Inland Empire (2006, David Lynch)

I first saw "Inland Empire" in early 2007 and opted not to write about it mainly because I really didn't know how I felt about the film (or video, if you're into semantics) after I saw it. I went to the late night show, was almost certainly inebriated, went with a group of friends (at this point I still had a social life), and remember little about the screening except that I enjoyed the film and appreciated it on some level or the other. Well, I'm glad I didn't attempt to write about "Inland Empire" based on that viewing because my feelings are drastically different this time around. What I found to be a fascinatingly incomprehensible nightmare-on-video the first time I saw it, what I found to be an extremely nonsensical film overall, I now feel is one of the most important and greatest artistic works of the decade, and nowhere near as flawed and incomprehensible as I initially thought. I'm not going to attempt an analysis of the film, greater minds have done that already, so I'll stick to a simple review of it.

Perhaps "Inland Empire" does recycle elements of Lynch's previous work. I find it a less powerful experience than his 2001 masterpiece "Mulholland Dr." which with every viewing comes closer to toppling "Vertigo", my favorite film since I first saw it at age 12 or 13. I do think the video is used badly at some points in the film. It's a testament to Lynch's skill as director and cinematographer (and camera operator) that he was able to achieve this sort of thing with a dated, mediocre digital camera, but on rare occasions in the film, particularly during outdoor daytime shots, the poor quality of the camera itself isn't conquered by Lynch's creativity and skill in using it as well as it can possibly be used. However, other than that very small problem I really struggle to find anything I would cut out of the film. Considering its length, that's really something. In fact, I'm dying to see "More Things that Happened", one of the DVD extras which features over seventy minutes of footage shot for the project and not included in the final cut of the film. The film is, surprisingly for something shot with such primitive digital technology, formally elegant and consistently well-shot. What would Van Gogh have done with a set of cheap crayons and color pencils? The film makes fascinating use of color and light, and boasts possibly the best use of close-ups since Leone. These are even uglier, in a good way.

The most common criticism of "Inland Empire" seems to be that it's a total mess, a bunch of nonsensical weird goings-on strung together and put out for pseudo-intellectuals to dissect in their setting of choice (the average pseudo-intellectual favors either the internet or the great coffee shop which isn't a chain... yet, the cool pseudo-intellectuals enjoy the sort of bar which frequently doubles as an art gallery, but that's besides the point). This is both true and untrue, and I suspect the more times I see the film the more I'll see it as untrue. Where the truth of these claims lies, mostly, is in the fact that, as a fellow IMDb user notes, the film doesn't just shun narrative tradition but acts as if such a thing never existed. However, to say there are no themes or emotions being expressed, to say there are no stories being told in the film, seems to me not a matter of opinion but simply incorrect, and indicates an extraordinarily narrow-minded and simplistic view of cinema as a form of linear storytelling and nothing else.

While it does not have a 'plot', "Inland Empire" has a story. In fact it has several stories to tell, including that of actress Nikki Grace (Laura Dern), that of a battered housewife (Laura Dern), and that of a hooker working Hollywood boulevard (Laura Dern). There's also a giant rabbit sitcom and a Polish prostitute. Most of these strands start out relatively linearly and the film is mostly overall quite easy to follow for more than an hour of its running time, standard Lynch surrealism excepted. The film grows gradually more bizarre as the stories interact and occasionally merge with each other, the themes they have in common becoming clearer in some instances and less clear in others. The narratives all have great payoff as the film draws to a close. I didn't understand everything in "Inland Empire" and I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to, but it's really not even close to being the sort of deliberately distancing, deliberately obscure sort of thing Godard sometimes does. It doesn't mistake obfuscation for art.

I can safely say I can't recall one dream I've had which didn't do exactly what "Inland Empire" did: start out as a linear narrative and then spiral out of control. The brilliance of Lynch's work here is that he was able to capture that and to control it, to explore themes with it, to express emotions with it. That's rare talent, that's rare skill at work. It doesn't hurt that his is a more interesting and freakish mind than most of ours. "Inland Empire" doesn't seek to tell a simple, straightforward story. Criticizing it for not doing so indicates either misunderstanding or a narrow-minded view of cinema. As a formal experiment and as an overall achievement "Inland Empire" is up there with Lynch's very best and as a result with the very best of cinema in general.

Pontypool (2009, Bruce McDonald)

Social and political commentary in zombie films is hardly a new thing, but "Pontypool" does it better, and with more subtlety and grace than any recent movie I can think of. "Pontypool" does what I thought would be impossible: it breathes new life into the zombie genre. Well, perhaps that's a bit inaccurate, but it does provide a truly original, smart, intelligent take on the concept of 'zombies' (though this is again a viral infection and not the walking dead).

The film is, I will admit, an acquired taste. Not all the humor will work with every viewer, I have already seen the character of Doctor Mendez, who worked perfectly for me, criticized repeatedly as the weakest point of the film. However, what every viewer should be able to appreciate is the creative, intellectual, witty, sometimes hilarious screenplay by Tony Burgess, as well as the truly rare sort of brilliance shown by Stephen McHattie in the lead role here. He does everything in the film. Cocky, vulnerable, sad, happy, terrified and triumphant. He simply does not miss a beat for the entire film, and now that I've seen it twice I really do believe, regardless of whether or not anyone agrees with me (and keeping in mind that McHattie has received unanimous praise from Canadian critics for his perforrmance), that his is one of the very best male performances of the decade.

Burgess' screenplay is based on his own novel, and is around as great as the novel. Burgess' novel is in its original state 'unfilmable', and it would take an absolute genius to make it work as it was originally, and as much as I truly do like Bruce McDonald, he's not quite the right director for that. I don't think there is one. Burgess doesn't betray the original work however, and his screenplay has as much wit and intelligence and mystery as his novel does. I can praise the screenplay for its sharp commentary on several aspects of Canadian life (which will be lost, I suspect, on most American audiences as the Canadian audience I saw it with the first time, nearly 300 people strong, had shockingly simplistic questions for Bruce McDonald at the Q&A after the screening), but it works tremendously well as a thriller. It's funny, smart, witty, and uses one of my favorite not-used-enough things in cinema: the verbal clue. "Pontypool" earns comparisons to Hitchcock's "Blackmail!" for that, and to his "Lifeboat" for succeeding in making a thoroughly engaging film on one set and with few actors.

Bruce McDonald has grown a great deal as director, and shooting on a Red digital camera (a deliberate aesthetic choice, as he told me after the first time I saw the film), he has succeeded in making the most of his presumably tiny budget and his actors. The film, as previously stated, takes place entirely (aside from the opening scene in a car) in a church basement, which is where Grant Mazzy (McHattie) hosts his radio show from. "Pontypool", despite the limitations of budget and set, succeeds in achieving a great scope. We see a BBC report, and we hear a great deal. This film is unique in its emphasis on the aural even more than the visual, and it's where the film gets its scope from. Ken Loney, for example, the town's weather reporter (who, in true meta fashion, isn't really in a helicopter, but in a car on a hill, playing sound effects on a speaker) Ken Loney is a major character, but we never see him. The film could play out as a radio play and not change all that much. McHattie's performance has even more to do with the expressiveness and charisma of his voice than with the physical, visual performance he gives. If "Pontypool" were animated it would be one of the greatest bits of voice acting in a long time. Lisa Houle is also very good as Sydney Briar, Mazzy's producer and the other major character in the film.

I realize I have been rather vague about the film, but that's because you really should go in without many spoilers. The film doesn't exactly rely on twists, but the plot takes several turns which are very intriguing, and the main concept is very cool and you should really just watch it unfold on screen. Even if you never warm to screenwriter Burgess' sense of humor, even if the commentary and subtexts mean nothing to you, see it because it's a damned good minimalist horror thriller, and see it for McHattie's absolutely genius lead performance. It's a great movie, one which relies on wit, psychology, suggestion, and subtext instead of gore.

The Daytrippers (1996, Greg Mottola)

Before the shockingly good teen comedy "Superbad" and the wistful, sentimental post-collegiate angst of "Adventureland", even before his now famous TV work, director Greg Mottola made this 1996 gem "The Daytrippers". The film, like Mottola's other films, works a familiar and unpromising premise into a genuine, heartfelt, wonderful observation on human behavior. The film, while rougher around the edges technically and as a script than either "Superbad" (written by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg) and "Adventureland" (written by Mottola himself, as "The Daytrippers" is), is yet another distinctive and memorable Mottola film. The plot is pretty much covered by the film's tagline: "One station wagon. Two generations. Three couples. Four relationships", but much like Mottola's other films ("Superbad": Two best friends and a nerdy semi-friend attempt to get laid before graduation. "Adventureland": college grad works at amusement park and falls in love) the plot doesn't really give any indication of how good the film is. Great script overall by Mottola with terrific characterization and dialogue which rings true, not to mention mature handling of the relationships as well as a good dose of humor. An excellent cast (at their best too, Mottola's great work with actors on display yet again) including Stanley Tucci, Hope Davis, Liev Schrieber, and Parker Posey bring the script to life well, and Mottola's storytelling skills and comic timing as director are, even this early in his career, excellent. Not as good as his later work, but Mottola shows great promise with this early film.

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991, Nicholas Meyer)

After two relatively lighthearted films, with "The Voyage Home" being a (brilliant) comedy much of the time, the Trek film series returned to darkness and foreboding intrigue with "The Undiscovered Country". It is probably a more flawed film than "The Voyage Home" and "The Wrath of Khan" (which are my favorite Trek films), but "The Undiscovered Country" nonetheless is a great, great send-off for the original crew (damn you, "Generations"!) with a very good story and villain and more than a hint of the political intrigue which would become a big part of "Deep Space 9". Indeed, though it features the original crew with their trademark interactions intact, "The Undiscovered Country" does bring them into a story perhaps generally more at home in "The Next Generation" or "Deep Space 9". Though I much prefer "The Original Series" to anything which came after (outside of a couple of seasons of DS9), this was an interesting direction to go for the original crew's final film, and one which paid off largely again due to the characters being so well-handled.

A fairly complex plot in comparison to what we'd seen before in the Trek film series, so I won't bother explaining it, but there's lots of Klingons, lots of politics, and an air of mystery well-created by director Nicholas Meyer, returning as director to the series for the first time since "The Wrath of Khan" and as writer for the first time since "The Voyage Home". Meyer seems to have an uncanny grasp on what makes Trek click and absolutely nails the character interactions as well as the tone of the films, which are ultimately optimistic regardless of how melancholy things can get. It's a great screenplay overall, with the social and political commentary being pretty obvious but very well-done and the characters, again, handled extremely well. Great dialogue too, with Chang being Shakespeare to Khan's Melville and Spock especially getting some classic lines. The cinematography by Hiro Narita is also worthy of note.

Overall the cast here is definitely worthy of much praise. Of course the original cast, Mark Lenard as Sarek, and other Trek regulars like Michael Dorn as Worf need no comment as they are all reliable performers. It must be said though that Shatner still had a little of "The Final Frontier" in him and didn't really deliver a performance on par with his work in the trilogy formed by II, III, and IV. However, there were some very good additions as well. Kim Cattrall doesn't even come close to deserving the sort of criticism she's gotten from some, as she plays her Vulcan character pretty much flawlessly, and I daresay better than Kirstie Alley or whomever took over from her as Saavik. It helps that she's the hottest Vulcan not from Alberta. Christopher Plummer is really, really great as the villain Chang, who isn't as good a character as Khan, but I think Plummer gives perhaps the better performance.

Overall an exciting, thrilling adventure filled with political intrigue which never loses sight of the soul of Trek: the characters. I do think "The Voyage Home" has eclipsed this as my second favorite Trek film upon this most recent viewing, but I still love "The Undiscovered Country" and consider it not only in the top tier of Trek films, but also a great addition to the original crew's adventures and one of the better genre films around. Great stuff.

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986, Leonard Nimoy)

While I prefer both "The Wrath of Khan" and "The Undiscovered Country" to "The Voyage Home" overall, I do find "The Voyage Home" to be perhaps the best Star Trek film as far as the treatment of characters go. All three of the aforementioned films, and "The Search for Spock" certainly capture the unique friendships and sense of camaraderie the TOS crew share, but in those films all that is forced to share the spotlight in those films with oncoming disasters, space battles, and villains.

There is an oncoming disaster the crew must work to stop in "The Voyage Home", but, in the words of Leonard Nimoy: "no dying, no fighting, no shooting, no photon torpedoes, no phaser blasts, no stereotypical bad guy". The result is not only one hell of a fun film, but a truly excellent piece of Trek writing, one which gives even Chekov something of note to do, stays true to every character, achieves emotional poignancy during the scenes with Kirk and Spock awkwardly re-establishing their friendship, and provides a lighthearted plot which nonetheless explores some big ideas (and ideals).

Amongst time travel Trek "The Voyage Home" is definitely bested by "The City on the Edge of Forever", "Yesterday's Enterprise", and "The Visitor" from TOS, TNG, and DS9 respectively, and is probably slightly less fun than DS9's legendary "Trials and Tribble-ations" but overall is an incredibly entertaining, fun time travel story better than any others that I haven't mentioned (including the films "Generations" and "First Contact"). The plot, which sees the crew go back in time to 1986 San Francisco to take humpback whales to the future to repopulate the species and save Earth works much better than you'd expect, but the movie really shines when the crew is in San Francisco in 1986 attempting to get the whales back to the future. Uhura and Chekov's quest for nuclear wessels, Scotty revealing the formula for transparent aluminum to a manufacturer, and especially, especially, Bones' hilarious outrage at the barbaric medical practices of the 20th century during his time at a hospital are a few of the highlights.

The script went through a lot to get to the final draft, but Nimoy stated that Nicholas Meyer gave the script "the kind of humor and social comment, gadfly attitude I very much wanted", so I guess we have Nicholas Meyer to thank once again for a great Trek adventure. You know, they haven't announced a director for the sequel to J.J. Abrams canonical reboot out May 8th yet, it's not too late to ask him to return... Harve Bennett, who had a hand in this entire trilogy (II, III, and IV, together one of the best film trilogies of all time), also deserves credit, and whomever the other writers were I'm sure. Great screenplay brought to life wonderfully well by Leonard Nimoy's direction (he really appears to have grown as a director since "The Search for Spock"), good cinematography, good design work, and superb effects.

Some dismiss "The Voyage Home" as silly and indulgent. I view it as a fantastic piece of violence-free Trek, and after a wildly off-mark attempt at hard sci-fi and two extravagant, though emotionally-grounded space adventures, the film series was wise to finally bring to the big screen what the original television series often did very well: a humorous fish out of water story with great characters, excellent dialogue, and a good overall story.

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984, Leonard Nimoy)

As a direct sequel to the legendary "The Wrath of Khan", "The Search for Spock", though far from the greatness of the preceding film, is more than serviceable, and is overall quite a good emotional story which wraps up the loose ends from "Khan" admirably well, though clumsily on occasion. Oddly enough for a movie called "The Search for Spock", one of the film's biggest problems is a distinct lack of Spock. Without him the chemistry of the TOS crew is hurt quite a bit.

Also, the film does lack its own identity a bit, feeling most often like the direct sequel to "The Wrath of Khan" which it is. This isn't really a problem, it just means that the film holds almost no appeal to those who haven't seen "The Wrath of Khan", and to those of us who have seen "The Wrath of Khan" (and many times), the choice between the two if we only have time to sit down and watch one of them is painfully obvious. It really is mostly a sort of bridge between "The Wrath of Khan" and "The Voyage Home".

The film's greatest flaw is the entire Klingon plot. I was never a big fan of the Klingons which I know I'm in a minority on but here they seemed especially annoying because they are thrown into the mix basically to add conflict and action to something which could have been just a straight character piece. Indeed, the only aspect of "The Search for Spock" aside from reliably good performances from the original cast which is more than merely competent (a description which applies to Nimoy's direction, most of the effects work considering when it was made and the budget, all the supporting cast, the overall story, and several other aspects of the film) is the screenwriter Harve Benett's excellent characterization and the several good character moments sprinkled throughout the film, my favorite being Bones telling a not-yet-fully-restored Spock that he misses him.

The film could have been great if it had stuck to a simple character-based story. Instead the film aims to be, in its relatively short running time, a full-on space opera. The stuff on Genesis and with the Klingons is not really as good as it could've been and the Klingons should probably have been left out altogether but overall the film is a competent, and occasionally excellent, follow-up to "The Wrath of Khan", but it lacks individual identity a bit.

Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan (1982, Nicholas Meyer)

There are many, many films, especially genre films which have great reputations but fail to live up to them on repeat viewings or, sometimes, on first viewings. However, as today's viewing marked the twentieth time I have seen "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan", viewings spread over twenty years from childhood to adulthood, I find myself able to say with an unprecedented level of assurance that "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan" is a film I believe to be truly 'great', not only a personal favorite but one which achieves excellence in so many ways that I find it genuinely hard to believe there are so many people out there who don't love this film. The film gave me goosebumps on this viewing, much like it does every single time I see it, without fail.

The film boasts a brilliantly-written genre screenplay by Jack Sowards and director Nicholas Meyer (the original outline was written by executive producer Harve Bennett, developed into a full script by Sowards, then re-written once more by Meyer, who refused to accept a writing credit), perhaps its greatest strength. While there are 'plot holes' which fans have debated endlessly which I don't even want to mention for fear of them coming up again and a couple of contrivances, overall I find the screenplay to be consistently one of the tightest and most poignant pieces ever written for "Star Trek" in any of its incarnations in film or on TV. The Genesis subplot doesn't seem extraneous to me at all as some people feel, in fact I find much of the emotional poignancy of the film comes from Kirk's relationship with Carol Marcus and from the metaphorical significance of the Genesis project. It's also an important plot point, so I really have to say that considering it a flaw seems more like nitpicking to me than anything.

The script covers a great deal of ground in under two hours. The opening stages are not merely a series of lame excuses to get the original crew back on the Enterprise, but actually contain great character development and insights into their behavior. The introduction of Khan and the principal story of the film is very effectively done, and very efficiently as well. This is a sequel to the famous "Space Seed" episode from the original series, but very quickly yet completely explains the origin of Khan's conflict with Kirk without laborious exposition or a slowing down of the film's extraordinary pace. Once the battle of wits gets going the film is pretty much unstoppable, greatly aided by Meyer's vision of the film as a nautical adventure, resulting in some terrific design and atmosphere (especially remarkable considering many of the sets were cannibalized from sets for the aborted "Star Trek: Phase II" series from the 70's.

Yet with all the action and the military nature of the film (which, at this point, Roddenberry opposed, despite his original pitch for Star Trek containing phrases such as 'Wagon Train to the stars' and despite Kirk being based on Horatio Hornblower) it never loses sight of the core of Star Trek: the camaraderie and terrific character interactions. The actors don't betray the script's greatness in that regard either: Shatner gives a phenomenal, understated, dignified performance as Kirk, and is just devastatingly good in some scenes, with a few bits of overacting here and there but generally he's great. Do I even need to comment on Nimoy's Spock or Kelley's McCoy or any of the rest of the original cast? Nimoy's performance here barely manages to eclipse Shatner's as the film's best. It's just so wonderfully understated and beautiful. Oh, and Montalban as Khan is the epitome of a great scenery-chewing villain, but with an almost unexpected level of emotional gravity. The Melville quotes don't hurt either.

"Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan" seems to me a perfect film. It contains everything which made "Star Trek" work in my estimation, except for the sexiness of the original series, but that omission is suitable considering the story and considering the aged crew. The film is just so exceptionally well-written, well-directed, and flawlessly paced. Fanboyish or not I simply have to say it: Spock's sacrifice is among the greatest cinematic moments of all time, and I always find myself tearing up at the end of this movie. It's not just a great adventure film, but one with truly, truly exceptional writing for the characters and an emotional poignancy and sense of melancholy which still surprises me no matter how many times I see it.

Star Trek (2009, J.J. Abrams)

I'm a fan of "Star Trek", but not obsessive, having read only one "Star Trek" novel, owning no merchandise and only TOS in its entirety on DVD. I abhor "Voyager" but like every other Trek series, including "Enterprise" although nearly all of that show's especially good episodes are in the fourth season. My favorite remains TOS for its unforgettable characters, performances and stories, as well as the sense of camaraderie aboard the Enterprise.

I hope I've established my feelings on Trek (after all there are Trekkers who think "The Motion Picture" is the best Trek film, and a lot of people seem to like "Nemesis") and what I truly value in it. As long as it wasn't overwhelmingly dumb I didn't require any sort of truly thoughtful sci-fi in this film, nor did I expect it. What I desired, what I can say with a deep, deep sigh of relief, I got, is a film brimming with confidence, energy, a sense of adventure, a suitably emotional story for the film's main characters, and, thank heavens, superb characterization.

Using a plot device bring Nero, our Romulan villain played by Eric Bana, and Nimoy's Old Spock into the film, the writers Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman maintain canon. While Trekkers will whinge about many things here no more canon contradiction happens here than in the Trek series following TOS. Instead of merely rebooting the series entirely and creating an entirely separate canon, the writers have fairly deftly worked this film into the existing Star Trek universe. It's an alternate (not mirror) universe story done well. A great deal to enjoy for Trekkers with throwbacks to the originals but there's also a lot to satisfy summer movie-goers. It's a very, very fast-paced film, the action scenes are exhilarating (and you can actually keep track of them), and there's a great deal of humor

It sounds almost unbelievable but they've actually managed to pull it off: they've made a "Star Trek" film which is a Trek film through and through and yet will still draw a bigger audience than any of the previous films, and moreover satisfy that audience. The film has been compared to "Iron Man" in more than one review the similarities are clear. Both films feature excellent dialogue and character interactions, swift, clever characterization, a minimum of laborious exposition, and also have a common flaw: a rushed plot which overall is almost a side plot. The only reboot to truly escape this pitfall thus far is "Casino Royale", which successfully told a very tight story and also consistently developed Bond as a character. Bana is menacing enough and his ship is well-designed but overall he's no Khan or Chang and was much better-written in the Countdown prequel comic than in the film itself. There are also a series of massive contrivances to get everything where it needs to be which will have viewers rolling their eyes, but even these are handled well by the script, which is smooth and fast as opposed to clunky and sterile. Plus, they're necessary for this origin story not to be a typical boring origin story and become what it is.

The partnership of director Abrams and cinematographer Mindel will annoy some people with their deliberate use of lens flares as well as shaky cam in scenes (not in a Greengrass or worse, Peter Berg style, but merely a slightly unstable camera), but overall I found it to be consistently involving and thrilling to watch, with good visual storytelling throughout. I also quite enjoyed the lens flares. It's not quite on par with Nicholas Meyer's attempts for me but still good, and interesting. The score by Michael Giacchino suffers from familiarity and a lack of individual identity, but works well with the film itself.

Chris Pine is absolutely terrific as Kirk, doing so much more than a Shatner impression and creating something of his own character (and it is, after all, an alternate Kirk) while absolutely nailing several of the trademark attitudes and behavior of the Kirk we all know and love. Much more than a pretty face, Pine's in for mega-stardom after this. Quinto's Spock is really quite terrific and much more nuanced than expected, and Spock's emotional story (and backstory) in the film is well-written as is Kirk's (though Spock gets a more emotional and better overall arc for sure). Pegg is fantastic as Scotty, used here mostly as comic relief. Urban's McCoy is the closest to an impersonation but overall just a joy and a pleasure to behold. Cho's alright as Sulu, who doesn't really get much to do (heck, when did he ever?), though Uhura is surprisingly prominent and well-played by Zoe Saldana. Yelchin as Chekhov is the only really problematic casting choice for me, he really overdoes the accent and takes you out of the film a bit. Bruce Greenwood as Pike nails the character and in a crucial role Leonard Nimoy shines yet again as Spock.

Abrams' "Star Trek" isn't quite tight enough and emotional enough to compete with "The Wrath of Khan", isn't as much fun for me as "The Voyage Home", but overall is probably the third best Trek film to date, on par with "The Undiscovered Country". It's a fairly new direction, yet totally faithful to Trek where it needs to be: in spirit. In a world of dreary blockbusters and 'dark' reboots, this Trek, though grittier in terms of design than anything before, shines, from opening to closing, as an example of optimistic, exciting, thrilling, humorous, and thoroughly enjoyable adventure cinema, as well as a great addition to Trek's long, long history.

Johnny Gaddaar (2007, Sriram Raghavan)

I'll just get this out of the way right now because it's the best way to sum up "Johnny Gaddaar" in one sentence: this is the best Tarantino film ever made, with the possible exception of QT's best film "Jackie Brown". That's not to say Sriram Raghavan is necessarily influenced by Tarantino. He might have been, but it's not necessarily an obvious influence. What is clear is that like Tarantino Raghavan is a director heavily influenced by pulpy crime fiction, a director and writer whose inspirations aren't highbrow, and one who isn't afraid to wear his influences on his sleeve. "Johnny Gaddaar" could have been adapted from an Elmore Leonard novel like "Jackie Brown" was, but was inspired more by the significantly lesser but still engaging works of legendary pulp writer James Hadley Chase (who achieved immense popularity in India and Africa), who Raghavan dedicated the film to, along with "Jewel Thief" director Vijay Anand.

While "Jackie Brown" is the only film of Tarantino's which I think is truly exceptional, I imagine I will enjoy Raghavan's other film as much as I did this film when I do see it. That's because Raghavan appears to be a smarter, more creative version of Tarantino, as much as that will seem like blasphemy to 14 year old Americans reading this. The references and homages are all significantly subtler than in most Tarantino films, and when included in dialogue they are worked in far more seamlessly. Moreover, Raghavan never loses sight of the story, something Tarantino frequently does, sadly. He appears to have a far greater grasp of the emotional aspects of his writing and direction as well.

There's no point in attempting to describe this film's fairly complicated plot. It's a pulpy thriller plot with lots of twists and turns, and Raghavan's script is excellent, with solid dialogue (as far as I could tell from the English subtitles anyway), no major plot holes or questionable plot mechanics, and a neat, well thought-out structure. It's hardly original, and I read somewhere that Raghavan publicly acknowledges the heavy influence of one particular James Hadley Chase novel on the film as well as some other things, but it feels fresh, so it doesn't matter. The cinematography and sound mixing are very good, but Raghavan's direction is what interested me most. It definitely is 'stylish' and 'cool', but it's also restrained and again, he never loses sight of the story he's telling, which is essential when it's this sort of twisty pulp tale. Very good editing as well and a cool, understated sophistication and class about the visuals. Raghavan is a master at establishing a sense of setting and creating atmosphere. The original score and couple of original songs (which aren't intrusive musical numbers or anything) also help set the mood.

There is no feeling in the world better than sleepily reading a twisty-turny pulp crime paperback on an overnight train ride. I don't think any movies have emulated that feeling better than "Jackie Brown" and "Johnny Gaddaar". They're both tremendous movies, both extremely well-crafted, smart thrillers which are proud to be pulpy crime stories, have great ensemble casts and well-developed characters as well as a great story. I liked "Johnny Gaddaar" on first viewing but it took another to make me realize just how brilliant it is.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979, Robert Wise)

One thing that's nice about the original "Star Trek" television series is that it was almost never really dull. There were some awful episodes, there were some that are just annoying, in spite of good ideas and decent writing ("Miri", which I recently rewatched, comes to mind), but it was almost always entertaining at least, something which I can't say about "The Next Generation", unfortunately.

However, in spite of the brilliant effects, music, and design work, "Star Trek: The Motionless Picture" lives up to its title, remaining a lifeless, embalmed, almost unbelievably dull story for its entirety. Also, it's really not as intelligent or sophisticated as some of its fans like to claim. Directed by Robert Wise, who made several of my favorite films, this film fails on every level in terms of storytelling, and in its attempts to be a genuine science fiction epic falls flat throughout.

The acting is really not good at all, and what is most disappointing about "The Motionless Picture" is that it fails to capitalize on the most charming aspect of the original "Star Trek" (and the later series as well, other than "Voyager" in which it wasn't present): the dynamic between the characters. "Star Trek" may have explored concepts, but it's only rarely that it achieved true greatness in that field. Its success was based on well-written stories and great, rich characters and a successful dynamic between them. "The Motionless Picture" has none of that. How sad it is that I'd rather watch "The Way to Eden" than suffer through this again.