arrive, what do the Romulans do? They exile him to an alien ice planet, so that he will have a good view of the destruction of his own homeworld, Vulcan. The scene where Spock is exiled to the iceworld is not even shown in the movie. The writers apparently deemed it not important enough to show. Kind of a major plot point, don’t you think? Methinks me smells deleted scenes here…
While on Iceworld, Spock comes across the now grown-up James Kirk, who has also been exiled there after being kicked off the Enterprise.
Wait a second. So Jim Kirk and Spock both wind up on the same planet? Isn’t that the stretch of a lifetime, to say the very least? Out of all the billions of planets in the universe, these two guys end up on the same planet, purely by chance?
When the plot to a movie hinges on a coincidence so colossal, it would make a Tribble’s head spin, you know a script has problems. All I can think is that the future Spock somehow did a long-distance mind-meld with the younger Spock and planted the idea in his head that he should send Kirk down to the iceworld.
That, at least, would have made some kind of sense. Despite the flaws in the plotting, the movie manages to be entertaining overall.
Other comments:
-The opening scene, where Kirk is born on the day his father dies, is hokey but effective. But wait a minute – this movie takes place before the Federation allowed wives and families of crewmembers aboard starships, so Kirk’s mom should not have been aboard giving birth. That seemed really out of place.
I realize they were trying to set up an epic story where Kirk is born on the day his dad dies, but it seemed kind of contrived. Like everything else in this movie, it works if you do not think too much about it. Just sit back and enjoy and try not to think too hard or the whole movie falls apart.
-Oh, and the attempts at broad humor, where Kirk is injected with drugs that cause bizarre side effects, did not work for me at all. I like subtle humor in STAR TREK, but this was too over the top. Next time, save the wacky humor for GALAXY QUEST.
-The new Uhura is breathtakingly beautiful. She should have had a much bigger part. When Kirk & Spock go to beam down for the climactic battle, I was really hoping Uhura would go with them so we could see her in high-kicking, mini-skirted action!

-How come all the ads for this movie try to make it seem like Kirk has a sex scene with Uhura? In the commercials, we see Kirk and Uhura exchange looks, then we see Uhura undressing, then we see silhouettes of two bodies writhing in bed. If you watch the movie, you know that Uhura does not have any sex scenes, and even if she did, in the new continuity, it would not be with Kirk.
-The Jim Kirk in this movie is not a very good hand-to-hand fighter. He spends most of his fight scenes getting choked by the bad guys, and then hanging over ledges, trying not to fall. I was hoping we would see Jim Kirk’s signature move from the old TV series, the dropkick. Alas, it was not to be. Maybe in the sequel…
-Wynona Ryder was an inspired casting choice as Spock’s mom. I always thought she looked kind of alien, with eyes far bigger than most humans.
-Overall I like the new cast, with one exception: they kind of blew it with Chekov. Chekov did not appear in the first season of Star Trek. He was brought in later, as a Davy Jones lookalike, to appeal to fans of the Monkees and the Beatles. In the new movie, Chekov did not have the Davy Jones haircut, so that was disappointing. I really wanted to see that!
-Overall I liked the movie, despite my quibbles about the story. I absolutely would like to see more stories featuring this new crew. But they need a better villain. The villains in this one were serviceable, but they could have been a lot more menacing. Maybe we will see Khan in the sequel?