Events

Search
Kicking the Tweets
Monday
Aug152011

Final Destination 5 (2011)

Rinse, Repeat.

The first hour of Final Destination 5 is noteworthy only for the spectacularly weird and cool opening credits sequence, in which all of the series' best instruments of destruction fly out of the screen. They shatter plate-glass walls to the sounds of an eerie but catchy techno score, and the whole thing is presented in choppy, almost washed-out montages--as if simultaneously one-upping and improving upon the beginning of the early Friday the 13th films.

Similar to that series, whose fourth installment was called "The Final Chapter", the Final Destination films presumably ended with The Final Destination. Instead of tacking on a "New Beginning" sub-title to the follow-up, the producers have simply slapped a "5" on the poster and moved on to butchering another group of hapless American Eagle models.

I won't get too far into the movie's mechanics because if you've seen the original, you've seen parts three, four, and five already--even if you don't know it (the second one is a true sequel, story-wise, and doesn't feel like a cash-in; though I'm sure it is). All you need to know is that the Big Disaster in this one happens on a bridge. A guy named Sam (Nicholas D'Agosto) has a premonition that the bridge his company bus is crossing will collapse, killing most of his co-workers and then himself. He comes to just before the accident and manages to save his friends' lives.

Within days, though, the survivors start dying off mysteriously, in the order in which they would have died in the collapse. Typically, this is something that the characters have to figure out for themselves in these movies, but Tony Todd, playing a mysterious undertaker, speeds matters up by just coming out with the information--along with the helpful nugget that the kids can spare each of their own lives if someone dies in their place. I've been waiting to see this idea explored for five years, so it was a nice surprise to see the last half-hour devoted to something other than fake suspense and bad CG gore.

I'd like to take a moment to congratulate Tony Todd on being one of the five luckiest people in show-business. Like Survivor host Jeff Probst, his only responsibilities in the Final Destination series involve tweaking the same ominous speech and stepping out from behind things with a steely, bad-ass look in his eyes. Bravo, Sir. Bravo.

So, yes, that last thirty minutes: Sam's best friend, Peter (Miles Fisher), interrupts a romantic evening between Sam and his girlfriend, Molly (Emma Bell). He's shaking and sweaty, and really nervous because, it turns out, he's decided to swap Molly's life for his own. This leads to an almost-satisfying game of hide-and-seek in the kitchen of a French restaurant, where Fisher tries really hard to perfect his Angry Tom Cruise impression. As happens in these movies, the spectre of Death hovers nearby, using both nature and coincidence to set lethal traps for the characters. What's interesting here is that we're never sure if Death will get its way through the gun heating up on the stove or through the actions of the desperate, homicidal kids throwing themselves around the cutlery.

I won't spoil what happens because writer Eric Heisserer nearly pulls off an amazing feat: turning a stale formula on its head with a really cute idea (Hint: He leaves Final Destination 5 open for a sequel, but not for Final Destination 6). The big problem is that this movie is packed with "almosts", most of whose problems come down to pacing. Director Steven Quale lacks any sense of timing and an eye for suspense. He ruins Heisserer's Twisted, Gruesome Death setups before they've even happened, which takes a special kind of cluelessness.

For example, one of the doomed characters is a gymnast. As she warms up for a beam performance, we see the twin overhead AC fans shake violently, causing one of the screws in the vent to come loose; the screw lands on the beam, and the girl skips and twirls around it repeatedly, obliviously; there's also a frayed electrical cord on the floor, which is dangerously close to some dripping water. We bounce back and forth between these perils for minutes--yes, minutes--before she's finally killed off using a bit of misdirection that might have been nifty had everything else not been so drawn out.

Throughout Final Destination 5, we're inundated with scenes of Death covering its bases (and why wouldn't it, with its lousy track record?). That sounds cool on paper, but in the theatre it feels like padding. The filmmakers spend such a disproportionate amount of time on cruelly disposing of the characters that every broken limb and splattered noggin is a reminder of how little time was devoted to building an interesting script. A better movie might have foregone all of the coincidental deaths and staged a Battle Royale-style kill-a-thon in which every character acted as an agent of Death. But the series' mythology is so stale that even this film's perfect, creepy ending scene is ruined by five gratuitous minutes of fake blood and peril.

Despite the cool twist, there's nothing to recommend here unless you just get off on watching characters die in ways you're too simple to imagine.

Okay, there's a minor saving grace: Dave Koechner plays a middle-manager at the paper company whose bus falls off the bridge. He's so pompously goofy that he might as well be in another movie. But don't hop in the car just yet, kids. I'm sure all of his scenes will be cut together in a YouTube clip before this baby hits home video.

I appreciate Heisserer's attempt to change things up, but he just doesn't go far enough. His lack of confidence and originality (combined with Quale's errant belief that CG effects are a toolbox instead of a tool) amounts to little more than a slick, sick highlight reel with a decent surprise accidentally spliced in.

Sunday
Aug142011

Crazy Stupid Love (2011)

Love Kills

Crazy, Stupid, Love. should have come out in the fall. This complex dramedy features at least one Oscar-worthy performance and a screenplay that's twelve times smarter than the one being sold in the trailers. But because the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences seems to believe that there are only three months in the movie-watching year--and because Hollywood seems incapable of challenging this notion--I fear this terrific little film will be overlooked in favor of more obvious contenders.

That first problem leads to a second one, also illustrated here: When faced with special projects that don't fit neatly into the five molds marketing departments use to package movies, most studios freeze. There's no indication in the promotional materials that Crazy, Stupid, Love. is anything more than date-night junk food for settled, suburban white people. The poster features a take-off on The Graduate's famous seduction still, along with generic frames of the lead actors smiling or looking appropriately pensive in a perfectly horizontal line of boxes at the bottom--all meant to draw fans of Young Hollywood, Middle-aged-But-Hot-Hollywood, and Kevin Bacon.

But if you've avoided this film because you think it's about Steve Carrell playing his fourth big-screen variation on his Michael Scott character from The Office while getting love tips from a studly, young lothario so that he can win back his ex-wife--well, you're right...and totally wrong. Co-writers/directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa play around with the high-concept premise for awhile, before opening up these characters' worlds to reveal a whole cast of secondary players whose storylines comprise roughly half the movie. Like Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Crazy, Stupid, Love. takes a small word with huge implications ("family" in that movie, "love" in this one) and explores it through several different kinds of relationships; rarely taking the easy or expected path in doing so.

I'm being deliberately oblique here because at least half of this film's magic comes from the joy of discovery. I will say that Ryan Gosling, as dapper womanizer Jacob, continues his streak of what should be break-out roles. He's so charming, sincere, and funny that it's easy to forget the guy's a scumbag; Gosling, in effect seduces the audience using the same tactics his character employs at the bar he frequents. Fortunately, he's not called upon to have a teary-eyed softening at the end of the picture; a girl named Hannah (Emma Stone) finds his heart and then steals it, but Jacob is still kind of a super-cool jerk when the credits roll.

I would also like to come out as a huge fan of Analeigh Tipton, who plays Jessica, the babysitter for Carrell and Julianne Moore's Cal and Emily Weaver. She has a crush on Cal, and uses the couple's impending divorce as an opportunity to let her feelings show. But again, the creators toy with our expectations: Jessica is not a confident sexpot; she's an awkward high school girl who cares deeply about the Weavers and wrestles with her feelings for a guy who's not just old enough to be her dad, but who is also one of her dad's best friends. Watching Tipton on-screen last night, I got that feeling directors and producers used to describe--of discovering a star, of being in on the ground floor of a bright and promising career (you don't hear people talk about that much anymore, which is sad).

(Almost as impressive is Jonah Bobo as the Weavers' son, Robbie, who reminded me of Patrick Fugit's character in Almost Famous: a lovelorn spectator in a world of mixed-up adults.)

I could go on about the rest of the cast, but I don't need to. It's weird to say, but when you cast certain actors in a film, the default expectation is "Excellent", and that's true here. Even Carrell is great, but I'm pretty sure this is the last of these kinds of films I'm going to let him get away with. There's definitely a lot of late-career Michael Scott in Cal Weaver, which, in some ways, helps make Crazy, Stupid, Love. a mash-up of American Beauty and Date Night. I would love to see Carrell do something different as a performer, instead of signing up to play a tweaked iteration of an archetype he's already perfected.

Perhaps my biggest surprise is that this movie was made by the same people who gave us last year's awful I Love You Phillip Morris. The broad strokes that made it unbearable are evident in Crazy, Stupid, Love., but Ficarra and Requa look to have matured several decades in their understanding of human relationships and tragi-comic filmmaking. Their latest picture isn't perfect (the sub-plot involving Marisa Tomei as Cal's first bar conquest is both wholly unnecessary and upsets the rhythm of a Keyser Soze-level climax-twist; trimming this vestigial tail would have knocked the run-time down to a more manageable level and lessened the blow of the film's Lord of the Rings-style multiple endings ), but it has heart, brains, and insight that Phillip Morris absolutely did not.

Maybe Warner Brothers felt they had a great, mold-breaking film for adults on their hands, but were afraid a fall release would prevent them from recouping the truckloads of money they'd invested on star-power. I can see how putting this kind of movie in theatres at this time of year is a brilliant strategy: There are lots of people who want to go to the movies during the summer, but who don't give a shit about CGI robots or drunk pirates. But by packaging Crazy, Stupid, Love. as alternative summer escapism, the studio has, I think sold one of the year's gems far short--I just hope I'm wrong on this one, and that the movie finds both the audience and acclaim it deserves.

I laughed hard and cried almost as hard at this movie. If that's not the kind of art that warrants recognition from a body of supposedly serious film lovers, I don't know what is.

Saturday
Aug132011

Thriller: A Cruel Picture (1974)

Mute Court

As rape/revenge movies go, Thriller: A Cruel Picture is pretty fantastic.

Sorry, I've always wanted to lead off a review with poster-ready hyperbole. The endorsement stands, though, as Thriller (more popularly known as They Call Her One Eye), is a surprisingly inventive and satisfying drama. Whereas most exploitation films are just boundaries-pushing calling cards, writer/director Bo Arne Vibenius uses hard-core sex and violence as window dressing for a challenging story about humiliation and humanity.

Christina Lindberg stars as Frigga, a Swedish farm girl who was rendered mute as a child following a sexual assault in the woods. Her parents send her to weekly therapy sessions in the hopes of one day restoring her speech. One afternoon, she misses the bus into town and hitches a ride with a slick stranger named Tony (Heinz Hopf). They drive into town and he convinces Frigga to have dinner with him instead of making her appointment.

Following an expensive meal, the two stop by Tony's place for a drink. He drugs her wine and pays a doctor-for-hire to inject her with high-grade heroin. Days later, Frigga wakes up to find that she's been inducted into a sex-slave ring. The charming Tony has morphed into a monstrous pimp who's forged a hateful runaway letter to Frigga's parents to cover up her disappearance. He threatens to cut off her supply of smack if she doesn't do whatever (and whomever) he says.

Frigga tries to fight back, but is overpowered and pumped full of more drugs. She viciously claws the face of her first client, prompting Tony to lay down the law by removing her left eye with a scalpel. Sporting an eye patch and a blank expression, she begins her new career as a six-days-a-week prostitute, submitting to the perverse demands of men and women alike. Frigga has Sundays free to do as she pleases, though the lure of drugs keeps her on as tight a leash as an electronic ankle bracelet.

A fellow captive named Sally (Solveig Andersson) tells Frigga about a clinic that helps people get off drugs; she's been offering her clients off-the-menu sexual favors and saving up extra cash in order to escape one day. Frigga takes this idea and puts it to better use: On Sundays, she takes her spare cash to a weapons expert, a driving instructor, a martial arts dojo, and a military academy. After several months, she embarks on a murder spree, visiting as many of her clients as she can find and then setting her sites on Tony and the upper echelon of his organization.

It's sad to say, but by today's torture-porn standards, the sex and violence in Thriller is practically PG-13. When Frigga blows holes in people with her sawed-off shotgun, squibs erupt beneath shirts like an invisible hand crushing tomatoes, but Vibenius doesn't fetishize gore. Instead, he creates beautifully twisted slow-motion ballets with the help of cinematographer Andreas Bellis and composer Ralph Lundsten. It's a bit distracting at first, as the movement slows so significantly as to make all of the characters look ridiculous while running away or falling to the floor. But the pace and eerie, pounding music elicit a feeling that is, I imagine, similar to what many trauma victims describe: horrific moments take their sweet time in registering as seconds tick by like hours.

The culmination of this amazing effect is Frigga's encounter with two policemen. Though not technically villains, Frigga sees them as obstacles on her quest for justice and beats the hell out of them with a series of beautiful chops and kicks to the face. This fight takes place in a dark warehouse; with Frigga's all-black outfit and the cops' dark uniforms, the scene relies purely on hints of light, shadow and movement to fill us in on the gruesome details. Twice, we see magnificent slow-mo blood geysers shooting out of the officers' mouths, and the arcs are so perfect that it's incredible to think they weren't digitally enhanced.

Thriller's artistry is great, but Lindberg makes the picture unforgettable. Though her face rarely registers anything but concentration and occasional contempt, her body language speaks to the bottled up rage and sadness that can only be exorcised through terrible actions. Frigga becomes a sort of Zen Terminator throughout the movie, and as she pushes further into her plan of damning atrocities, Lindberg appears to grow younger and younger--to the point where, at times, I had to remind myself that I wasn't watching a twelve-year-old girl blowing holes in people. I don't know if it was deliberate, but the effect adds an unexpected layer to the revenge plot; it's as if the scarred inner child has literally broken through the prostitute's hardened shell to join forces with the Devil.

It's easy to see why Quentin Tarantino loves this movie so much. He cites it as not only one of the roughest pictures he's ever seen, but also as an inspiration for Kill Bill. In his own way, Vibenius made a Tarantino film before Tarantino did: Thriller's heavy themes are filtered through a mash-up of violence, warped sexuality and humor that, while often disgusting, are made palatable by fascinating characters and a filmmaking style that makes art out of schlock.

Friday
Aug122011

30 Minutes or Less (2011)

It's All in the Delivery

The trailer for Ruben Fleischer's 30 Minutes or Less is terrible. There's nothing about it to suggest that the movie is anything more than another misstep in this summer's laugh-free, R-rated comedy slog. Sure, it promises more action than Bridesmaids or Bad Teacher, but the jokes are as desperate as a three-year-old shouting "Penis!" at the dinner table. I attended an advanced screening last night, and today I have a message for the Columbia Pictures marketing department: You've got exactly five weeks to get your act together. I don't care how hard it is to re-cut that trailer without giving everything away or butting heads with the censors, but you're in danger of under-selling one of the best comedies in recent years.

The film stars Jesse Eisenberg as Nick, a directionless pizza-delivery boy whose only friend is Chet (Aziz Ansari), a substitute teacher who sees his new job at a Grand Rapids middle school as the pinnacle of slacker success. They've been best friends since childhood, just like Dwayne (Danny McBride) and Travis (Nick Swardson), a pair of dumb thugs who live across town. Dwayne's lottery-winning, Marine Corps-vet dad (Fred Ward) is sitting on a million-dollar fortune, and his idiot son hatches a murder plot that indirectly involves taking Nick hostage and strapping a bomb to his chest.

Most of 30 Minutes or Less takes place during the ten hours Nick has ticking down on his Red Digital Readout. Over the course of this crazy day, he will rope Chet into helping him rob a bank, profess his love for Chet's sister, Kate (Dilshad Vadsaria), steal a car, get into several high-speed chases, and take on a recently paroled gangster named Chango (Michael Peña)--who's also after a cut of Dwayne's family fortune.

To give any more away would be to spoil one of the tightest, most plot- and character-heavy 86-minute movies I've ever seen. There's so much going on here, often at a very frenetic pace, that one could easily mistake this as a two-and-a-half-hour action epic. Which isn't to say that it drags. First-time screenwriter Michael Diliberti masters the roller-coaster rhythms of the classic buddy-action-comedies that his characters love to reference--in addition to seasoning the material with some genuinely frightening and intense moments. I marveled at the delicacy with which Diliberti and Fleischer seamlessly made their ridiculously pompous criminals into menacing figures; they capture the tragi-comic danger of the frustrated-idiot archetype as definitively as Quentin Tarantino or the Coen Brothers.

In addition to a marvelous script, 30 Minutes or Less boasts a surprisingly effective cast. I can't tell if Eisenberg is channeling a less-ambitious version of his Social Network persona, or if I just missed something in Adventureland and Zombieland; whatever the case, his Nick is note-perfect in his disillusioned self-absorption; over the course of the movie, it matures into selflessness--if not a desire to actually do something with his life. Ansari makes a great comic sidekick; a manic ball of paranoid energy, he never lets Nick forget that he's wearing a bomb of questionable stability. Though he teeters on the edge of being Screaming Guy, his chemistry with Eisenberg is undeniable; the actors balance each other out, and make for a classic comedy duo.

Note: When people use the word "classic" to describe a movie or an aspect of a movie, it's typically lazy shorthand meaning, "this is a direct rip-off of something you've already seen and probably cherish". My intent in using it here is to denote a pairing that I hope will be remembered as being as great as Murphy and Nolte or Gibson and Glover; but which is its own, unique thing.

As criminals who aspire to ruthlessness but often succumb to guilt and stupidity, McBride and Swardson have never been better. Again, I believe most of this goes back to the writing. McBride plays yet another variation on his egomaniacal asshole character, but Dwayne doesn't live to smoke pot or make jokes about getting laid. He's got ambitions in life, but is only willing to take a homicidal shortcut to achieve them. Swardson's Travis is just an odd dude; with a bloated face that looks like it's ever-melting into a tattered collar and a dead-house-centipede moustache, the actor is the embodiment of humiliation. He's Dwayne's lapdog, but also his wimpy conscience; fortunately, there's no grand, defiant moment at the end of the film to drag the story into cliche. Travis is a bitch, through and through, and is mostly happy just to be walked by his master.

I'd be remiss in not giving a shout-out to Peña, who, of all the characters in the film, best represents what Diliberti and Fleischer are trying to do here. Chango comes onto the scene looking like a tattooed brick wall, an indomitable force that can't be reasoned with; but when he opens his mouth, we get a slightly fey, mumbling style of speech that belies everything we think we know about him; on the third side of this coin is the mind behind the voice and the body, which is focused and heartless. All of these aspects come out in 30 Minutes or Less, keeping the audience on its toes whenever Chango pulls up in his lowrider.

Ultimately, what sets this film apart from the season's other allegedly edgy R-rated comedies is a willingness to explore its premise to the fullest. Bridesmaids claimed to be about strong female bonds, but wound up being an over-long sketch-fest that had less insight than the worst episode of Gilmore Girls. Bad Teacher was so very naughty in its Daisy-Dukes car wash scene, but it existed in a purpose vaccuum--saying nothing about the state of our educational system, human relationships, or even American comedy (except, maybe, that peoples' bar for raunch has been lowered to an "Oh no she di'n'!" level of cheapness).

30 Minutes or Less touches on themes of friendship, betrayal, forgiveness, family, the down economy, and the folly of pop-culture as a substitute for education--all in the guise of a freewheeling pseudo-heist comedy. The film is so sharp and well-observed that maybe it's impossible to cram its essence into a thirty-second TV commercial or two-minute theatrical trailer. As it stands, the movie looks like every other late-summer stab at easy laughs. But you should definitely see this when it hits theatres next month; not only to revel in the discovery of a very funny, very talented new screenwriter, but also to support smart comedies. This is a special film, unlike ninety-nine percent of the market-flooding summer garbage, which should be trimmed to thirty minutes and then given away for free.

Note: At a post-screening Q&A with stars Eisenberg and Ansari, moderated by Steve Prokopy ("Capone" of Ain't it Cool News), I was again reminded of how few people actually know how to participate in a proper movie discussion. For starters, kids, don't ask any question you may have seen posed to a celebrity during the Access Hollywood leg of a press junket. Though you may think you're giving Eisenberg food for thought by inquiring as to how heavy the bomb vest was, or if he an Ansari could think of any bad jobs they might have had before becoming famous, you might as well be asking what their favorite color is, or what they had for lunch.

Also, most people are aware of the real-life tragedy that may or may not have inspired 30 Minutes or Less. If you honestly want to bring a lighthearted, post-screening discussion to a grinding halt and elicit groans amidst the awkward silence, at least do so at an event where the director or screenwriter are present. Two people made passive-aggressive jabs at Eisenberg and Ansari, and it's a credit to Prokopy that he was able to save the conversation by demanding that the next question not be "about real-life death".

Today's lesson: Pick your battles, and realize that your hard-hitting questions are just hipster douche-baggery in disguise.

Thursday
Aug112011

Trekkies 2 (2004)

The Rapt of Cons

Confronted by their true selves, most men run away screaming!

--Engywook, The NeverEnding Story

I love Roger Nygard's 1997 documentary, Trekkies, which offered a peek at the lives of die-hard Star Trek fans. Sure, they were presented as rubber-ears-wearing, socially awkward freaks who can likely rattle off the thread count in William Shatner's various Starfleet uniforms, but they also came off as incredibly smart, creative, and kind--living the ethos of the TV universe they grew up with. Trekkies captured convention culture and pop obsession well, and I never got the feeling that Nygard or the film's host, former Next Generation actress Denise Crosby, were making fun of their subjects (okay, maybe there was some playful ribbing, but nothing mean).

Trekkies 2 is at the same time a much weaker film and a more thought-provoking one. I use the term "weaker" lightly because it's essentially the same movie: though Nygard and Crosby present it as a look at global Trek fandom, we spend so much time in America that the international stuff might as well have been a DVD extra. We also learn that, for better or worse, Trekkies/Trekkers in England and Bosnia are pretty much the same as the ones in California or Minnesota.

What's interesting about the sequel is that many interviewees treat it as a chance to enumerate the problems started in the fan community after Trekkies' release. There's an ugly, defensive quality to some of the people featured here that colored my opinions of everyone else who appears on camera.

Full disclosure: I used to collect comic books and go to comic book conventions. Now, I collect movie posters and attend horror conventions where I get them signed by actors, directors, and the like. So, I'm no stranger to the Own Little World mindset. But I've never dressed up as Jason Voorhees to go grocery shopping; nor would I try to convince someone that such an activity shouldn't be frowned upon by "boring, normal" people.

But you'll find a lot of that deluded talk, mostly from Americans, in Trekkies 2 (strangely, the Europeans don't seem to care for Spocking it up outside the confines of a convention hall or their Enterprise-bridge-inspired, custom-designed living rooms--in fairness, I don't recall the subject coming up). There's a defiant, "What is Normal?" attitude that pervades the movie, which would have benefited from either balance or commentary.

For example, we revisit Barbara Adams, a copy-shop employee who gained notoriety in the 90s for wearing her Starfleet uniform while sitting on the Whitewater jury. In the first movie, she was a quirky but self-serious promoter of 23rd Century values. Here, the endearing, outgoing personality is tainted by defensive bitterness. Adams must contend not only with "regular" folks, but also with fans who believes she represents fandom gone too far; in some ways, Adams helped reinforce the general public's perception of geeks as hopeless, overgrown children. Her resentment is both palpable and, I believe, unfounded.

As pointed out by others in the film, people who wear sports jerseys or cowboy hats don't generally turn heads; but showing up at the gym wearing a communicator pin or Borg cables is likely to attract titters and stink-eyes. The difference is that the former mode of dress has become socially acceptable thanks to history and widespread cultural saturation--something that Trekkies/Trekkers desperately want, even if most of them claim to not care what other people think of them.

For me, the challenge was acknowledging that the Star Trek fans are technically right, while also beating back the urge to call them annoying nerds (as I pretty much did at the beginning of this review). It might have helped if Nygard had brought in psychologists or behavioral experts to examine the impulses that cause some people to go so deliberately and publicly against the grain; or, at the very least, to talk about the nature of obsession. One of the complaints about the original Trekkies is that it focused on extreme fans and didn't profile more casual convention-goers with seemingly balanced lives. The same holds true here, and without the benefit of analysis, it's just a freak show.

That's the second time I've used the word "freak", and I don't mean to be derogatory. But there's something decidedly abnormal about a guy whose Trek obsessions have caused him to lose his money, job and girlfriend--all in the name of building a starship bridge in his garage for his son's amateur film. While it's true that in a free society, free people can do pretty much whatever they want to do, sometimes people do really stupid, dangerous things that aren't okay. And by presenting examples like these alongside regular convention footage, Nygard implies a lack of gradation in fandom (a handful of two-second talking-head shots of fans dissing "extreme fans" doesn't count as balance).

There's also a troubling suggestion that dressing in Trek gear makes artist-fans immune from criticism: the film introduces us to several Trek-themed rock bands, whose quality ranges from Passable for a Junior High Garage Quartet to Screeching Showboaters Who Have No Business Being On Stage. And I think Nygard missed a great opportunity to explore the weird nerd narcissism that permeates geek culture. Individually, many of the people depicted here are unkempt, strange-looking and uncomfortable creatures with pale skin and hyper-active sweat glands (before they put on the costumes); but collectively, they gain confidence and a sense of superiority over the outsiders who "just don't get it"--or, more to the point, aren't special enough to "get it".

Though Trekkies 2 is more of the same, that "same" is pretty damned interesting. I love the guy who modeled his whole apartment after the Enterprise, and the kid who turned his love of Trek into a passion for creating CGI mini-movies (his dad is the one who lost everything to help him out, which is both touching and profoundly messed up). I just wish that, for his second film on the subject, Nygard would have broadened his scope, and not just geographically. I welcome a serious look at fandom, one not necessarily limited to the universe Gene Roddenberry created. For now, I'm left with one movie that's fascinating in its introduction to a sizable but not-widely-appreciated community and a follow-up that suggests there's more going on in that community than just people wearing funny costumes. But it's a timid suggestion at best, and I'm waiting for a pioneer to boldly go where Nygard has never gone before.