Where do I even begin?

Let me get this much out of the way: A.D.D. is real.  It’s not a pop culture joke.  It’s not an excuse for badly behaved school children or lack of parenting.  It’s a clinical disorder defined in the DSM-IV.  It’s an affliction, a real problem.  And I have it in spades.

Attention-deficit disorder isn’t just a short attention span.  I once heard it accurately described as the compulsive need to pay attention to everything, all the time.  A person with A.D.D., such as myself, is constantly distracted, because everything is distracting.  I can be having a one-on-one exchange with someone, notice a flashing light or an insect or just the color of the wall, and then suddenly realize that I have no idea what that person said or what I was going to say.  All in the space of ten seconds.  This can happen numerous times in a single conversation.  Every day.

It affects not only academic pursuits, but my social life, my job, my fiancé, and more.  I deal with it every day, and have for a long time.  It’s very treatable, but never without side effects and an immense amount of effort.  Can you imagine knowing you have to focus on something and being physically unable to?  It’s incredibly frustrating and has long term consequences.  It causes other problems too, like losing things many times over or getting halfway through a task before realizing what I’m doing is totally wrong.

I’m not trying to start a pity party.  My A.D.D. is part of who I am, and I accepted that a long time ago.  I’m not ashamed, embarrassed or offended by it.  I’ve learned to cope with it very well without medication for a long time now, and I’m happy to tell others about it to encourage them as they struggle with it.  So don’t feel sorry for me; I’m just fine.

Now, Mr. Honeycutt, let’s talk about you.  You negatively described a movie that is fast-paced and flat as being “for those suffering from ADD.”  Excuse me.  I suffer from A.D.D..  What makes you think I’m going to enjoy a bad movie any more than the next person?  Because I don’t focus as easily as you do?  What kind of thing is that to say?

That’s like describing a movie with a simple plot as “for people suffering from mental retardation,” or bad reality shows as “for paraplegics without the ability to get up and go somewhere else.”  Should we all start talking that way?  Shame on anyone who does, so shame on you, sir.

Some movies are fast-paced, and some are slower-paced.  Some of them are good, and some are bad.  A.D.D. doesn’t have anything to do with anything.  So please try not to showcase your ignorance with insensitive and frankly insulting platitudes that provide nothing to your audience and alienate people like me.

By the way, I once heard it was estimated that 10% of the American population could be diagnosed with A.D.D..  So say goodbye to 10% of your readers.  Until you’re ready to apologize.

I won’t give you any ammunition by commenting on the quality of your review, but you seem to have a lot of contempt for video games, comic books, and violence for a guy reviewing a modern action movie.

Mr. Honeycutt’s “review” can be found here; don’t forget to leave him a comment.

A brief back story:  In January, I watched Paranormal Activity at my apartment.  This was a bad idea, as I have an active imagination and live alone.  However, shooting a feature film on a single camera with a couple friends and a minimum of effects was an intriguing concept.  The camera in the film is a top-notch professional camera, but couldn’t one tell a story in the same way using a different, cheaper camera?  I conceived of a feature composed entirely of footage from consumer devices: webcams, cell phones, security cameras, etc.  Instead of trying to make the whole movie, I got a Flip Ultra HD Video camera and decided to film what I envisioned being the opening of the film, which I always thought would be a standalone story of its own.  The result is the short film you see here.  (Warning: mature content)

Please share this with friends.    Below is what I call “print commentary”:  some notes about making the film instead of just detailing the whole process.

0:00 – This opening isn’t as creepy as it is unsettling.  Even though there’s no picture, there’s a lot being communicated here with the lack of it.  Not to mention the sound.  This scene immediately invites the viewer to engage by asking questions.

0:35 – A confused man’s face.  A messy apartment.  The audience is being given answers little by little, but there’s a lot being fed with no overt explanation.  Oh, that’s my apartment, by the way.

0:43 – Momentary Batman cameo.

0:47 – This was the most difficult shot in the film.  There’s blue tape on top of a Tupperware bin marking where he’s supposed to set down the camera in order to frame everything correctly.  But he had to do it fast with a very small margin of error.   We have a number of botched takes where something crucial is out of frame.  And this is a long, continuous take.

1:03 – Ronda’s a great sport.  Apparently, she and Abby did something with tape (?) to keep her bra in place, but to this day, I’m not really sure what it was.  They refuse to tell me.

1:36 – This shot was difficult as well, but there’s less to frame.  In fact, the effect is heightened by what little we actually see of the actors.  Plus, we didn’t need a prop for the cocaine this way.

1:50 – The slap is an aural effect, avoiding too much explanation.  We do see his hand fly up, then suddenly, hair hits the camera.  The slapping sound is actually his hand hitting hers, but it sells.

2:01 – This was an unexpectedly unnatural moment for both actors in rehearsal.  It was made a little easier by the fact that they were acquainted before the film.  I think it works well with the abrupt cut.

2:04 – Abby got to say “action” on this scene so I could wait outside to say “cut.”

2:28 – The dynamic lighting in the hallway is just the way that hallway really is.  I love the feeling of movement and eerie quality it creates.

2:51 – Unintentional but very desirable washout.  Again, it helps to have things happening on the screen while we’re in transition here.

3:12 – Sam’s hands are his most ominous feature.  Good thing.

3:27 – One of the best things about this approach was that the way each character handles the camera says something about who they are.

3:44 – I told him to mumble, but not what to mumble.

4:04 – Abby’s cameo.

4:34 – The reflecting red light on the peephole was unforeseen, but again, there’s something about it that just seems right.

5:00 – There are takes that reveal more, but the off-camera slap and brief glimpses of silhouettes on the wall in this take are more effective.

5:02 – Honestly, the rape is less graphic than I’d imagined, but it’s the thought, not the visual, that’s most disturbing.  The shot was written to be Mandy’s leg, but focusing on her face made a lot more sense.

5:27 – Abby’s house.  The doormat says “Wipe Your Paws.”  Which he does.

5:45 – This was a great location, and one of its best features was the changing floors between the door and the basement.

6:07 – He gave Chris a nightlight.

6:14 – By far the dirtiest-looking scene, and I have no problem with that.  Low light isn’t the Flip’s best environment, but I think it suits the climax well.  Chuck’s performance comes through loud and clear.

6:18 - The sound quality of Sam’s voice behind the camera contrasts well with Chuck’s in front.  Sam’s is almost godlike.

7:02 – The tension in this take was palpable.  It’s never more obvious than at this moment.

7:22 – In a simpler version than my original plan, Sam’s shirt was pre-bloodied (new word!), and he charged empty-handed.  When he stood up to walk to the camera, Abby handed him a real knife.  Movie magic.

7:27 – If you pause here, you can see a hand print on Sam’s chest.

7:28 – Sam’s eyes are perfect for this ending.

1) Where the Wild Things Are

A 10-sentence book adapted into a two-hour character study, Spike Jonze’s quirky kids flick is tough to analyze, but fascinating nonetheless.  Jonze and co-writer Dave Eggers turn the land of the Wild Things into a wilderness, complete with vast deserts and canyons, perhaps representing the blank slate that imagination can fill.  And young Max, fleeing a childhood with no one to connect to, finds idiosyncratic but remarkably authentic friends who support him and trust him.  In this world, Max learns through the personalities of the Wild Things what it’s like to be in other people’s shoes and how his behavior affects those around him.  When Max returns home, he’s moved into a new stage in his life.  The film never answers exactly where Max was, but does it matter?

Some people complain that Max is unlikeable and that the film’s message doesn’t resonate, but I’ve noticed a gender divide in that opinion.  It seems that in unlocking the workings of a child’s mind, Jonze and Eggers evoked the responses they wanted from those of us who used to be little boys, but not girls.  So the film could be considered a niche offering in a sense, but I don’t believe that diminishes its accomplishments.

2) Away We Go

I just caught this one recently on Blu-Ray, but I was so touched by it that I have to include it here.  A couple looking for a place to raise their unborn child (she swears she’s only 6 months in) visits friends and families in various parts of the country (and Canada), hoping to find a home for their new family.  This isn’t a road trip comedy, though it very well could have been from its premise.  Very little time is spent in transit, and much more on the destinations.  This breaks up the film into a neat structure, where each family they visit represents a theme of family life in a very exaggerated fashion.  Most of the humor (and indeed the drama) comes from the relatively normal visitors trying to deal with the dysfunction around them both socially and philosophically.   John Krazinski of The Office and Maya Rudolph of SNL give surprisingly nuanced and identifiable performances with great chemistry, lending the dramatic moments a gravity that raises the film above its roots to a more significant place.

3) (500) Days of Summer

One of my early picks for the Best Picture category, I’m still rather shocked that it wasn’t even mentioned.  How could this wonderfully original, poignant, hilarious, gripping, unequivocal experience be excluded?  Joseph Gordon-Levitt gives a career performance in one of the greatest love stories ever filmed as Tom, falling madly into and maddingly out of love with the infinitely entrancing Zooey Deschanel as Summer.  The narrative jumps back and forth in time to specific days within the titular 500, often showing how much Tom depended on Summer by showing what happens to him after their break-up.  The arc of the film leads not to the end of the 500 days (okay, so maybe it does, but not exactly), but to the conclusion of what the lead characters’ relationship meant to each of them, what ended it, and what to do with it now.  In one of the film’s most powerful scenes, Tom visits Summer after their break-up, and his imagination runs parallel to the reality of how that encounter plays out.

First-time director Marc Webb taps into something beautiful as he explores the workings of these characters’ minds, evoking strong romantic emotions and primal instinct all at once.  It’s a masterpiece in every sense, and to me, it’s the Dark Knight of 2009.  I must admit a bias due to my strong identification with the lead character’s plight, but I believe every man with a heart he admits to having will feel similarly.

_______________

I firmly believe that (500) Days of Summer and Where the Wild Things Are belonged in the Best Picture category, but Away We Go featured excellent performances from its leads that deserved recognition.  Everyone has an opinion, I know, but looking at the nominations this year, I was a little disappointed by the lack of greatness compared to 2008’s offerings.  And then I remembered these wonderful pictures.

First of all, a lot of people want to know what the big delay is on making my directorial debut public, especially since the movie has been complete since November.  Well, there are two things keeping it under wraps.  First, the ending credits are incomplete.  Some credits were thrown onto the current copy just so we could make the deadline on a couple of film festivals; we planned to correct them before exhibition.  I worked with a lot of great people for free, so the least I can do is ensure that they’re credited correctly.  So my producer is fixing that the first chance she gets.  I shouldn’t detail the second reason publicly, but I can tell you that there’s just a bit of remaining red tape that it takes time to cut through before we’re allowed to exhibit the film.

In short, we plan to have the film online anytime now.  Hopefully, it won’t stay in limbo for more than a few more days.

Currently, I’m in the midst of a much smaller project I’m directing and co-producing from my own script.  It’s an experimental horror short told through “found footage,” a technique used in independent films The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity. We’ll shoot it next weekend, and it will be cut and released online in mid-March.  I have another short film project that I’m starting to put together to shoot in the spring, but I’m keeping a lid on details until we’re closer to shooting (hint: it’s really exciting).

Finally, I’ve been hired by a local studio to write the screenplay for a feature (maybe?) film from a producer’s outline.  He and I have had a few conversations about the story and characters, but we’re still in the early stages of figuring this thing out.  Needless to say, it’s a very cool project being made by some very talented people, and I can’t wait to delve deeper into it.

So that’s what’s on the schedule for the next few months.  And if anybody’s wondering, YES, I AM AVAILABLE FOR PAID WORK.  Trust me, I’ll make time.  I’m very flexible.

Oh, there was promise.  It came in the form of Martin Campbell’s Edge of Darkness, Pierre Morel’s From Paris with Love, and Martin Scorsese’s Shutter Island.  2010 could actually have the strongest start for event films in a long time, I said.  Directors of such films as Casino Royale, Taken, and The Departed (among others) kicking off the year?  Who could ask for more?

But these were mirages: the first brought down by lukewarm reactions and a waning star, the second rolling into theaters with little to recommend it based on the marketing, and the third now clinging to its third announced release date.  Why was a film featuring the one-two punch of Scorsese-DiCaprio pushed out of Oscar contention into Low Expectation Land?  That doesn’t bode well for this one, despite a powerful cast.

So far, the only taste of quality has come from a surprisingly fresh The Book of Eli, which has defied critics to carry good box-office numbers and decent word-of-mouth.  I confess that this is the only one I’ve actually seen of those listed above, but I get the impression that I’ve seen the best and done well to avoid the rest.

What’s left to keep me going until blockbuster season?  Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland debuts in a month, but it’s hardly going to replace an action-packed thriller.  Paul Greengrass directs Matt Damon again in de-facto Bourne 4 under the moniker Green Zone the following weekend, but without the franchise behind it, this looks to be little more than a brief distraction, watching Damon defying authority and breaking nameless people’s bones (though I pray I’m wrong).

Truly, the action/thriller genre is in a sad state at the moment.  We have a lot to look forward to once the summer rolls around, but until then, I’m counting on Louis Leterrier’s Clash of the Titans remake to be the oasis I need.  If not, I’m afraid I’m going to run out of adrenaline by the time Iron Man 2 hits theaters.  And that would just be sad.

Clash of the Titans trailers

Apparently, this is news to some people.  I keep hearing about “James Cameron’s sci-fi classics” and whether or not the new movie will “measure up.”  People also made those kinds of comments about Star Wars and Indiana Jones, and they’re well-deserved; the original Star Wars and Indiana Jones trilogies are the kind of high quality that surpass measly four-star reviews.  They defined their respective genres, and filmmakers are still heavily influenced by them today.  People were right to wonder if that kind of greatness could be continued in the present.

With all due respect, the Terminator franchise does not belong to that same category.

Don’t get me wrong; that’s hardly an insult.  Saying a movie isn’t as good as the original Star Wars is like saying you don’t play tennis as well as Roger Federer.  Being mentioned in the same breath is praise enough.  And if my previous post wasn’t indication enough, I like the Terminator films.  They’re fun, well-made films, driven by creative and compelling action sequences.  But they’re also melodramatic, often thin, and not as original as many seem to remember.  So when I compare Terminator Salvation to its predecessors, I’m not judging it against sci-fi masterpieces; I’m judging it against a series of above-average action films.

And the new Terminator Salvation continues that tradition effectively.

From the first scene, the film establishes exactly what it is: the beginning of a new story set in the Terminator universe.  The style of the opening, which features lots of continuous takes, smooth camera movements, a grey color palette, and no music, immediately sets the tone as more akin to Children of Men or War of the Worlds than previous Terminator films.  The story also turns the focus from a constant threat to John Connor to the way the apocalypse has affected the pockets of survivors.  These are represented in different groups reacting to their circumstances in different ways, bringing a scope and emotional touch to a potentially bland story.

That’s not to say that it throws all convention out the window.  There are numerous subtle and not-so-subtle references to earlier films, from the customary “I’ll be back” line to creative cocking of a shotgun, but Salvation isn’t weighed down by them.  And even though the usual run-from-the-big-killing-machine overall plot no longer applies, by the action-packed climax of the film, I felt very much like I was watching a Terminator movie.  And that’s a good thing.

Unfortunately, the film’s greatest strengths are also its greatest weaknesses.  The story’s broader focus on the evil SkyNet’s master plan and how it affects humanity as a whole is personified by Marcus Wright.  The story arc belongs to him, and actor Sam Worthington nails it.  He’s believable and sympathetic, not to mention very watchable in action scenes, every step of the way.  However, this demotes Christian Bale’s John Connor to a supporting role, which has a decent story of its own, but Connor just doesn’t have enough to do.  His individual scenes work just fine, but a central theme of the film is his struggle with the other military leaders over his “savior” status and moral agenda, and this aspect of the story just doesn’t get enough screen time to have much punch.  Thankfully, when Connor and Wright finally cross paths, both of their stories get an extra boost that carries to the end of the film.

Similarly, but less significantly, the refocused story doesn’t allow for a central villain, which was the main point of tension in the earlier films.  There is an organized threat behind SkyNet, but the details don’t come into focus until later in the film, and by then it serves a somewhat different purpose.  Still, I view this change as a good thing; tall people with machine guns and a single facial expression only have so many dramatic possibilities, especially given current moviegoers’ preference for more character-driven stories.  We’ve seen the good guy vs. bad guy formula in three separate films already, and by the third one, it was starting to feel a bit tired.  It’s time to explore more stories in this post-apocalyptic world set up by James Cameron and Co.

Salvation delivers just what we want froma Terminator film: powerful action sequences, and there are plenty of them.  Thankfully, it doesn’t pretend to be any more complex or important than it is, lending to the enjoyment of what’s actually on the screen.  And hopefully, we can continue the explosions and gunplay again in a few years.

Terminators from 1984 to 2009

It took me awhile to realize that, as much as I’m looking forward to seeing Terminator Salvation, this might not be nearly as interesting to people who haven’t seen all three previous films.  The first two installments were highly successful in their time, but the third was not as well-received, and much of the target population of such movies nowadays grew up on The Matrix, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Transformers, and haven’t even seen this sci-fi action saga.

This being the case, I thought I’d do what I can to help mankind and offer a quick rundown of the original trilogy, so if you haven’t seen all three movies, or if you’ve just forgotten the major plot points, you can absorb the important details and go into the new film and enjoy it instead of trying to figure out what you’re missing.

If you’d rather start from the beginning and just not see the new film until you’ve caught up, more power to you; don’t read any more.  That said, I’ll try not to overindulge in my descriptions so that you can still watch the older movies and enjoy them as they are.

*****SPOILERS BELOW*****

The Terminator (1984)

The premise is actually similar to The Matrix, if less complicated:  In the year 2029, machines controlled by a central computer called SkyNet have decided to take over the world and crush humanity.  A small but fierce human resistance led by a man named John Connor refuses to be quashed, so the machines send a Terminator T-800 cyborg (a humanoid machine disguised with human flesh) back in time to 1984 to kill Sarah Connor, John’s mother, destroying the resistance before it starts.  However, the humans send their own man, Kyle Reese, back as well to stop the Terminator and save Sarah.

The entire film is a battle royale between the soldier Reese and the Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger), with the human Reese no match for the larger, indestructible killing machine.  Sarah, who is neither married nor pregnant, slowly learns to trust Kyle as the film progresses toward the final showdown.  In the end, the Terminator is finally crushed in a factory, and it turns out that Kyle is the one who impregnates Sarah with the future John Connor.  If that sounds like a time paradox, that’s because it is.

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)

Taking place eleven years after the events of the first film, T2 finds Sarah Connor institutionalized for her perceived schizophrenia based on her belief in what Kyle Reese told her about the future.  John, whom she had begun raising to lead the eventual resistance movement, is now a problem kid in foster care, believing that his mom is crazy.  As before, two visitors from the future appear: another T-800 (Arnold again), this time reprogrammed by the human resistance to protect John Connor from the bad guy, a T-1000.  This new threat is simply a hunk of liquid metal that can take any form, impersonating police officers and creating metal blades out of its body, designed specifically to kill John Connor.

For its long runtime and much more involved plot than its predecessor, there’s very little to know about this film.  It really only brings one thing to the table, and that’s the concept of “Judgment Day,” a date in 1997 when an automated defense computer system created by the US military called “SkyNet” would gain sentience and trigger a nuclear holocaust in an attempt to wipe out humanity, starting the war.  Using intelligence provided to them by the T-800, the Connors manage to destroy SkyNet and the T-1000, supposedly preventing Judgment Day from ever occurring and saving the future of humanity.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2004)

As it turns out, victory is short-lived.  Now an adult, John Connor lives in constant paranoia that Judgment Day has not been averted, only postponed.  His fears are confirmed when a T-X, a female terminator that carries an arsenal of futuristic weapons, arrives not to kill John Connor, but to kill all future leaders of the human resistance, hoping to weaken the movement before it can gain momentum.  However, in the course of carrying out its assassinations, it gets wind of John Connor and his future wife, Katherine Brewster, and sets off after them.  Of course, yet another T-800 (Arnold is back, as promised), sent by the resistance, arrives to protect them from the much more advanced threat.

A chain of events reveals that SkyNet wasn’t destroyed, but absorbed by the US government.  When activated, as predicted all along, it locks out all human interface and sends nuclear missiles all over the globe to wipe out humanity.  Meanwhile, the battle of the terminators ends at a fallout shelter where both machines are destroyed.  John and Kate (minus eight) are among the very few protected from the nuclear holocaust and begin to make contact with any survivors in order to explain what’s happening and what to do about it.

History of the Future

The timeline of future events is hazy at best and obviously complicated by the paradoxes that make up each film.  Kyle Reese recounts his days as a soldier when the machines had begun making more and more realistic-looking terminators in order to infiltrate the human resistance’s bases.  Reese also claims that the first T-800 was sent back to kill Sarah Connor in 2029 because the human resistance had destroyed the machines’ command center, effectively turning the tide of the war.  However, this would appear to be premature celebration, as the machines not only survived to send two more terminators back, but made significant technological advances between them.  We know that the war continued at least to 2032, when a T-800 killed John Connor.  Ironically, this same T-800 was immediately captured, reprogrammed, and sent after the T-X to protect John and Kate.  All other details are either superfulous or speculative.

Terminator Salvation

I must admit, after seeing T3, I had very little interest in seeing any more sequels.  I felt that the story had ended in a good place and that the war of the future was useful as a backdrop but not really worth exploring.  As I followed production of Terminator Salvation, I found myself more and more engrossed in the story possibilities and the world that the filmmakers were creating for this post-apocalyptic story.  Set 14 years after Judgment Day but 11 years prior to the first T-800 being sent back, it tells the story of the advent of cyborgs designed to eliminate the human resistance and the complications thereof, personified by the first truly sympathic terminator.  The director has plans for a fifth and sixth installment, meaning he intends to fill in a lot spaces on this virtually empty canvas.  We’ll just have to see if it brings anything to the table that actually enhances the existing mythology or if it’s merely content to connect the dots.

Make sense?  No?  Good, that means I explained it right.  Go see the movie.

Seriously, getting any more information than that is only going to detract from the experience of seeing the film in theaters.  Star Trek is designed with the notion that the viewers’ only exposure to its universe so far has been pop-culture references and a few iconic visuals.  The characters, their worlds, and the concepts behind them are introduced as though you’ve never seen them, which includes trailers and articles about this particular movie.  If you need proof that it’s worth seeing, check out the stellar Rotten Tomatoes rating.  Just don’t read the reviews.

If you insist on staying and reading the rest, I’m going to blow sunshine at you about how much fun this movie is.

It’s no secret that the filmmakers are walking a fine line of keeping the old fans happy while trying to appeal to newcomers and a young crowd.  But by and large, we Trekkers are easy to please at this point.  Our latest TV show died with a whimper in 2005, the film series collapsed on itself a few years before that, and the last time anyone not wearing rubber ears enjoyed a Trek movie was in 1996 (Star Trek: First Contact).  We’re dying here.  Put the Enterprise back on the big screen and throw in a few lines like, “I’m givin’ ‘er all she’s got, Cap’n!” and “Highly illogical,” and we’re like giddy school children.  Fortunately, J.J. Abrams and Co. know that doing justice to the franchise means a lot more than that.

By making a film that appeals to film goers at large, the filmmakers are actually doing Trekkers a favor.  For a long time, Star Trek has been an indulgence of sci-fi nerds and people with too much spare time (I include myself in that demographic).  It’s a real joy to sit in a crowded theater with my peers, enjoying the very same things I’ve enjoyed for more than half my life, and seeing other people enjoy it with me.  Needless to say, the team accomplishes this with flashy visuals, plenty of action, lots of humor, and a lot of winking at the audience.  Plus, being an Abrams film, the story centers on characters rather than clunky, political plots (I’m looking at you, Star Trek I, VI and IX).  Not that there’s anything inherently wrong with some political drama, but it’s not the way to introduce newcomers to the universe, and when not bolstered by a character-driven narrative (a la The Bourne Supremacy), the film can tire of itself quickly.

There’s nothing I can say about the movie itself that hasn’t already been said by hundreds of reviewers.  It’s a solid, fast-paced movie that anybody would love.  I must point out that, as enjoyable as it is, it doesn’t quite reach the level of the best blockbusters.  Obviously, it doesn’t tackle those tough, moral questions with the heavy-handedness of it predecessors, but that sort of leaves it feeling a tad flat in the end when compared to more emotional and cerebral films like The Dark Knight.  However, some people have said that it ignores the spirit of Gene Roddenberry’s original work, and I have to disagree.  The current trend in cinema is to have darker, more violent, and more disturbing subject matter in mass entertainment than before; the aforementioned films are primary examples.  Star Trek exists among them in stark contrast, refusing to accept hopelessness, encouraging humanity to strive for greatness and accept nothing less than peace and prosperity.  Naive?  Maybe.  True to the original?  You bet.

Star Trek is the most fun I’ve ever had in a movie theater.  There, I said it.