Email here for additions & corrections.

Ishtar
(May, 1987)
The Seven-Per-Cent Solution (OOP)
(Ross, 1976)
The Devils
(Russell, 1974)
The Pirates of Penzance
(Papp/Leach, 1983)
The Fortune
(Nichols, 1975)
-30-
(Webb, 1959)
Betrayal
(Jones, 1983)
Play It As It Lays
(Perry, 1972)
The Outfit
(Flynn, 1973)
Alex in Wonderland
(Mazursky, 1969)
The Legend of Lylah Clare
(Aldrich, 1968)
In The Cool of the Day
(Stevens, 1963)
That Cold Day in the Park
(Altman, 1969)
Thumb Trippin'
(Masters, 1972)
Midas Run
(Kjellin, 1969)
At Long Last Love
(Bogdanovich, 1973)
Brewster McCloud
(Altman, 1972)
Outcast of the Islands
(Reed, 1951)

Reader Submissions
1930's-1950's
The Moon's Our Home
(Seiter, 1936)
Sh! The Octopus
(McGann, 1937)
The Mating Season
(Leisen, 1951)
Bad for Each Other
(Rapper, 1953)
The Phenix City Story
(Karlson, 1955)
Run of the Arrow
(Fuller, 1956)
House of Secrets
(Green, 1956)
Saint Joan
(Preminger, 1957)
Macabre
(Castle, 1958)
The Fiend Who Walked the West
(G. Douglas, 1958
Five Gates to Hell
(Clavell, 1959)
1960's
Key Witness
(Karlson, 1960)
Summer and Smoke
(Glenville, 1961)
The Chapman Report
(Cukor,1962)
Bachelor Flat
(Tashlin, 1962) [on Hulu]
The L Shaped Room
(Forbes, 1963)
The Chalk Garden
(Neame, 1964)
A Thousand Clowns
(Coe, 1965)
You're a Big Boy Now
(Coppola, 1966)
The Whisperers
(Forbes, 1967)
Dark of the Sun
(Cardiff, 1968)
Skidoo
(Preminger, 1968)
Last Summer
(Perry, 1969)
The Comic
(C. Reiner, 1969)
1970-1974
The Revolutionary
(Williams, 1970)
The Landlord
(Ashby, 1970)
Diary of a Mad Housewife
(Perry, 1970)
Tropic of Cancer
(Strick, 1970)
I Never Sang for My Father
(Cates, 1970)
Sometimes a Great Notion
(Newman, 1971)
Marriage of a Young Stockbroker
(Turman, 1971)
The Music Lovers
(Russell, 1971)
Drive, He Said
(Nicholson, 1971)
The Steagle
(Sylbert, 1971)
The Last Movie
(Hopper, 1971)
Made For Each Other
(Bean, 1971)
The Day the Clown Cried
(Lewis, 1972)
Hickey & Boggs (OOP)
(Culp, 1972)
The Carey Treatment
(Edwards, 1972)
Pete 'n' Tillie
(Ritt, 1972)
Slither
(Zieff, 1973)
Man on a Swing
(Perry, 1974)
Open Season
(Collinson, 1974)
The Tamarind Seed
(Edwards, 1974)
Law and Disorder
(Passer, 1974)
Homebodies
(Yust, 1974)
Stardust
(Apted, 1974)
Celine and Julie Go Boating
(Rivette, 1974)
1975-1979
Rafferty and the Gold Dust Twins
(Richards, 1975
At Long Last Love
(Bogdanovich, 1975)
Hearts of the West
(Zieff, 1975)
Welcome to L.A.
(Rudolph, 1976)
W.C. Fields and Me
(Hiller, 1976)
Citizens Band
(Demme, 1977)
Twilight's Last Gleaming
(Aldrich, 1977)
Looking for Mr. Goodbar
(Brooks, 1977)
Girlfriends
(Weill, 1978)
Movie Movie
(Donen, 1978)
The Medusa Touch
(Gold, 1978)
American Hot Wax
(Mutrux, 1978)
Hot Stuff
(DeLuise, 1979)
Scavenger Hunt
(Schultz , 1979)
Players
(Harvey, 1979)
Rich Kids
(Young, 1979)
Nightwing
(Hiller, 1979)
Screams of a Winter's Night
(Wilson, 1979
When You Comin' Back Red Ryder?
(Katselas, 1979
1980's
Resurrection
(Petrie, 1980)
The Awakening
(Newell, 1980)
Simon
(Brickman, 1980)
God's Angry Man
(Herzog, 1980)
Fast-Walking
(Harris, 1982)
Twice Upon a Time
(Korty & Swenson, 1983)
Trouble in Mind
(Rudolph, 1985)
When the Wind Blows
(Murikami, 1986)
Housekeeping
(Forsyth, 1987)
The Glass Menagerie
(Newman, 1987)
Patty Hearst
(Schrader, 1988)
Drowning by Numbers
(Greenaway, 1988)
Haunted Summer
(Passer, 1988)
The Decline of Western Civilization Part II: The Metal Years
(Spheeris, 1988)
1990's
Old Times
(Curtis, 1991)
Prospero's Books
(Greenaway, 1991)
City of Hope
(Sayles, 1991)
The Baby of Macon
(Greenaway, 1993)
King of the Hill
(Soderbergh, 1993)
Dadetown
(Hexter, 1995)
SubUrbia
(Linklater, 1997)

Upcoming

January 8

Bitch Slap

Waiting for Armageddon

Wonderful World

Youth in Revolt

January 15

January 22

Drool

Extraordinary Measures

The Girl on the Train

Trek Raves

email this story
read comments (41)
post a comment

"Blasting onto the screen at warp speed and remaining there for two hours, JJ Abrams' new and improved Star Trek will transport fans to sci-fi nirvana," writes Variety's Todd McCarthy. "Faithful enough to the spirit and key particulars of Gene Roddenberry's original conception to keep its torchbearers happy but, more crucially, exciting on its own terms in a way that makes familiarity with the franchise irrelevant, Abrams' smart and breathless space adventure feels like a summer blockbuster that just couldn't stay in the box another month.

"Star Trek here joins the James Bond series as the long-term '60s franchises that have been most successfully rebooted, although the current accomplishment is the more surprising since, after 10 films and a succession of TV series, Star Trek was widely thought to have exhausted itself. While respectfully handling the Roddenberry DNA, Abrams and longtime writing cohorts Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have successfully transferred it to a trim new body that hums with youthful energy."

I wont see it until, like, the 30th, but here's an impression I tapped out after seeing a half hour's worth of footage last December:

"It zips along and is enveloping and beautiful to watch -- highjly pleasurable to just friggin' look at. It's buoyant and bountiful of spirit, it's pop celestial, it's Young Men in Space. The massive super-cities shrouded in mist in the Iowa flatlands -- superb concept! Zachary Quinto's Spock has focus and authority, and was my favorite for that. Pine, for me, has the necessary force and swagger and I applaud Abrams' balls in not casting a Shatner clone.

"Pine is certainly an everyman James Tiberius Kirk. A Kirk who is first brawn, anger and bluster, and secondly a Kirk who develops the character and courage to grow his inner strength. A Kirk who is part Luke Skywalker, part surfing instructor, part lifeguard, part first baseman for the St. Louis Cardinals, partly a guy who could have costarred in Mike Judge's Office Space, part poet, part motorcycle mechanic."

Return of Mood Hair<< previous | next >>Tribeca in the Fall

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on April 22, 2009 at 7:06 AM

comment #1

DavidF says ...

Jeff got his hair post and then follows with an actual Star Trek post: everyone's happy!

It really does look like it's on a scale - visually and in terms of its ambitions - not seen with Star Trek in a looooong time.

The fact they've had the cojones to do stuff like premiere it in a room full of easy-to-offend fanboys shows the confidence they have in this thing.

Posted by DavidF at April 22, 2009 7:50 AM

comment #2

gradystiles says ...

Trust me, DavidF, this one BLOWS AWAY any previous Trek in terms of scale. In terms of sheer visual spectacle, it's on par with any action/effects-heavy movie that you can think of, pretty much.

Posted by gradystiles at April 22, 2009 7:54 AM

comment #3

Chase Kahn says ...

I'm seeing it tomorrow night, skeptical, but actually looking forward to it, certainly more so than two months ago.

Posted by Chase Kahn at April 22, 2009 8:06 AM

comment #4

Rich S. says ...

Later versions of Trek all made the same mistake. They focused on Roddenberry's "vision" of the future being one big happy family.

What made the original so successful was the Id (Bones) Ego (Kirk) Superego (Spock) interaction of the three principals, and the fact that it had the actors to pull it off.

Sounds like this version goes back to that dynamic, rather than the ponderous pseudo-philosophy that dominated the other Trek series. After all, Roddenberry pitched Trek as "Wagon Train in space" and based the character of Kirk on Horatio Hornblower. I'm looking forward to it more than I have any right to.

Posted by Rich S. at April 22, 2009 8:13 AM

comment #5

vansmith says ...

I WILL SEE THIS MOVIE.....IN THE THEATER... this will be the first movie i see in a theater this year...there's another one coming out May 1st that i might see but i cant remember what it is now...mmm

Posted by vansmith at April 22, 2009 8:14 AM

comment #6

vansmith says ...

oh yes!! X MEN..

Posted by vansmith at April 22, 2009 8:18 AM

comment #7

actionman says ...

Star Trek looks sweet. Even my sci-fi-hating fiancee is down to see it. Looks visually stunning.

Posted by actionman at April 22, 2009 8:20 AM

comment #8

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

Were any scenes specifically filmed for IMAX? I ask because the Lincoln Center Loews is charging $18.50 for IMAX tickets, plus a dollar booking fee on Fandango if you want any chance of getting a seat on opening weekend. If it's just a bigger version of what we see in the normal theaters, I might just get a ticket for them.

$20 for one ticket to a film. No wonder people stay at home to watch movies. You can go see a band for that.

Posted by BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey at April 22, 2009 8:22 AM

comment #9

rr3333 says ...

Psyched! Only wished they'd have a Shatner cameo too.

Make fun of Shatner all you want, but the franchise wouldn't have survived without his Kirk.

Posted by rr3333 at April 22, 2009 8:23 AM

comment #10

gradystiles says ...

Bosh: No scenes were filmed specifically for IMAX, unfortunately.

Posted by gradystiles at April 22, 2009 8:25 AM

comment #11

Moises Chiullan says ...

actionman, your fiancee sounds like my wife, who went head over heels for it.

Folks, this thing is gonna explode now that the non-faithful are seeing it. It really stands apart from the more fan-dependant stuff that's come before.

Pine's about to become a mega-star.

Posted by Moises Chiullan at April 22, 2009 8:27 AM

comment #12

Gyllir says ...

They need to update their gay uniforms.

Posted by Gyllir at April 22, 2009 8:30 AM

comment #13

Ghost072 says ...

J.J. Abrams has quickly become one of the few producer/directors that make me want to see a film no matter the subject matter or stars. I don't even like Star Trek, but I'll see this in the theater for sure.

Posted by Ghost072 at April 22, 2009 8:31 AM

comment #14

DavidF says ...

Good Q, Bosh: IMAX has pulled a bit of a fast one.

They used to differentiate between showing movies on their kick-ass system and "The IMAX Experience" which was movies specifically shot and/or remastered/cropped for IMAX (ie Dark Knight, Beowulf).

I'm not sure when they made the switch.

Now everything is "The IMAX Experience," which I discovered when I saw Watchmen. It's still great - the size, the audio etc, but it's not using the whole screen and, yes, that's what Star Trek will be. I haven't decided if I'll pay the extra bucks for the semi-IMAX but I'll certainly hit a decent theatre ASAP.

Posted by DavidF at April 22, 2009 8:34 AM

comment #15

actionman says ...

Moises -- it's the JJ thing I think for her. She really enjoyed Cloverfield but HATES monster movies. She hadn't seen the other M:I movies but really enjoyed the third one. She got into Lost in mid-stride (we've gone back to watch the earlier seasons), even after she swore she'd never watch a show about a weird island and a smoke monster.

Her aversion to sci-fi can sometimes be trumped; she thought Transformers was cool for what it was, and last night I showed her the trailer for Moon, which she said she really wants to see.

Maybe I'm getting her to turn the tide on this particular genre, which happens to be my personal favorite.

Posted by actionman at April 22, 2009 8:37 AM

comment #16

actionman says ...

And it's a shame that Abrams didn't shoot any of the action scenes in true IMAX format.

I am almost scared to see the IMAX sequences of Transformers 2. Will definitely need to bring a change of pants with me to the theater with that one.

Posted by actionman at April 22, 2009 8:38 AM

comment #17

CinematicallyCorrect.com says ...

I have a pass for an early screening next Tuesday...but I am skipping out. There is no freaking way that I am going to wait in a line with a bunch of Star Trek nerds for two hours, no matter how badly I want to check this one out.

Posted by CinematicallyCorrect.com at April 22, 2009 8:47 AM

comment #18

Michael says ...

So...this guy is part-Albert Pujols?

Posted by Michael at April 22, 2009 8:57 AM

comment #19

rr3333 says ...

I'd rather hang out in a line with Star Trek Nerds for 2 hours, than pretentious artsy types who wear eyeglasses that look more idiotic than the 3D kind.

Posted by rr3333 at April 22, 2009 9:10 AM

comment #20

/3rtfu11 says ...

There's a scene in the trailer of a child Captin Kirk -- I hope all those scenes are deleted from the final locked print.

Posted by /3rtfu11 at April 22, 2009 9:26 AM

comment #21

Phatang! says ...

Is the whole "fan-boy" thing is a myth? It seem to me that, to the extent these people exist, they don't have very discriminating tastes and are just happy to see "their characters" up on the big screen with lots of lights and sounds. The real reason these types of movies are big hits is that my nephew will go see it and so will my father-in-law, two people who couldn't really care less about Star Trek.

Posted by Phatang! at April 22, 2009 9:33 AM

comment #22

gradystiles says ...

/3rtfu11: Prepare to be disappointed, then...

The sequence actually works fine, and serves its purpose.

Posted by gradystiles at April 22, 2009 9:44 AM

comment #23

ZayTonday says ...

Nothing in this movie was shot specifically for IMAX, the next film coming out that will have IMAX scenes is Transformers 2 and after that there's nothing else on the horizon except for Terrence Malick's Tree Of Life.

Posted by ZayTonday at April 22, 2009 9:47 AM

comment #24

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

I probably won't bother with the $18.50 ticket then.

I saw Watchmen in IMAX, and while the picture and sound were nice, the screen actually wasn't all that bigger (at the AMC Empire 25) so I felt a bit ripped off.

Posted by BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey at April 22, 2009 9:56 AM

comment #25

/3rtfu11 says ...

The sequence actually works fine, and serves its purpose.

I didn't care for the young actor's line delivery of their character's full name. It pissed me off.

Posted by /3rtfu11 at April 22, 2009 10:00 AM

comment #26

Jonah says ...

I have never seen an episode of any version of Star Trek. Only seen one of the movies, Wrath of Kahn, when it first came out.

But I'm actually excited to see this movie.

Posted by Jonah at April 22, 2009 10:02 AM

comment #27

gradystiles says ...

Jonah: Then you'll be happy. :) No experience necessary on this one.

/3rtfu11: if that actually "pissed you off," I don't even know what to say to you. If you get upset by a 10-year old kid delivering a single line in a movie and let that detract from your enjoyment...wow.

Posted by gradystiles at April 22, 2009 10:16 AM

comment #28

Ryansi51 says ...

I wanted to bash that kids skull in!!

regards,

/3rtfu11

Posted by Ryansi51 at April 22, 2009 10:27 AM

comment #29

/3rtfu11 says ...

If you get upset by a 10-year old kid delivering a single line in a movie and let that detract from your enjoyment...wow.

No. If the film works for me overall the kid will just be it's only major flaw.

Posted by /3rtfu11 at April 22, 2009 10:34 AM

comment #30

markj says ...

But how is the writing? Everything Kurtzman and Orci have penned so far has been dreadful.

Posted by markj at April 22, 2009 11:12 AM

comment #31

rr3333 says ...

I'm with 3rtfu11 on this one. Also, I noticed Spock's right ear is a little pointier than his left ear. Damn it all to hell!!!!!

Posted by rr3333 at April 22, 2009 11:17 AM

comment #32

DavidF says ...

I think people forget that aside from Star Trek IV there has generally been little box office cross-over for these flicks.

Especially on he last few original-cast flicks Paramount had clearly figured they were going to make a reliable $75 mil or so and budgeted accordingly rather than going big.

Box Office Mojo says the biggest grosser was First Contact which made $92 mil in 1998. Star Trek IV didn't even make it to $75 mil in 1986. The pathetic Nemesis barely crossed $40 mil. Overall, nothing to sneeze at but hardly box office gold.

So Paramount must have been confident in what Abrams presented them with to go full-out with this thing.

This one has a real chance to break the mold and I don't think Jonah is alone in his attitude. The trick is to do it while also pleasing the fans - Lord of the Rings is a good example of something that could easily have pissed-off its fan base but it not only did it impress them, it managed to go way beyond people who knew what an Orc was prior to 2001.

Posted by DavidF at April 22, 2009 11:20 AM

comment #33

MilkMan says ...

Kurtzman and Orci make Shane Black look like Charlie Kaufman.

But I'm not going for the writing. I assume the dialogue is going to be ham-fisted and chock full grade-school humor. I'm going because Mission Impossible 3 was the best of the whole trilogy and because if there is one thing JJ Abrams knows how to do it's pacing: everything he does MOVES. His shit is lean. And I like that.

Posted by MilkMan at April 22, 2009 11:29 AM

comment #34

markj says ...

DavidF: Star Trek IV made $110 million back in '86, not $75 mil.

Posted by markj at April 22, 2009 11:46 AM

comment #35

actionman says ...

"But I'm not going for the writing. I assume the dialogue is going to be ham-fisted and chock full grade-school humor. I'm going because Mission Impossible 3 was the best of the whole trilogy and because if there is one thing JJ Abrams knows how to do it's pacing: everything he does MOVES. His shit is lean. And I like that."

In total agreement.

Posted by actionman at April 22, 2009 12:22 PM

comment #36

markj says ...

It's too bad the writing has to suffer for the spectacle though. The best Star Trek skillfully combined the two.

Posted by markj at April 22, 2009 12:38 PM

comment #37

MovieBob says ...

Good news, but I'm still not buyin' it until I see it. Abrams is a good stylist and does "big" structurally well, but just the NOTION of trying to "make Star Trek cool again" (the problem word in the whole idea is "AGAIN" - it was NEVER "cool" in the angsty-young-dudes way the studio now wants it to be) carries infinitely more risk than promise. Never mind the fact that the last time Orci and Kurtzman were tasked with "modernizing" and/or "mainstreaming" a geek franchise the result was effing "Transfomers."

Posted by MovieBob at April 22, 2009 1:42 PM

comment #38

stq says ...

Blowing this movie up to IMAX is almost pointless -- this is yet another production that was shot in beautiful 35mm 'scope and then sadly ruined with a crappy 2K digital intermediate. Might as well wait for home video.

Posted by stq at April 22, 2009 2:58 PM

comment #39

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Not the hugest J.J. fan in the entire world, but Milkman makes some good points (as usual) about one of his very big strengths -- his sense of pacing. Is it really any surprise he made the leap from TV shows to film?

Also, "part first baseman for the St. Louis Cardinals," whaaaaaa???

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at April 22, 2009 4:06 PM

comment #40

BurmaShave says ...

MilkMan did you really have to include perhaps the greatest action screenwriter of all time in your disparaging comparison? Not to mention he was Hawkins.

Posted by BurmaShave at April 22, 2009 7:58 PM

comment #41