I haven't heard of it either. Instead, I went to see a blatantly commercial film, Oz: The Great and Powerful. The drawback for me was James Franco in the title role. For most of the movie the character Oz is a jerk, but I kept thinking of what a good actor could do with the role. There are good things in the movie and it is visually appealing, but on the whole I was underwhelmed.

As one (I believe Jon is another) "Oz purist" I am not sure I want to see this "prequal" that doesn't really derive from Baum's original concept...any more than "Wicked" did, I seriously doubt that I'll be seeing it...

Thanks for the heads up, Lorna...

Don't believe that "best movie of the year" guff in the Oblivion promos. It's slow and derivative and hugely disappointing. Just a scrapbook of SF tropes...nothing original at all.

I'd like to second that. Bits of Star Wars, cyberpunk, Space Odyssey, cloning, etc. Tom Cruise is finally beginning to show his age, but he performed as well as the role would allow him to. Save your money.

Did he run?

Ha, yes. Briefly, and not as fast as usual, but he was running on sand.

Barbara, what was cyberpunkish in Oblivion?

Oh, mostly the presence of high-tech in the midst of decay -- or in this case, devastation. Some of the imagery (glass, sharp angles), but not much. Nothing of the cyperpunk viewpoint or density of language. Surface borrowings.

Star Trek into Darkness just opened, and it's a lot better than the first revisionist movie. The title is misleading, because it's not a dark movie at all. It's fun, from beginning to end, just what ST ought to be. For people not ST fans, the movie will work as an energetic action flick. But for those who are fans, Star Trek into Darkness is just filled with special treats. I won't say any more because I don't want to spoil it.

Yes, it's impossible to talk about this movie without giving too much away. It will play for both fans and non-fans, but I'm going to nitpick on two points. First, sending Chekov to replace Scotty in the engine room. What do navigators know about engineering? Second, J.J. Abrams is a little too fond of swooshing cameras with ultra-quick cuts during the action sequences, so you don't see precisely what's happening, only the result. Maybe that doesn't bother other people, but I think it's a cheat.

That said, Star Trek into Darkness is still a whomping good adventure story that plunges right in without bothering with unnecessary exposition and doesn't sag in the middle, hurray! It's remarkable in one other respect: it manages to be simultaneously nostalgic and brand new. And that is quite an accomplishment.