DVD Double Feature: Star Trek and Alice in Wonderland

This summer, the missus and I have rediscovered the quaint leisure pastime known as "watching movies on DVD." Recently we saw one big thumbs up and one big "ehhh...."

The disappointment is Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland." Well, the official title is probably My father is a wise man, and he once shared the sage observation that were Mr. Burton to exercise his bowels in a typical fashion, i.e, in the proper receptacle and venue for such a bodily function, then film said activity, that my father himself would gladly view the resulting product were it to be exhibited in a movie theater.

(OK, I tried to write that all fancy-like in the hopes it would sound more sage than it really is.)

Yet my father has not yet seen "Alice in Wonderland," and while I am sure circumstance is the biggest culprit, I wonder if on some level he knows that it ain't one of Burton's best. I usually enjoy the director's output (his MOVIES, that is) quite a bit, often much more than the average guy if a bit less than my dad, but "Alice" just doesn't cut it.

My wife and I were a little tired after a long day of parenting and whatnot, so maybe that had something to do with our experience, but we just never got "into" the movie. There are all sorts of weird touches and visuals and scenes in the film, but there is no solid entryway for us as viewers to immerse ourselves in the story. The bells and whistles feel like distractions meant to cover for the lack of a solid plot.

"Alice" is the first movie in some time where Johnny Depp's Depp-ness feels more like a gimmick than an effective performance. Perhaps it, along with elements such as the typically elaborate Burtonian set design, worked best as spectacle on the big screen. At home, however, "Alice in Wonderland" was just a blah kind of DVD screening.

J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" reboot, on the other hand, excited me enough to keep me in its grip even after another long day of parenting and whatnot. I was prepared to hate it, too. Oh, how I was prepared to hate it. I usually dislike anything "Star Trek" not featuring the old-school original cast, for one thing, and I am not a big fan of Abrams' past work, for another.

Somehow, the combination works for me in this instance, and Mrs. Shark likes the movie, too, though maybe not as much. I'd call it one of our most successful recent movie rentals.

"Star Trek" is a great adventure movie, and that's all it needs to be. I still think maybe some circles overpraised it a bit when it came out, or at least tried too hard to find some greater meanings that weren't there--remember when this was touted as a possible Best Picture choice? But "Trek" is really good at delivering action, and all different types of action, too. I enjoyed the variety of battle scenes, such as spaceship battle, shootouts with weapons, and good, old-fashioned hand-to-hand combat. The action is generally shot well, too, so we can see what's going on and what's about to happen when necessary. This is a basic element of filmmaking that too many directors and editors can't seem to handle, but this "Trek" crew satisfies.

Still, there are enough character moments and emotional scenes to make this more than JUST an action-oriented blockbuster, and the story, while a bit confusing at times, is enough to move things along. Hmm, maybe that Oscar talk wasn't so off base after all.

Most importantly, this movie FEELS like Star Trek. There are a few ridiculous moments that should have been excised long before the final product hit theaters--I'm thinking in particular of one embarrassing sequence with Young Kirk that blares "Sabotage" by the Beastie Boys while the future captain is speeding. Yeah, we get it, he's cool and he's a rebel. But most of the character stuff is not so forced, and it's fun to see the origins of the "Enterprise" crew. The crew itself is well casted and solid in filling the iconic roles.

This "Trek" does something clever in an effort to--well, not appease everyone, exactly, but maybe not drive hardcore fans up a wall. Through a plot involving time travel as an essential component, Abrams and his creative collaborators have in effect created a new universe based on the familiar characters like Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Of course, anytime you throw time travel into the mix, you're gonna end up with as many plot holes, or at least head-scratching aspects, as you are wormholes, but this gimmick doesn't hurt the film or the franchise (after all, I think every other episode of the original show had the crew flying back to some century or other) and in fact it's a good way to establish, "We're gonna make new movies with these guys, but we don't want to change anything you've already seen and enjoyed."

I think the best thing I can say about "Star Trek" other than that I had a great time watching it is that I will gladly see those new movies. The cast is fine, the template is there, and I'll see any sequels these folks want to make.