Star Trek: Generations

It is always going to be tricky when you leave the original cast behind, but it's something that has to be done if a series is to continue.
Star Trek: Generations is that step, as the film series boldy goes where it hasn't been before.
Original crew members James T Kirk, Montgomery Scott and Pavel Chekov all feature as retired personnel who are invited to attend the launch of a new (another) Federation starship - the USS Enterprise-B. The original plan is for the new crew to go on a trip around the Solar System, but as luck would have it, they receive a distress signal and decide to rescue the ship.
Once there they encounter an energy ribbon that is thretening to destroy the ship, and attempt to beam the crew on board. They succeed in saving several people, but become trapped in the ribbon itself. Kirk takes it upon himself to help the vessel escape but not before the ribbon makes contact with that section of the ship.
The story jumps forward some 80 years, where the Enterprise-D comes across a distress call from a solar observatory, and find everyone has been killed - except for a doctor named Soran.
Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart) takes the role as captain of the Enterprise, and as such hooks into a potentially reckless rescue mission after one of his crew is abducted. Startling discoveries are made about the energy ribbon and a planet called Veridian III, and it's up to captain Picard to save the day - with help, of course, from an old friend.

This film seemed to improve the longer it went on, and is quite a jump without having kept up with the television series. Apart from the three mentioned earlier, there is no sign of any original cast members, apart from the daughter of a former character and a mention of Spock.
I have reservations about the continued revival of Kirk. When a television/film show or series has to bring characters back from the dead or find a reason to keep bringing them back, I have to assume it is running out of gas. In this instance, Kirk is handing the keys of the franchise over to Picard. I can't imagine how Kirk can make another appearance in the series, but I still think he hung around one or two films too long.

Star Trek: Generations: 113 minutes (1994)

Casino Royale

I'm going back to where the legend of James Bond began. It is a time before man landed on the moon, before Martin Luther King Jnr made his famous speech, and before a young, Scotsman by the name of Sean Connery signed on the dotted line to appear as the most popular spy in the world.
The very first James Bond.
Born in the mind of retired naval intelligence officer Ian Fleming, this globe-trotting Englishman would go on to entertain fans for over five decades (and counting), and influence an entire genre. Mr Bond is introduced to us to in the 1953 book Casino Royale, and over the next 213 pages we are taken on a ride that explores winning against the odds, the murky underground of the lives of spies, and a betrayal or two (apologies if you were expecting the 2006 film).
The novel takes us on a journey to France, where Agent 007 is tasked with bringing down a villain by the name of Le Chiffre, but not by the means you think. Capitalising on Le Chiffre's well known addiction to gambling, Bond's mission involves a high stakes game of baccarat, where he is to defeat and bankrupt his foe. His foe happens to be the treasurer of a French union and a member of the Russian secret service (SMERSH).
We meet CIA agent Felix Lieter in this novel, while Vesper Lynd is our protagonist's love interest (you may remember them both from the film version).
Having watched the film at least twice before reading the book, it struck me how different the two were.
My frustrations at a big part of the film being set in a casino were put to the side after reading the book, where every part of baccarat game is described in extreme detail. While basic plot elements remain the same, minor changes were made to the film version - changes which I believe were made for the better.
This is where the genius of Fleming comes into play.
For example, he knows full well that not all of his readers have been to a casino, and he doesn't assume that they have been to one. He describes almost everything in precise detail, as if he has abducted the reader and placed them inside his mind, in the scenes populated his imagination. Fleming starts by describing the rules of baccarat and some of the strategies (and odds) of the game that will be played out over the next section of the book, before diving into the interactions between our main hero and villain.
There is a part of the book that deals purely with what I can only describe as torture. The cane chair, of which the cane seat is removed and a naked man is strapped to in a seated position, his underparts protruding "through the seat of the chair towards the floor". Add a cane carpet-beater to that mix and you have a few pages of pure pain.  

As a standalone story it leaves this reader unsatisfied and hungry for more.  
Luckily for me (and others in the same situation), Fleming would write another 13 books centring around the life and times of one Mr J. Bond. It's a literary journey of which I'm all too happy to submit.
Unless it involves a cane chair.

The Great Gatsby

I remember being forced to read The Great Gatsby in high school, but I don't think I finished the novel (I much preferred to not do any homework), and I'm quite certain I don't remember many of F. Scott Fitzgerald's words.
And when it comes to Baz Luhrmann, it is almost impossible not to be blown away by the scale of his works - he knows what an epic should be, but more than that he understands it. Everyone remembers Strictly Ballroom (or Strictly Boring depending on who you ask), Romeo and Juliet still brings a tear to the eyes of some, Moulin Rouge can make you sing, dance and cry at will, and Australia was epic storytelling, even if it ended about five times before the ending and went a tad longer than what could've been enough.
While not being the biggest fans of both men, I was drawn to The Great Gatsby by film reviews, the  performances of powerhouse actors Tobey Maguire and Leonardo DiCaprio in scenes shown in the various trailers, and, more than anything, curiosity.
What followed was a wild adventure through parts of the United States of America during the Roaring Twenties, a time when automobiles were becoming all the rage, alcohol was available in copious amounts despite being prohibited, and servants were seemingly all the rage.
We follow Maguire's Nick Carraway, a university grad and World War I veteran that has fallen off the rails to become a depressed alcoholic. Carraway talks to his doctor about his journey to that point, and continues to talk of a man named Gatsby. The doctor (Jack Thompson) urges young Carraway to write the story, and he jump through a series of flashbacks to find out just who this mysterious man was.
People who have read the book will know what happens, and (surely) many others have seen the film or at least know what happens. Those that don't know should go and find out.

I expected to enjoy the ride, but didn't think I would enjoy or even like the story. It turned out being one of the best films I've seen this year - which is a surprise because I seem to be more of a science fiction or action film fan.

DiCaprio's portrayal of Gatsby was brilliant. The way he walked, the way he talked, the way he interacted with the other characters - all of it was how I imagine a mega-rich man would act in that era. Maguire nailed his role as the chief storyteller Carraway, giving us a deep insight into the man whose life would be so heavily impacted by a chance meeting with the man he describes as the "most hopeful I have ever met".
There are quite a few presentation characteristics that most can recognise as "pure Luhrmann", like an extra sparkle to the crisp colour on screen, and the way he helps create the myth around his characters. He makes us believe the primary characters are untouchable, and finds ways to help us understand not just what they are thinking, but why they are thinking it.
Even the heavy presence of R&B music, thanks to executive producer Shawn Corey Carter, better known by his stage name, Jay-Z. The uptempo hip-hop stylings delivered to the production obviously isn't what one would think the music of the time actually was, but it works in this film. Gatsby is made known to us as a man who has it all, a man unlike any other, and a man who hosts parties so extravagant you have to see to believe. It's at these parties you notice most of the Jay-Z influence (somewhat predictably), but his presence doesn't take away from the scenes, or the overall production, at all.
Carly Mulligan is outstanding in her role as Daisy Buchanan, while Joel Edgerton, Isla Fsher and Elizabeth Debicki more than hold their own in very important supporting roles.
A must see.

The Great Gatsby: 144 minutes. (2013)

Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country

William Shatner's swansong as James T. Kirk!
Actually, it is only the end of the line of Mr Shatner in the captain's chair of the USS Enterprise (or stranded on an alien planet, or stranded back in time), and it's a fact he communicates to the audience in one of his monologues (close to the end).
Most Trekkies will cry with outrage saying he appears in Star Trek: Generations, but as it stands now, he's out and somebody new is in.
This incarnation of Kirk is an interesting one. Everyone has that one (or two, or 23) racist uncle/aunt/grandparent who makes you cringe when they start sprouting their dislike of another race for events that happened "in their day". While Kirk isn't exactly that far out, he certainly harbours some similar feelings for the Klingons (they were responsible for the death of his son after all) - all of which are thrown into the spotlight in this entry.
A Klingon moon (Praxis) explodes in the opening scenes of the film, crippling their productive power and bringing the alien empire somewhat to their knees (if they do have knees of course).They seek a peace/truce with the humans, and the crew of the USS Enterprise have been brought back together to meet and escort the Klingon ambassador back to Earth for negotiations.
But in a twist most people should've seen coming, an unknown assailant attacks and kills the Klingon ambassador and some of his offsiders in their vessel. Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise are immediately blamed, and the rest of the film plays out as expected (Kirk and McCoy on trial, jailed, escape and Scooby Doo-style saving of the day, which I quite disliked).
Further research shows they tippy-toed along racial lines in the script more than a few times, forcing a series of rewrites after several African-American actors/actresses refused to speak their lines. While films can be praised for breaching such topics and delivering them to a wider audience, I'm not convinced Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country did that very well. At all. 

On top of that, the Shatner love-fest continues, reaching its crescendo with a monologue explaining "he would no longer be captain of the Enterprise but it will continue to explore the galaxy". While television shows may explain departing characters away with interstate moves and (the soap opera favourite) death, Shatner told us straight to our collective faces. Maybe it's not a bad thing and it was just out of the ordinary enough for me to take note. You decide after watching.

As a whole, the film isn't overly too bad but it is a step down from the previous films. It's like a professional athlete reaching the top of their sport, retiring, then coming back for another dig and falling short of the mark (Ian Thorpe anyone?). This is that Star Trek film.

Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country: 105 minutes (1991)

Star Trek: The Final Frontier

I have a gripe when it comes to the major theme of this entry into the Star Trek series.
I'm not the biggest fan of films that explore the existence of God (don't ask me why, I just don't), and this film revolves around the idea of a character believing they can visit the almighty one himself.
Star Trek: The Final Frontier loses all momentum the series previously had.
Where the last three films had been enjoyable trips through the Star Trek universe, The Final Frontier was the most painful 102 minutes since the first film.
The basic storyline at the beginning of the film was a good one.
A Vulcan named Sybok - Spock's half-brother - was the presumed "bad guy". He takes Romulan, human and Klingon hostages on planet Nimbus III, and it's up to our champion captain James T Kirk (William Shatner) and the rest of the Enterprise (they got a new one) to save the day.
It sounds like a brilliant idea, but takes a turn for the downright weird by making Sybok (Laurence Luckinbill) take over the ship so he can fly it to the centre of the universe, where he believes God to be...

Yeah it does go down that road.
Sybock brainwashes his hostages, all of whom fall for his charms apart from Spock and Kirk, and they all make their merry way to the planet where creation began.
Look, I'm not going to lie, it's a bit of a train wreck. I probably should've turned off when Kirk, Spock and McCoy were enjoying some much-needed R&R around a campfire in Yosemite, roasting marshmellows and singing "Row, Row, Row Your Boat".
Only watch it if you are a diehard fan, or are making it a mission to watch all Star Trek productions.

Star Trek: The Final Frontier: 102 minutes (1989)