I've just come from a noontime showing of the opening day for the tenth Star Trek movie and possibly the last featuring the Next Generation crew. My feelings in a nutshell: very good but not great. I liked it better than "Insurrection" but less than "First Contact" as far as the TNG flicks go. It had a solid, intelligent script written by John Logan, the Oscar-nominated screenwriter for 2000's "Gladiator." Writing a yarn about ancient Rome definitely helped Logan tackle the Romulan Empire (which was patterned after the Romans after all) with its penchant for intrigue and treachery. There were times when I thought Shinzon (the Romulan praetor) could have easily have been played by Joaquin Phoenix, who played Emperor Commodus in the aforementioned "Gladiator."

Speaking of Shinzon, British actor Tom Hardy gave a balanced, sympathetic and exceptional performance as the bad guy in this movie. Shinzon may well be my favorite Star Trek villain since Khan. Of course it didn't hurt that most of Hardy's scenes were played opposite Patrick Stewart. If you only go see this movie for one reason it should be Stewart's outstanding performance. It's no surprise that his continually top-notch acting has made Picard my favorite of the Star Trek captains. I feel he ages like a fine wine (apropos for a Picard) and goes above and beyond the call of duty this time around. This movie is about parallels and roads not taken and Stewart and Hardy explore this theme exquisitely as the central pair in the drama.

Adding to the Trek mythos and fleshing out the Romulans are their shadowy sibling race, the Remans. (Romulus and Remus...I told you they were the Romans!) Parallels to India's untouchables are apparent. I liked the look of this Nosferatu-inspired race. Make-up guru Michael Westmore went much farther than his typical wrinkle-of-the-week efforts on from the TV series. One of the biggest surprises for me I didn't realize until the closing credits. Displaying his proclivity for heavy makeup is Ron "Beauty and the Beast" Perlman who starred as the Reman Viceroy.

For the hard-core Trekkies and Trekkers, there are some nice touches and cameos by Whoppi as Guinan and Kate Mulgrew as Kathryn Janeway. Don't blink or else you'll miss Wil Wheaton as Wesley Crusher!

The pace was a trifle slow at first, unlike the typical, relentless "Die Hard"-inspired action films. Don't get me wrong, I think that's a good thing, but some modern audiences may get a little fidgety. I appreciate that director Stuart Baird ("U.S. Marshalls") affects a gradual, restrained pace that intensifies the level of suspense to, dare I say, Hitchcockian levels by the end. Those who know me understand what high praise that is.

If there was something missing in this movie for me it was that it seemed to be lacking a certain sense of heart and lackluster character development for the ensemble cast. Other than Picard and Data, there's little character growth or the familiar familial interaction (can I say that?) that was apparent in the series. I realize that it's difficult to give significant time to all the crew in the scope of a feature film. This is more suitable to the small screen, but I think it's been better realized in other Trek films, and certainly missing for me this time around. I attribute some of that to John Logan who has never written for the franchise before.

There's also little new territory covered and few surprises (well there are a couple but no spoilers, remember). Parallels have be drawn to "The Wrath of Kahn." Although it's smart business-wise to copy the best film of the series, it's misses taking any significant risks and can only hope to aspire to, but never top the original.

In summary, strong acting by Stewart and Tom Hardy, a gradually building and suspenseful pace, an interesting new race, a fascinating new villain, and a cool cat-and-mouse climactic battle. On the down side, few surprises or character development and little risk taking. As of this afternoon, rottentomatoes.com gives it 54% freshness rating, which is practically dead even and left up to individual tastes for the final verdict of which side of the fence you'll fall on.

My rating of the Star Trek movies, top to bottom:

1. II: The Wrath of Khan
2. VIII: First Contact
3. IV: The Voyage Home
4. VI: The Undiscovered Country
5. X: Nemesis
6. IX: Insurrection
7. III: Search for Spock
8. VII: Generations
9. I: The Motion Picture
10. V: The Final Frontier

Possible (very) minor spoilers: I wouldn't be a Trekker worth his salt without some obsessive nitpicking over continuity, now would I? Why no mention of Spock if Romulus is involved? There was one quick reference to the fact the Romulans were our allies during the Dominion War, but I thought this would have been a larger factor in the story. My biggest nitpick that bothered me through the entire film was the unexplained presence of Worf. When last we saw him, he left Deep Space Nine to become the Federation Ambassador to the Klingon Empire. And though I realize they are not considered canon, the ST novels in the past few years have expounded on his new position. There was no mention of why he was serving aboard the Enterprise again, although you may conjecture it was only due to the event that starts the movie. Still, he shouldn't be a Star Fleet officer anymore if he's an ambassador.

I enjoyed "The Two Towers" even better than the first--and that's saying something. Wait until you see how they deal with the CGI characters of Gollum, Treebeard, and the Nazgul's flying steeds! Some of the best special effects I've ever seen. More lifelike than the cave troll from the first film. I believe Gollum raises the bar for SFx to new heights. If the Academy doesn't give this film the Oscar for Best SFx, they're nuts. If this is how far they've come in a year, I can't wait until "Return of the King." As with the first one, Peter Jackson is very faithful to the book. And the elements that are changed only serves to enhance the story, IMHO.

I'd forgotten how many characters were introduced in this book. In Rohan, you've got King Théoden , Eomer (Xena fans may recognize actor Karl Urban who played Cupid and Julius Caesar), Éowyn (one of my favorite characters--she was kickin' ass decades befoe Xena!), and of course Grima Wormtongue (played by the wonderfully malevolent Brad Dourif). There's Faramir, Boromir's cute brother, and of course Treebeard. And Gollum/Sméagol, who only had a cameo in the first film, is a major character in this one. Although they weren't in the second book to my knowledge, Galadriel, Elrond and Arwen are given scenes in this film. Less time for Gandalf, Merry and Pippin this time around, but IIRC, the third book will give them much more screen time. Legolas and Gimli had their roles beefed up from the book, and Gimli steals the show with his comic relief.

A good amount of time is spent of exposition, but not at the expense of action. It seems a more balanced mix than the first. I recall my friend Denice saying she may want to wait for the extended edition DVD to come out to see the movie, since that's were the plot was in "Fellowship." ;) Although film creators can never spend as much time on the characters as in the novel, I believe that Jackson efficiently told the backstory of the new characters, giving the viewer enough to get caught up in the story. That was my main problem with the theatrical release of the first; that not enough exposition was given especially with Gondor, Boromir and his relationship vis-a-vis Aragorn. This was rectified in the DVD, but I feel the theatrical release of "TwoTowers" is comprehensive enough, so people unfamiliar with the novels can understand what's going on. And more importantly, Denice doesn't have to wait for the Two Towers DVD. ;)

This movie was very uneven for me. It's starts out reaaaaally slow and it was difficult to sustain my attention. I actually nodded off for a few seconds in the first half hour. By the time the film really got moving during the main Hulk sequences I was very engrossed and lost myself in the story. But then the climax and denouement proved unsatisfying as well. So although I recommend the film overall, it had a bell curve shape, didn't like the beginning and end, loved the middle.

I've always been amazed at director Ang Lee's versatility. It's hard to imagine the same guy directed everything from the gay comedy "The Wedding Banquet" to the British costume drama "Sense and Sensibility" to the Oscar nominated "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." His artistry and cinematic eye are evident in this movie. It's beautifully shot with many interesting an innovative camera shots. For this film, Lee experimented with a comic-book-frame look, similar to what the TV show "24" often uses. It's clever and involving at first but its overuse becomes annoying later in the movie. Still the visual tapestry Lee constructs is my favorite part of the movie.

The acting is as uneven as the plot. the Hulk is one of the most psychologically-complex superheroes ever created seeing as it borrowed heavily from the Jekyll and Hyde architype. But Eric Bana doesn't pull of that range of emotion for me. The CGI Hulk is more emotionally expressive than Bana! (A quick aside, I heard they spent $20 million extra in the late stages of production just to do all the close-up CGI work with the Hulk. I must say it pays off.) Oscar winner Jennifer Connelly does a great job as Betty Ross, and although I never would have Thought of Sam Neil as General "Thunderbolt" Ross, he also turns in an admirable performance. My favorite was Nick Nolte, who's barely-contained crazy father of Bruce Banner is worthy of some of Nicholson's crazier roles.

As a comic book fan from way back (over 30 years if I must date myself), I thought the writers took more liberty with this mythos than the any of the previous Marvel films. Although the familiar names were all there--General Ross, Betty Ross, Glenn Talbot, and Bruce Banner himself--other than that, they were loose interpretations of the originals. The origin story was completely retooled, but I suppose in the post-Cold War world, that's understandable.

I haven't read the Hulk comic book in years, but was Bruce Banner's dad ever a geneticist and was it ever revealed that Bruce, in fact, was a latent mutant awaiting the gamma radiation to induce his metamorphosis into the Hulk/ or is that completely made up for the film? And what was up with that climactic battle with Bruce's dad? It was very murkily shot and almost unintelligible. Yeah, I get that he overdosed his dad with gamma energy, but I think that'll get lost on most casual audience goers. And why did Ang Lee think that a giant green blobby marshmallow would look particularly menacing? I heard more than one "Huh?" from around me in the theater. Oh, oh, my geeky, overanalytical side is reasserting itself....must contain....not lose control....urgh...argh...

And now for the question I'm sure that's on every one's mind: did the Hulk look fake? That's the single biggest complaint I heard from people after viewing the trailer. Your mileage may vary, but I thought the CGI Hulk generally worked. Early in the film, Lee (Ang, not Stan) used a lot of shadows and other effects to keep you from over-scrutinizing the special effects. Then again, film makers have used this effect forever: use short, quick, shadowy shots to cover up any shortcomings in the SFx and let the movie goer's imagination fill in the rest. However, once the Hulk moves outside to the desert in full daylight, all bets are off. To Lee's credit, I must say that he had me so engrossed in the movie by that point, that I let go of my analytical side and just fun going along for the ride.

So all in all I give the film a thumbs up, better than Daredevil, but nowhere near as good as either X-Men flick nor "Spider-Man," still the best of the crop.

I must admit that my prurient interest in seeing Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom (Lord of the Ring's Legolas) mix it up--great slash potential--is what got me into the movie. And the two boys are yummy. There was much talk in the trade that there not hadn't been a successful pirate movie to come out of Hollywood in decades--think "Cutthroat Island" or *gasp* "The Pirate Movie." I'm sure the folks at Disney were sweating that fact. This is the first in two--so far--movies based on Disney rides. The trailer for Eddie Murphy's "Haunted Mansion," premiering at this movie, appears to follow the Murphy's trend in choosing movie roles lately. But then again, I had no great faith in this film either.

In a nutshell, I had a lot of fun at "Pirates." Johnny Depp is one of my favorite actors and I love the quirkly roles and films he chooses. He's much of the reason I liked the film. Orlando Bloom--who's much cuter as Legolas, IMHO--does an okay job at playing the hero of the piece, but his fellow British actor and love interest in the film, Keira Knightley ("Bend It Like Beckham") proves that she don't need no rescuin' from no man. She's excellent as the damsel who's never in distress. And of course, Geoffrey Rush, cornered into portraying the two-dimensional villain, does much to flesh out the role (literally as well as figuratively) and makes it look so easy and fun to do in the process.

You get a lot of what's to be expected in a pirate movie, plenty of swashbuckling, sword fights, plank walking, ship battles....and skeletons. Oh yes, plenty of them. If it's not giving too much away, the curse of the Black Pearl, the film's subtitle, is that the pirates who stole Cortez' Aztec gold, walk the earth forever as unfeeling undead who turn into skeletons under the moonlight. The effect is used a lot, but never in my mind too much. Especially impressive are the pirates moving into and out of moonlight and continually morphing back and forth between human and skeletal forms. My favorite effect. Not being a parent myself, I think this film's pretty kid safe, at least less scary than the giant spiders in the last Harry Potter flick. Kid's are gonna love this stuff.

The film never takes itself too seriously, yet never lapses into silliness either. Depp's one-liners are priceless. Unlike Xena and other period shows that use modern colloquialisms liberally in their dialogue, Depp and company stay fairly period specific and still make the humor work. Comic relief duties are also shared by a pair of bumbling redcoats and another pair of cross-dressing pirates. Most of the pirate cliches, ala "Dead men tell no tales," are relegated to the parrot, so no human actor has to plumb those depths. In fact, in a genre riddled with cliches and formulaic plots, "Pirates" seem to give a tip of the hat to much pirate lore without degenerating into being hackneyed. It ain't Shakespeare, and there are some Hollywoodesque rescues and the like, but many surprises pop up as well.

I was looking forward to the opening of "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" more than any other opening so far this year, with the possible exception of "The Matrix Rebooted" (my little joke). Based on the graphic novel--notice they don't call them comic books anymore to achieve a semblance of respectability...please!--by comics legend Alan Moore, the movie follows the team-up of a host of Victorian age literary characters including Allan Quartermain (remember those bad Richard Chamberlain/Sharon Stone movies from the 80's?), Tom Sawyer, Captain Nemo, Dr. Jekyll, the Invisible Man, Dorian Gray and Dracula's Mina Harker. I'm loathe to admit that I never read the comics (I hope to soon), but the idea intrigued me greatly.

The movie starts with great promise and I thrilled to the commanding presence of 72 year-old Sean Connery chewing up the scenery as Quartermain. Too bad his costars couldn't follow suit; not a one of them left a huge impression on me. My comic-reading friend told me that the inter-character relation, so central to the graphic novel, gets lost in this film. Most of the characters become quite two-dimensional and comic-booky as the movie unfolds. Like the movie itself, they get lost in the special effects, a typical and perennial problem with genre films. What began with such promise, by mid-movie starts to get lost in explosion after explosion and wandering plot. What's the whole thing about Venice? Never got that. I must admit, however, that young Shane West (Sawyer) is very easy on the eye...a saving grace.

Special effects are quite good, for the most part. Much of the film is shadowy, Gothic, Londony stuff, which works. The Nautilus is cool, but one has to have a steampunk suspension of disbelief for how far Nemo came with his technology. The car looked too much like a modern car; I think steampunk works best when it's an intelligent mix of futuristic-looking (and "futuristic is relative to the period--think Jetsons) and period-specific technology. Mr. Hyde was the most disappointing effect and my fellow movie-goers agreed. What with Gollum and the Hulk raising the FX bar, Mr. Hyde looks silly in comparison, especially in the scenes where they went back to latex-suit tech instead of CGI. There were several anachronistic dialogue snafus, mostly notably referring to the automobile as a "car" (and how come American Tom Sawyer could drive it so well his first time out?) and speaking about "nailing her" as a sexual reference.

I heard that Tom Sawyer, now grown up and a Secret Service agent?!, was never in the comic, but was added to assuage the American audience, as if we couldn't relate to an all-European cast of characters. I guessed Sawyer replaced Mycroft Holmes, Sherlock's brother, who was dropped from the film, although another Holmsian character makes an appearance. In summary, a great premise squandered by a lackluster execution.