Blu Ray Review: Batman: 20th Anniversary Edition

Batman
1989
126 minutes
rated PG-13

Available for Blu Ray on May 19th for $23.99 at Amazon.

How exactly does one objectively review a film that is arguably their favorite film of all time? What, you say? Scott Mendelson's favorite film of all time is Tim Burton's Batman? Yes, yes, while Batman Returns may be the most haunting Batman picture, and the Nolan pictures are probably 'better movies', it was the original 1989 classic that made me the Bat-freak that I am today. Sure I collected the Super Powers action figures from the mid-80s, and I had a general knowledge of the character, but it wasn't until 1989 that I became a die hard Batman fan. While countless moviegoers became geeks for Bats in the summer of 1989, I stayed that way for twenty long years (close friends, family, and coworkers long noticed that my email address begins with 'JckNapier'). My fandom of all things Batman has reached the point where my wife keeps threatening to throw a Batman/Joker-themed birthday party next year when I turn 30.

Regardless of your personal feelings about the film, it was and remains a milestone in both genre film making and box office history. I'm planning to go into much detail about the film's long term cultural impact (both good and bad) in a piece to be published on June 23rd. For now, let us acknowledge that the film was and is a character-driven mood piece that genuinely honored the traditions and characters of the original myths. For everything it got wrong about the mythos (Jim Gordon is a non-entity), it gets so many little pieces spot on (the flowers in the alley, the Joker venom, the early inclusion of Harvey Dent). It was a dark, brooding action drama that pitted the greatest yin/yang match up in modern literary history against each other in a violent clash for the soul of a city. The silent, stalking Batman vs the deranged, comical, homicidal Joker... it wasn't perfect, but it was awfully great. Be it the thunderous, classical Danny Elfman score, the over-the-top scene stealing villain, or the idea that a property appealing to kids didn't necessarily have to be appropriate for them, every subsequent comic book adaptation as well as every superhero movie or fantastical action adventure picture that followed owes one thing or another to this groundbreaking epic.

In many ways, Batman is an explicit adaptation of the very first Batman comics, from around 1939-1941. In those tales, the would be Dark Knight was a menacing, shadowy figure of the night. He wasn't charming, he wasn't polite, and he actually killed people until Robin came along in 1940. The city was an art deco world of brute, murderous thugs and Gotham City (originally just New York) was a place where grotesque villains slaughtered cops and civilians wholesale (life was pretty worthless in those original tales, with Dr. Strange killing thousands in a single rampage without a second thought). Bruce Wayne was a boring, non-celebrity socialite of little consequence to the city as a whole. Batman Returns felt like the Batman of the late 1980s/early 1990s. Batman Forever represented the action-adventure peak of the 1970s Dennis O'Neal, Neal Adams Dark Knight Detective era, with some unfortunate 1950s camp tossed in for good measure. Batman & Robin represented not the whip-smart campy TV show, but the low water, fangless Batman books of the late 1950s and early 1960s - after Seduction of the Innocent but before the Julius Schwartz revival of 1964. For the record, the Nolan pictures seem to be a hybrid of Joseph Loeb melodrama, mixed with the gritty realism of Ed Brubaker and Greg Rucka.

I've gone into great detail of the character of Bruce Wayne/Batman here. I've also gone into a bit of detail comparing Jack Nicholson's Joker to Health Ledger and Mark Hamill. I assume if you've read the proceeding paragraphs and presume me insane or delusional, you're probably not going to buy this disc anyway. So let's move on to the Blu Ray itself.

The Blu Ray disc is housed in one of Warner's collectible 'book' packages. While it looks gorgeous, it is differently shaped (taller, slightly thicker) than the standard Blu Ray case. It also looks like a book so it'll stick out like a sore thumb on your shelf, if you care about that kind of thing. The contents are the disc itself, and a separately housed digital copy. Included in the book packaging is a fifty page booklet containing a sampling of several pieces of Batman memorabilia. Contained within are sixteen random pages of Batman: The Official Book of the Movie, the first nine pages of the original screenplay, twenty pages of the comic book adaptation, and four pages of updated cast and director biographies.

Aside from the packaging and the book samples, the disc is absolutely identical to the Blu Ray that was released as part of the Batman Anthology collection a couple months ago. That set had identical content to the DVD Batman Anthology set that was released in October, 2005. Obviously the picture and sound have been upgraded to Hi-Def standards. The video is a lovely, bright, and relatively spotless 1080P transfer. Now the picture was shot using a slightly fuzzy grain of film, so it was never going to be a reference quality visual. But the picture looks brighter and warmer than it probably looked even in theaters, so I don't think anyone will be disappointed. As you all know I don't have surround sound, so I can only say that the English 5.1 TrueHD contained crystal clear dialogue and sharp distinction between dialogue, sound effects, and Elfman's magical score.

Extras you say? Well, fans like myself were clamoring for true special editions of the original Batman pictures since 1997, and it took Warner Bros. eight years to respond. But the wait was worth it. All four films in the series received absolutely jam packed reissues. And almost all of the content was of a high quality, with brutally honest interviews (everyone on the Batman & Robin documentaries basically falls on their sword and apologizes) and plenty of archive behind the scenes materials.

The 5.5 hours of material includes -

-Commentary by director Tim Burton (126 minutes)
-On the Set with Bob Kane (2.5 minutes)
- Legends of the Dark Knight: The History of Batman (41 minutes)
- Shadows of the Bat: Cinematic Saga of the Dark Knight (72 min.)
Road to Gotham City, Gathering Storm, Legend Reborn
- Beyond Batman Documentary Gallery – (50 minutes)
Visualizing Gotham: The Production Design of Batman, Building the Batmobile, Those Wonderful Toys: The Props and Gadgets of Batman, Designing the Bat-Suit, From Jack to The Joker, Nocturnal Overtures: The Music of Batman
-Music Videos: Batdance, Partyman, Scandalous (15 minutes)
-Heroes and Villains Profile Galleries (20 minutes)
-The Complete Robin Storyboard Sequence (4.5 minutes)
-Theatrical trailer (1.75 minutes)

None of this material is upgraded to 1080i or 1080p, which is unfortunate but forgivable. Some notes on the copious extras. First of all, nearly every one of note is featured in one form or another in the exhaustive and detailed making of material (even Jack Nicholson sat down for new interviews). Second of all, regarding the music videos... they may be terrible, but Prince, dressed in full Joker garb, looks more like the comic book Joker than any live action actor to date. Finally, the biggest treat on this disc is the animated story board for the deleted Robin introduction from Sam Hamm's original screenplay. Not only is it animated and complete with vocals and sound effects, but the disc producers actually got the voices from Batman: The Animated Series (Kevin Conroy, Mark Hamill, and Efrem Zimbalist Jr,) to voice their respective roles. So, if you ever wanted to know how Mark Hamill would sound reading dialogue from Tim Burton's Batman, now you know.

If you already own the boxed set that was released previously, there is no real reason to get this stand alone Blu Ray. If you only liked the first film and didn't want to buy the four-film set for whatever reason (maybe you didn't want the Joel Schumacher pictures, or maybe you didn't care for Batman Returns), here's a prime chance to pick up the first Batman film, the one that defined the modern comic book film. A solid transfer with incomparable extras, this is just a great, fun disc that rivals the best special editions on the market.

The film - A+
The video - B+
The audio - NA
The extras - A+

Scott Mendelson

Q&A with actor Victor Garber, starring as Sinestro in the DC Animated Universe feature Green Lantern: First Flight

This is the first of several interviews with the cast and crew of the upcoming DC Animated Universe feature Green Lantern: First Flight. It's a bit long, but some of my essays have been longer so I suppose I'll humor WB for the sake of getting a screener of this thing when the time comes (Green Lantern: First Flight will be released on DVD and Blu Ray on July 28th). By the way, I hope the rumor concerning Bradley Cooper being cast as Hal Jordan in Martin Campbell's live-action Green Lantern turns out to be true. A rock-solid, unconventional but completely logical choice. Anyway, here's Mr. Jack Bristow himself, Victor Garber:

Here is the first in a series of Q&A interviews with Green Lantern: First Flight voiceover cast members and filmmakers – this one featuring the voice of Sinestro, Victor Garber (Alias, Titanic, Milk)…

QUESTION: How did you settle on the voice of Sinestro?

VICTOR GARBER: The challenge of bringing this character to life was to find exactly the right tone. My tendency would be to make it a little too colorful, but Andrea (Romano) and Bruce (Timm) gave direction that was very specifically to modulate it and find the right tone. It was interesting because with animation, it’s all voice – at the recording stage of the process, you don’t even really know what it’s going to look like. But when I read the script, I had sort of an idea of the sound of Sinestro, because it was very specifically written – and very well written – so you could understand the sense of humor and irony in this character. I appreciated that.

QUESTION: How does Sinestro compare to other characters you've played before?

VICTOR GARBER: Having played the the ultimate villain as the Devil many years ago in Damn Yankees!, I found Sinestro was just kind of a modification of that character. The thing about villains is that they all think they're doing the right thing, and Sinestro believes that what he's doing is for the better, that it's going to improve the universe. The scariest part about a villain is that you know, at any cost, human life or super-powered life, they will do whatever it takes to achieve their goal. They believe in their cause, and Sinestro fits that mold.

QUESTION: Do you enjoy playing the villain?

VICTOR GARBER: I like to play any character that has dimension and complexity and if he happens to be a villain, great. If he happens to be heroic, great. I just like well-written roles.

QUESTION: What development did you put into the voice?

VICTOR GARBER: I actually read the script aloud a couple of times and sort of experimented with a certain qualities. In the script, it says – and maybe this was a bit misleading – but it refers to Sinestro as having a bit of a Simon Cowell attitude. I tried not to let that influence me too much, but Sinestro is sarcastic and he’s got a real edge. So I played with it, and once I got into the studio with Andrea, the voice really came out.

QUESTION: What was your impression of Sinestro’s dialogue?

VICTOR GARBER: When I first read the script, I came to these four-paragraph speeches, and that always alarms me a little bit because with anything (that long), you really have to figure out how you're going to shape the entire piece. But they're well written, and they have a definite rhythm. So I sort of read it aloud in the privacy of my own home, because I just wanted to get the sound of it – you don’t want to be tripping over your words when you get to the studio. So I had a sense of what I wanted to achieve and it worked out pretty well. It’s important to prepare and understand the entire script, not just your lines. You don’t want to upstage the other actors. If it’s a scene with two or three or five people, you really basically need to think, “How am I communicating with all these people?” Everybody in this mix makes it whole, and I think they've assembled a really good group of people for this film.

QUESTION: Speaking of the cast, you’re playing opposite Christopher Meloni’s heroic Green Lantern, and you had the opportunity to act with each other in the booth. How was that experience?

VICTOR GARBER: Chris was very disappointing (LAUGHS). Christopher Meloni is a really great actor and I'm a huge fan of his -- the opportunity to work with him was really my incentive to do it. I'm on a little break, I’ve just come back from Morocco, I was jet lagged and my agent called and I thought, “Two days in the studio with Chris Meloni? I can do that.” We had a lot of fun. He really does exude the heroic quality that Green Lantern would embody. It was funny because you’re in the studio and you're focused on the microphone, reading the script – you hear each other in your headphones so you can play off each other, but you don’t really look at each other. And occasionally I would catch a glimpse of him – striking the (super hero) pose. He was definitely in character.

QUESTION: Did your previous work on the stage and screen help prepare you for this style of performance?

VICTOR GARBER: From my experience as an actor, every role you do helps you build a kind of a repertoire of characters that you pull things from unconsciously. This is very different from anything I've done on television or even on stage. But my job as an actor is to imbue it with some sort of authenticity and truth – to make it believable. I didn’t pull anything for Sinestro from any specific character I’ve played in the past. They're all different.

QUESTION: From Nora Ephron to Gus Van Sant to James Cameron, you’ve worked with some impressive directors. What was your impression of your first voiceover under the direction of Andrea Romano?

VICTOR GARBER: Andrea is a task maker. She's brilliant at her job, I have to say. You just feel confident that there's someone in the booth that's really watching out for you. She’s very specific, she knows what she wants, and she's relentless at getting it – which is a great thing because then you know that the product is going to be the best it can be. I had a great time with her.

QUESTION: Based on this first experience, are you interested in doing more voiceovers for animation?

VICTOR GARBER: Well, I hope that people like what we’ve done and I hope I get more work from it, but you never know. It was challenging in that it requires some very specific techniques with the microphone, things that you would do naturally that you can’t do during a voiceover. There are constraints that you're required to pay attention to. But it was completely fun to do and challenging only in the best sense. I’d like to do more.

Please visit the film’s official website at www.greenlanternmovie.com

The critics agree... Angels & Demons is HARMLESS!!??

The Vatican newspaper (L'Osservatore Romano) has run a review for Angels & Demons, basically stating that they weren't the least bit offended by the prequel/sequel/whatever to The Da Vinci Code. Considering how much traction the first film received over its would-be controversy, I'm not sure the Pope's film critics did Ron Howard any favors. Plus I'm not sure "harmless" is the kind of rave that gets you quoted in TV spots and on the back of DVD boxes. Having said that, I'm not sure what would be funnier...

A) TV spots for the film which exclaim that critics find the film "HARMLESS!" "HARDLY EFFECTS THE GENIUS AND MYSTERY OF CHRISTIANITY".

B) A TV spot with several pull-quotes from the review ("dynamic", "magnificent", "smart"), followed by a quote credit of "God" or "So sayeth the Lord".

As for the film, as far as I know Sony isn't screening it until Wednesday the 13th. If that's the case, I'll probably just wait two days and catch it opening night.

Scott Mendelson

Last call at Sacred Heart. A farewell to Scrubs as it airs its probable series finale.

"They have thrilled us with their adventures, amazed us with their discoveries, and inspired us with their courage. They have been our guides, our protectors, and our friends. Now we are invited to join them, for one last adventure."

Maybe ABC will renew the show, with the new interns being the leads. Maybe we'll be watching Scrubs: The Next Generation this fall, with the old gang doing cameo appearances in each episode, with all the characters spread out so it feels like they're all still there (Zach Braff is leaving for good and many of the other leads have pilots lined up for next fall). Maybe creator Bill Laurence will still be involved in some capacity. But for all intents and purposes, Scrubs as we know it will end tonight. I've made no secret of my complete and utter adoration of Scrubs over the years. Ironically (or fittingly) for a show about the fragility of life and the inevitability of death, it feels like I'm saying goodbye to an old friend.

I'm not ready. I thought the series finale was next week. Furthermore, the preemption of last week's new episode meant that the last three episodes would air over two nights, all at once. I thought I had a few weeks to prepare. I haven't watched last night's episode, as my wife was out of town for the evening. So tonight, when we put Allison to bed, we will curl up on the couch and watch the last three episodes of my all-time favorite television show. And if the emotions I'm feeling just typing this are any indication, I'm probably going to cry harder than Allison when she doesn't want to go into the car seat.

I watered up during the series finale of The West Wing back in May of 2006. While I did and still do miss the show, it was the passage of time that got me. The show had began right when I was starting college and it was a shock to realize how quickly seven years had gone by and the ways my life had changed since then (little did I know what was just around the corner). I really got emotional during the series finale of, of all things, Justice League Unlimited. That was the end of something that I had grown accustomed to for fourteen years. From 1992 until 2006, I devoured Batman: The Animated Series, Superman: The Animated Series, The New Batman Adventures, Batman Beyond, Justice League, and Justice League Unlimited. Now there would be no more animated episodes in the Bruce Timm/Paul Dini/Alan Burnett DC Animated Universe. I was 26 at the time, so I was saying goodbye to something that had meant quite a bit to me, something that had been a part of my life for over half my existence.

There aren't any more shows that I care about that much. I adore The Big Bang Theory and How I Met Your Mother, but I will not mourn their inevitable end as long as its on their own terms. I certainly won't get emotionally involved when 24 finally kills Jack Bauer and the clock goes silent one last time (although at this point, letting him survive would actually be a more shocking finale). I'll be relieved if Lost can pull itself out of its exposition-heavy cement shoes and end on a character-focused note this time next year (the Miles-centered stand-alone 'Some Like It Hoth' was a step in the right direction), but I doubt my feelings will extend past the emotions contained in said episode. Truth be told, maybe it's part of being an adult, or maybe I just don't care as much anymore, but there are no longer any television shows that hold any kind of emotional pull over me. Scrubs was the last one, and now it's gone. That in itself is another touchstone of sorts, another reason to mourn or celebrate the passage of time.

So, thank you ABC for finally poaching it from NBC and giving it the treatment it deserved, and for giving it one last season to go out on its own terms. Thank you Bill Lawrence for toning down the fantasy and shtick, thus giving us the best overall season since the first three years. Thank you to everyone involved for making one of the very finest television shows ever made, a show that was the very best, most intelligent, witty, and moving sort of comfort food (nutritious and delicious). Thank you for making the last show that I will probably ever give a damn about. I just sincerely hope that its last thought tonight is a good one.

Scott Mendelson

Wow... three days before opening, and the Star Trek backlash has already begun.

Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'

Wolverine proves mighter than piracy, swine flu, and mediocrity! Mendelson's Memos box office rundown for 05/04/09.

Overpowering a month-early leak of the work print, theoretical fears of swine flu, and some of the worst buzz of any summer film not named G.I. Joe or Year One, X-Men Origins: Wolverine powered its way to a terrific $85.05 million opening weekend. The film opened to $35 million on Friday, which included $5 million in midnight screenings. So, if you count the midnight screenings as part of the Friday total (as we always do here, since the studio made the choice to hold said midnight engagements), that gives the picture a decent 2.4x opening day-to-weekend multiplier. For comparison, last year's big summer kick-off picture, Iron Man, opened to $102 million with midnight screenings, giving the picture a 2.6x.

So, amazingly enough, not only did the film score a boffo opening day, it actually didn't completely collapse over the weekend. To be fair, I am biased, believing the film to be stunningly not entertaining, but this would-be fourth X-Men picture actually had a comparable multiplier with the previous X-Men pictures. For comparison, X-Men: The Last Stand had a three-day multiplier of 2.3x (to be fair, it opened on the Friday of Memorial Day weekend, so it had an extra holiday Monday to take in movie goers). X2: X-Men United opened at 31/85, giving it a 2.74x. And the original X-Men ($20 million opening day/$54 million opening weekend), had a 2.62x.

So, the good news is that Hugh Jackman and company weathered an unimaginable storm of bad luck to score a weekend knockout anyway. It is the 8th biggest opening weekend for a comic book adaptation. It is the nineteenth biggest opening weekend of all time, becoming the astounding 21st film to open to over $80 million (all since November, 2001). Remember that pointless figure for 'third biggest opening weekend for a fourth in a series'? Yeah, Wolverine just blew past Fast & Furious to claim that pointless touchstone. Oh, and Wolverine now has the biggest opening weekend of 2009.

Is there bad news? Perhaps. In a marketplace that seems more and more front-loaded, we have now seen almost a year since a film crossed the $200 million mark (that would be The Dark Knight back in July, 2008). In that time, we have seen six $50 million+ openings that have failed to even reach $200 million. Twilight, Quantum of Solace, Madagascar 2, Watchmen, Monsters Vs. Aliens, Fast & Furious... four of those titles opened well north of $60 million. The closest was Twilight, which opened to $69 million and ended up at $191 million. Monsters and Aliens is now at $185 million and has two weeks to get there before Night at the Museum 2 effectively kills it (and 'MvA' will lose many of its IMAX screens to Star Trek this weekend). Point being, $200 million is not guaranteed, especially with this particularly short-term franchise.

Quite frankly, X-Men pictures has the worst legs of any major franchise. The first film, despite getting solid reviews and decent word of mouth from fans and casual moviegoers, still barely made 2.88x its opening weekend. It opened with $54 million and ended with $157 million. And, despite rave reviews, rapturous response from moviegoers, and being considered one of the best comic book movies ever made, X2 opened with $85 million and closed with just $215 million, a downright pathetic 2.5x weekend to total multiplier. As for the 'Last Stand'? That critical and word of mouth turkey opened with a spectacular $122 million in four days (Memorial Day weekend, natch). It closed with just $235 million. If we take the four day number, it gives X-Men: The Last Stand a shockingly poor 1.9x w2t multiplier. But lets play fair and take the three day Fri-Sun portion. Factoring in just the $105 million three-day number still gives the third X-Men picture a poor 2.2x.

So, if we play best case scenario and give Wolverine 'legs' on par with the first X-Men picture, that gives it a super-solid $245 million. Not gonna happen, but let's pretend. Anyway, an identical performance to X2 gives it $215 million, same as X2. If Wolverine gets hit by word of mouth, stiff competition from the allegedly fantastic Star Trek, genre competion from Terminator: Salvation, and, yes, that bootleg, it could see a quick and brutal collapse (do you think anyone who has the bootleg but still saw it in theaters this weekend is going to spend the time and money for a repeat viewing at a threater?). I'm not saying it's going to be Watchmen-terrible (that one opened to $55 million and closed with $108 million... a terrifying 1.96x weekend-to-total multiplier), but a similar to X-Men: The Last Stand 2.2x performance would bring about a domestic total of $187 million. Nothing to sneeze at, but its not a total that gets X-Men Origins: Magneto or X-Men Origins: Gambit greenlit.

As always, next Friday's numbers will tell the tale. Once again, the culprit is budget versus plausible expectations. Had Fox kept the budget close to the announced $90 million, this would have been a grand slam home run no matter how well it held up. But alleged reshoots and other behind the scenes turmoil ballooned this thing well past the budgets for X-Men and X2. I've said this quite a bit, but at some point studios have to stop budgeting every major franchise picture at such a high cost that they MUST break records to even make their money back.

Ghosts of Girlfriends Past opened to a mildly underwhelming $15.4 million, which is about what the less-star powered Made Of Honor grossed ($14.7 million) against Iron Man's much larger opening weekend (compared to Wolverine) last year. I guess Patrick Dempsey is a bigger rom-com draw than Matthew McConaughey and Jennifer Garner. The Battle For Terra, an ambitious 3D animated sci-fi action film about benevolent aliens and murderous, imperialist humans, completely tanked with just $1 million on 1100 screens. Looks like Lionsgate's hot streak is officially over. Tyler Perry's I Can Do Bad All By Myself (9/11/09) and Saw VI (10/23/09) cannot come soon enough.

Other news? Well, Paramount is now a little nervous, as Star Trek once again sits in the unenviable slot of being the 'second big film of summer', a place that has housed mega flops (Speed Racer, Poseidon), mid-budget performers (Monster In Law, The Horse Whisperer), and an overbudget domestic dissapointment that was saved by overseas muscle (Troy). Since 1995, when Die Hard: With A Vengeance overpowered Crimson Tide in the second weekend of summer, only a single film (Troy - summer 2004) has opened to number one as the second big flick of summer. While Star Trek certainly has the buzz and the reviews to theoretically break the curse, there is no guarantee that non-geeks will show up to sample the updated version of that nerdiest of sci-fi staples (no offense intended, I'm a geek too). Paramount has made not one false move with the advertising campaign since November, so now it's up to fate.

Scott Mendelson

Guest Review: Star Trek (2009)

Note - this is a guest review, borrowed from one R.L. Shaffer of DVD Future and IGN. Basically, he's a friend of mine and I asked if I could borrow his review since family obligations will prevent me from attending Monday night's All-media IMAX screening (sincere apologies to Warren and Melissa, although they should have invited me to an earlier screening). Now I am free to wait until Thursday evening, when a friend and I will check out the Thursday 8:30pm showing like normal movie goers (in exchange, he poached my Wolverine review from last week). Since I wanted to avoid any and all spoilers, I am running it as written (according to Mr. Shaffer, it's pretty spoiler-free). So please enjoy an early peak courtesy of an old friend. -- Scott

Star Trek
2009
126 minutes
Rated PG-13

About midway through Lost creator J.J. Abrams’ glossy Star Trek reboot, a wave of sadness erupted over me. It was during a pivotal, saddening moment between Uhura and Spock -- a pause immediately following a scene of grandiose sci-fi spectacle the "Star Trek" franchise had only previously dreamed of. In this moment, I thought of my uncle.

I was more or less introduced to Star Trek through my Uncle Mike. A few friends at school were big fans of "The Next Generation" series, which was still airing new episodes back then. I grew somewhat interested in finding out what this cult sci-fi series had to offer. But before I could really get into that series, my uncle instructed me to head back to the original classic series and start there, which I did. I watched as many classic "Trek" episodes as I could (whatever my local library had, anyway), then traipsed through the films (Star Trek VI had just been released in theaters).

By the time I got to the "Next Generation," my fondness for the old crew had grown quite intense and I didn’t fully connect to the "Next Gen" material in the same way my friends did. To this day, I still prefer the classic series to anything that followed, even though many of the "Next Generation" episodes and a few of the films are quite good. I still fondly recall watching "Trek" with my uncle, be it on TV at family gatherings or in theaters. Sadly, nearly ten years ago this May, my uncle passed away. Every time I watch something "Trek," I think of him.

As I watched this touching moment between Uhura and Spock, I grew upset not only because the scene was brilliantly layered with genuine heartfelt emotion and passion, but because my uncle did not live to see "Star Trek" in such grand, epic fashion. He would have been truly amazed by what J. J. Abrams and his cast and crew have accomplished with this film.

Despite some concern that Abrams’ reboot would blast "Trek" into the brainless doldrums of summer blockbusters, this "Trek" is, at its core, just as thick-headed and nerdy as ever -- it’s just realized on a scale both fans, and newcomers, have never seen. It’s almost cliché to say "this ain’t your father’s ‘Star Trek’," and thankfully, that statement can’t really be applied here. This IS your father’s "Star Trek," the way he dreamed it could be.

To avoid any intense spoilers, I’ll skim the plot covering only material that can be seen in the film’s trailers. Basically, a Romulan baddie named Nero (Eric Bana) travels back in time seeking vengeance on Spock. He arrives rather abruptly in the past and immediately attacks a ship, killing Kirk’s father in the process and altering the course of history. Instead of growing up through the ranks of Starfleet, James T. Kirk (Chris Pine, fitting in nicely, but not quite capturing Shatner’s essence) grows up a country boy with no ambition, that is until a chance meeting with Captain Pike (the ever capable Bruce Greenwood) joggles his interest in Starfleet. Shoot three years later, everyone’s aboard the Enterprise and once again facing off against Nero, who’s still blindly out to kill Spock.

The story is fairly banal, treading well worn revenge territory and often borrowing a few too many plot devices from previous "Trek" entries. Some of the social awareness of the series is gone as well, though the film does attempt to say something slightly more universal about the nature of character and friendship. Unfortunately, the film’s villain, Nero, basically plays as a halfcocked, underused, two-dimensional version of Khan (the villain of Star Trek II) by way of Soran (the villain of Star Trek: Generations), and his henchman (played by Clifton Collins Jr.) plays a bit too much like Ron Perlman’s henchman baddie in Star Trek: Nemesis.

Thankfully, it’s the film’s heroic characters and sheer epic scale that catapult this feature to greatness. The heated, altered parallel-universe dynamic between Kirk and Spock drives the film and proves incredibly mesmerizing, lead by two solid performances and a token cameo from Leonard Nimoy playing a future version of Spock. These two men aren’t just imitating what’s been done in the past. They add a new dimension and give their respective roles far more weight than we’ve ever seen before. These aren’t just templates; they’re flesh and blood characters designed to fascinate both old audiences, and new.

As are the rest of the crew of the USS Enterprise.

Some actors play the roles a bit thinner than expected, particularly Anton Yelchin who makes his Chekov more of a caricature. Sadly, while Simon Pegg’s Scotty is a bona fide scene-stealer, his character is played for a few too many laughs -- laughs that will certainly grow stale by the time this film makes it to home video.

But others, particularly John Cho (Sulu), Karl Urban (McCoy), Bruce Greenwood (Captain Pike) and Zoe Saldana (Uhura) deliver brand new takes on classic characters, matching, and in the case of Sulu and Uhura, offering much more depth and character than their previous incarnations.

In between the film’s memorable characters is the picture’s complex and lavish production design, from several breathtaking action sequences to outstanding, Oscar worthy set design and costume design. The Enterprise itself is the film’s single best asset. The bridge, engineering room, teleport bay -- everything is absolutely jaw dropping, clean, pristine and given extraordinary life thanks to realistic backdrops that actually seem to have a purpose (unlike the original series). Again, this is "Trek" full realized and handled with care, mounted on a massive budget the likes of which most sci-fi franchises have never seen.

It’s hard to say whether or not Star Trek will appeal to the general masses. The story is certainly epic in scale, driven by numerous edge-of-your-seat moments, both character and action driven. But the film is still built upon "nerdy" concepts and conceits, some of which may divide audiences. For Trekkers however, particularly longtime fans who’s dreamed of a massive "Trek" adventure, this film is sure to please.

The story is riddled with entertaining in-jokes, most of which actually play well with newcomers (and don’t cheaply wink at the fans), and the film comes packed with the promise of bigger, better sequels, much like director Chris Nolan’s Batman Begins.

Star Trek is not a perfect film, but it’s an enormously entertaining adventure, surely better than any previous odd-numbered "Trek" feature. Hopefully this series will prove profitable, ushering in generations of new Trekkers. And maybe one day I can introduce my children (or my nieces and nephews) to the world of "Trek," just as my uncle did for me.

Grade: A-

I guess piracy doesn't matter after all. X-Men Origins: Wolverine grosses $35 million on opening Friday.

Super quick notes, as I'm on vacation at the moment. X-Men Origins: Wolverine opened last night to a super solid $35 million. If you discount midnight screenings, you can knock that number down to about $30 million. So call it between $80-85 million for three days. Ghosts Of Girlfriends Past did a mere $5.8 million (about what the far-less star powered Made Of Honor did in its opening day against Iron Man last year).

Wolverine, to the relief of studio execs everywhere, seemed immune both to swine flu and the rampant availability of a near-finished bootleg copy over a month before release. Sure, Fox will argue that they might have had a $100 million+ opening without the leak, but this is still a rock-solid opening for a troubled tent pole picture. This puts it just within reach of the $38 million opening day for last year's Iron Man. I don't expect nearly the weekend multiplier, since Wolverine is a sequel/prequel (more upfront demand = front loading), a less 'inclusive franchise', and (let's be honest) Iron Man was a much better picture. Still anything over $70 million would have been a big win, and Fox will get that without breaking a sweat.

Apparently, for tent pole genre pictures (as well as adult driven genre pictures like Taken and Gran Torino), 'if you make it, they will come... even if they've already watched it on their computer monitor'. Again, all variables aside, this should be a BIG win for the film industry in general, showing that the threat of online piracy is a relatively empty one even for the biggest (and lousiest) franchise pictures. More to come around Monday-ish, unless the schedule permits an earlier 'full weekend update'.

Scott Mendelson

I just don't know!! Random mumbling about the opening weekend of X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Good thing I don't do as much 'Box Office Bingo' as I used to, cause I would be at a loss this weekend. Too many variables, too much left to chance...

The first X-Men opened to $54 million nine years ago. I'd think Fox would want an at least comparable number. While it's not being treated as a direct sequel, it was at least more expensive than the first two X-Men pictures.

There are too many variables this weekend to make any estimate that I'd put money on. Hell, if another American or two suddenly dies from swine flu in the next 24 hours, that changes things too. Not saying it makes sense, but I'd gather many moviegoers remember everyone's favorite scene from Outbreak. So, we have to factor in the bootleg's effect, with corresponding negative word of mouth, we have to factor in possible panic via alleged flu outbreak, plus the fact that Star Trek is the movie with momentum right now. Plus the fact that the project just doesn't have the excitement of Iron Man, Spider-Man, or any of the X-Men pictures (it feels like Van Helsing... it's big because it's the first film of summer and that's all). I may be wrong, but this just doesn't feel like a $70 million+ weekend. Come what may, nothing will stop Fox from blaming the bootleg and the flu news no matter what happens (if it opens huge, it could have been even bigger!).

$55 million is the minimum opening that Fox can theoretically be comfortable with, but even that will cause concern. Since the film isn't very good and Star Trek is coming next week, Fox is now in the same situation as WB was with Watchmen. Since the film probably won't have legs, even a normally fine $55 million+ opening weekend will be dangerous as the film will likely collapse rather quickly. Normally a $55 million opening would lead to a $140-160 million final take (think the Hulk and Fantastic Four pictures), but it could very well collapse like Watchmen and struggle to get to $110 million. Of course, if it opens to $70-80 million, then ignore all of that.

But the situation is still very reminiscent of Batman & Robin. That was a movie that, removing all negative variables should have opened to about $60 million. The big question was whether the terrible reviews, bad word of mouth, and declarations of war amongst fan boys (including myself at age 17... boy am I embarrassed by some of the childish stuff I wrote that summer) would have an effect on the box office. They apparently did, so a great, but under-expectations debut of $43 million resulted (followed by a then-stunning 64% drop in weekend two). So yeah, in this case - if the bad stuff actually hurts Wolverine, then $50 million... if it doesn't then $75 million. I wouldn't bet on either one.

Come what may, Fox now has two perfect excuses if this thing genuinely under performs. And rest assured, every studio in town is waiting on baited breath. If this opens under expectations this weekend, everybody in town panics. Be it fears of piracy or fears of the continuing 'we're all gonna die of swine flu' stories, this could have a real impact on how the rest of the summer unfolds. For the first time in a long time, the opening day of a major movie is big, BIG news for the industry as a whole. I can't wait to see how it plays out.

Well, there will be more to discuss when the numbers actually come in. Expect a full analysis on Monday or Tuesday (I'll be out of town until Monday).

Scott Mendelson