I haven’t been to the number of movies in the last two years that is remotely close to the previous years.

From 1999 to 2006, I easily averaged one movie a month in the theater and one movie a week in rentals. That’s roughly 64 movies per year for seven years.  That places the total around 448.  Keep in mind that the previous numbers are averages.  There were times that I would go to the movies up to once a week and with Netflix and Blockbuster, I may have seen up to ten movies in a single week.  So the total of 448 is probably.  Yes, that’s a lot.

Given that the typical movie is around two hours long, that’s a total of 896 hours that I’ve spent watching movies.  You know where I am going next with this.  That means, if I were to watch all of those movies again, continuously, from start to finish, it would take more than 37 days.  No sleeping, no pausing, no bathroom breaks. 

What’s the point of this exercise?  I don’t remember.  But it’s interesting.  Oh, right, now I remember. 

I haven’t been to the number of movies in the last couple of years as I had been to in previous years.

So, when I went to two movies in a single weekend, it was a welcome return to bad habits.

Star Trek

I had been urged by some -ahem- people to see the new Star Trek reboot and I was purposefully avoiding it.  But, with persistence, I relented and headed out; my expectations were remarkably low.

Courtesy Paramount

Wrong yet again.  There is nothing that I like more than to have my preconceptions absolutely crushed when it comes to movies.  I knew that it would be a spectacular visual display, but I expected it would be cheesy, imitative, and unnecessary.  Also, I’m anxious to enter into a theater where J.J. Abrams has control.  He can’t ever seem to hold a camera steady and it makes me tired and nearly sick.  I was happy to see that he used a tripod for nearly the whole thing.

Star Trek worked.  It was a great re-imagining of the original series and original cast films.  I won’t give anything away here, so I will end by remarking that it was a blast of a film to see, but really good too.  Not Oscar-worthy, sure, but really, really good still.  My suggestion is that if you are going to see this one that you see it on the big screen.

Terminator Salvation

Like Star Trek, I wasn’t actually all that eager to see the new Terminator.  But, I was more aware of how I expected to respond to its viewing than I was of Star Trek.  It turns out that my initial assessment was about right, with the exception that I liked it a bit more than anticipated.

Courtesy Warner Bros

The first Terminator is a fantastic exploration of a future conflict.  It’s real (ish) and human and complete.  The remake is fun as hell, but doesn’t make a lot of sense.  It’s really the first movie of the Terminator franchise.  The first film was a work of art that exists separate of the current storyline, but serves as a reference point for character mythology too.

The third Terminator movie is not as sharp as the second, and the “talk to the hand” incident aside, is also a fun ride that I don’t mind watching from time to time.  This is about what I expected out of Terminator Salvation.

I figured that it would not make a whole lot of logical sense in terms of the rules that first movie and hell, that even the subsequent movies established, but that  it would nonetheless be a fun flick.

Christian Bale is about 60-40 with script selection - which isn’t bad for actors, and he is known to accept more risk for interesting characters - so I was more reasonably certain because of this that my assumptions would hold.  Lo and behold, they did.

Sam Worthington is the breakout star for sure and you can count on seeing him in lots more stuff to come.  But another actor that I was impressed with is Anton Yeltin, aka Charlie Bartlett, who incidentally was featured prominently in Star Trek as Chekov.  He did well with both.

A friend commented, and he was probably quoting Ebert or Roeper, that this film did not following the “Cyborg + Search and Destroy” plot of the previous movies, which I found amusing, and true.  It instead focused more on the character of John Connor, played by Bale, and a new plot device, played by Worthington.

All in all, it was fun.  Star Trek was a better experience, but I’m sad to say that I will most likely watch Terminator more in the future than the other.  Don’t know why, it just is.

Fork and Screen

The other thing that I wanted to mention was that I had the good fortune of experiencing AMC Theater’s  “Fork & Screen”.  In our hometown megaplex, an entire wing is dedicated to the restaurant/theater experience that Fork & Screen offers.

I had absolutely no intention of ever trying the combination, but the Fates intervened and a ticket mishap later saw for sure that I would try it after all.  The Fork & Screen combines eating with movie-watching.  Novel, I know.  It is more expensive per ticket, but part of that initial price is used as a voucher for food or drink - which I typically get anyway.

The seats are big and comfortable, the theaters less crowded, and the free refill on the soda, with service staff, helps justify the four dollar Coke.  The food is so-so, but worth it to me not to have to find parking or fight the crowd at a restaurant in addition to fighting same the theater.

The total cost is about on par with what you would spend on a sit-down dinner and a movie–maybe even a little less.  Plus, like I mentioned, you don’t have to hassle with seating and parking at another location.  Also, you don’t have to worry about timing everything just right so that you don’t miss the movie but also don’t get there too early either.  So, it’s a time, gas, money, and hassle saver.

Overall, it is a wonderful experience that I suggest all fellow lazy movie goers try at least once if it’s available in their area.