And it might’ve been if it weren’t such a piece of shit film.

I was late to the party with “Star Wars.” I vaguely remember seeing “Return of the Jedi” when I was 3 or 4, but that’s hardly the film to spark one’s interest in the original trilogy. It’s so unevenly paced and perfunctory. None of the payoffs have any dramatic weight because the direction is so indifferent. In fact, “Return of the Jedi” is essentially the template for the SW prequels. At any rate, as a boy I was more into He-Man than Luke Skywalker.

It wasn’t until the Special Editions of the original trilogy were released in 1997 that I got into SW. I tried to make up for lost time, collecting all manner of toys, EU novels, posters, comics and so forth. By the spring of ‘99, I was as hardcore a SW geek as could be. As such, I was absolutely certain I was about to see the most game-changing — no, life-changing — movie ever made.

Yeah, not so much.

Writing another review of “The Phantom Menace” is pointless. You know it sucks, and so do I. No, what’s worth noting about “The Phantom Menace” is that it represents the end of an era for geeks the world over. During the next half-dozen years, as the two subsequent prequels came and went, we collectively experienced the five stages of grief, mourning the painful death of our beloved franchise. Here’s how I coped:

Denial: “It didn’t suck that bad.”

I saw the film six times in the theater then bought it on VHS before upgrading to a DVD version. That being said, if I could go back in time and prevent my own birth, I would.

Anger: “Death to Jar Jar!”

I visited websites that depicted all manner of Gungan torture porn.

Bargaining: “The lightsaber duel at the end is worth the price of admission alone.”

My roommates and I wore out my VHS tape, rewatching the climactic battle where Darth Maul hands Qui-Gon Jinn his ass before getting inexplicably pwned by Obi-Wan Kenobi. We neglected the remaining two hours of the film.

Depression: “I can’t sit through this movie anymore.”

I found that if you turn on the Spanish-language version of the film and watch the movie with English subtitles, Jar Jar is much less insufferable. Even so, I can’t remember the last time I actually made it all the way to the end.

Acceptance: “The prequels suck.”

Last year, I sold all three of my SW prequel DVDs to Amoeba Music for a few bucks.

I wonder sometimes, as I imagine many geeks do, what it would’ve been like if “The Phantom Menace” had lived up to expectations. I’m sure it wouldn’t have changed my life, liked I’d hoped. Still, it was the most colossal letdown in the history of my movie-going. I wasn’t wowed the same way irritating people claim to have been when they first saw the original “Star Wars” back in ‘77. The first prequel did, however, make me thankful that I hadn’t spent two decades of my life loving everything about the franchise.

-Brad Lohan

When I saw “Watchmen” in IMAX at the AMC Century City 15 last March, I got the feeling that the auditorium was too small to support the format. The IMAX preso is Burbank seems much more authentic. I saw “The Dark Knight” and “Star Trek” there, and they appeared to be fairly enormous to me. But who’s to say? It’s not like I measured the screen.

Moving forward, I’m definitely unsure about paying an extra $5 to see a movie in “IMAX” if I’m not getting what I’m paying for. After all, the screens at the ArcLight and the Landmark are pretty humongous, and the sound and picture rarely disappoint. They also have reserved seating, which I’ll take any day of the week over a 70′ screen. I just can’t believe the major theater chains have stooped to bullshitting movie-goers into paying more for a sub-standard quasi-IMAX — quasIMAX? — presentation.

-Brad Lohan

I love collecting movie merch like that, drinkware in particular. It’s unfortunately not as prolific as it was when I was a kid. That’s why I nearly flipped when I saw a carelessly discarded Burger King wrapper in the 24 Hour Fitness parking lot yesterday. It advertised BK’s new “Star Trek” promotion — four drinking glasses featuring characters from the film! On a side note, I’ve found it’s best to look at the ground as you leave the gym. Dudes will just change their clothes right there in the parking lot. Never mind there’s a men’s locker room inside. But I digress.

So I boogied over to Burger King after dinner last night, thinking I could probably just get away with buying a beverage and get the glass for a couple bucks extra. Yeah, no. I had to order a combo. But I’d just eaten. And dining at Burger King leaves me feeling like John Hurt in “Alien.”

Fug.

This afternoon, I returned to Burger King with an empty stomach. I’ve found that if I eat fast food once in a blue moon, there’s only a 98% chance I’ll blow mud. Besides, it was the only way I could get a damn “Star Trek” glass. I had no choice in the matter. I briefly thought about buying a combo and giving it to a homeless person, but that’s sort of cruel, just shy of performing medical experiments on them in the name of science. No, I needed to man-up and eat a Whopper Jr. with fries myself!

Well, I’m pleased to report that it’s been six hours, and my lunch has settled quite nicely. I also got a “Star Trek” glass. It’s the one with the movie’s big bad, Nero, on it. I wanted the one with Spock, but hey. I’m supposed to collect them all, right?

-Brad Lohan

Oddly, the approach the film takes is something I’d wanted to see for some time: the original crew in their early days at the Starfleet Academy. But I was a hard sell nonetheless on director JJ Abrams’ take. The trailers made the film look more like a “Star Wars” prequel than a “Star Trek” prequel. It seemed to be all sizzle and no steak. “Star Trek” is about ideas rather than spectacle. I was afraid that the franchise had been Michael Bay-ified. Still, I can’t quit certain properties, so I knew I’d see the film no matter what.

“Star Trek” — incidentally, the first film in the series to not have a subtitle — does indeed go where no previous installment has gone before. It’s a breathlessly paced sci-fi actioner, yet it doesn’t betray the spirit of the original series. It still feels like a “Star Trek” movie, a “Star Trek” movie supercharged on Red Bull, but a “Star Trek” movie nonetheless. Yes, it repurposes Gene Roddenberry’s creation for a contemporary audience. It’s not an embarrassment, though. In fact, it’s something you’d really have to try hard not to enjoy.

The film retcons previous “Trek” continuity, but the retcon is built into the story. This isn’t so much a prequel, since these characters exist in an alternate timeline, one where James Kirk’s father died while trying to save the crew of the USS Kelvin after being attacked by a Romulan ship from the future. Without a father, Jim Kirk (Chris Pine) grows up to be a listless yet brilliant young man. He’s talked into joining Starfleet by Captain Pike (Bruce Greenwood) and proves to be a quick study. However, when he changes the rules of the Kobayashi Maru no-win scenario, he’s nearly booted out of Starfleet. A distress call comes in from the planet Vulcan, and Kirk stows away aboard the Enterprise with the help of Dr. Leonard McCoy (Karl Urban). The Enterprise soon encounters the same Romulan starship that destroyed the Kelvin 25 years ago and is now about to implode the homeworld of the science officer, Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto). And this is only the first act of the film.

The pace of the movie helps to smooth over some of the quantum leaps in logic, like what the hell has Nero — the heavily tattooed captain of the Romulan vessel, played by Eric Bana — been doing for the past two and a half decades, apart from waiting until Kirk is a grown man? The script by Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman definitely could’ve used a polish. But this was a “strike movie,” so Abrams had to do the best with what he had while the WGA members were on the picket lines. As far as “strike movies” go, “Star Trek” is much more entertaining than, say, “Quantum of Solace” or last weekend’s “Wolverine.”

I also had some problems with how Kirk winds up in the captain’s chair. It seemed unearned to me, that he simply became captain by virtue of being a bigger douce than Spock. More, I didn’t feel Chris Pine’s performance as Kirk was as strong as Quinto’s Spock or Urban’s McCoy. He didn’t have Kirk’s cool confidence or wry humor. The resemblance isn’t there, either. Maybe a repreat viewing will allow me to accept someone else in the role.

Despite my quibbles, I had quite a good time with this film. It revitalizes the franchise and makes “Star Trek” accessible to folks who don’t have a Federation uniform hanging in their closets. I have to say I’m interested in seeing where the series boldy goes from here.

-Brad Lohan

I think all the stupid bullshit I had to deal with in the run-up to seeing “Wolverine” simply made me appreciate the film more than the average jaded geek. It’s not “Iron Man,” but it’s not “Elektra,” either. Marvel films are basically a rorschach test of what sort of dumb, studio-mandated changes you’re willing to put up with when the material is adapted to the big screen. I liked “Daredevil,” but I hated the two “Fantastic Four” movies. All three are terribly mediocre films. I just found the mediocrity of “Daredevil” more palatable for whatever reason.

“Wolverine” gets the job done without achieving greatness. The film begins in the 1840s. An adolescent and sickly James Howlett kills a muttonchopped home invader — who he immediately learns is his biological father! — with bone claws that inexplicably sprout from between his knuckles. James and his older brother Victor promptly run away from home, grow muttonchops themselves and fight in at least four major wars over the next century or so. They both have “healing factors” that allow them to take all sorts of punishment on the battlefield and keep them youngish-looking, like however old Hugh Jackman and Liev Schreiber are now.

Despite their being Canadian, James and Victor even serve in Vietnam, but a mixup about killing civilians (Victor’s for it, James is against) has them facing down a firing squad. They don’t die, however, bringing them to the attention of Col. William Stryker (Danny Houston). Stryker offers them slots in a black-ops unit that’s made up entirely of mutants. I’d've liked to see an entire film of Wolverine and his fellow muties kicking down doors in third world — ahem, I mean “developing” — countries and raising all sorts of hell. But, James walks away from the team after a mission in Africa goes sour.

He retreats to Canada and lives a quiet life as a lumberjack. His girlfriend randomly tells him a story one night about the moon being lonely or something. This particular legend involves wolverines and plants a seed in James’ mind for a superhero-sounding name that also has some symbolic value. Stryker shows up and tries to lure him back to a life of killing the world’s nogoodniks and maybe a few innocents for good measure. When that doesn’t work, Victor comes by and kills his exposition-spouting girlfriend. This inspires James to volunteer for an experiment that Stryker’s conducting which will graft adamantium — an unbreakable metal that’s apparently from outer space! — onto his skeleton. Making him indestructible will be the only way he can kill Victor. Or, at least that’s the plan. Wolverine (nee James) immediately finds out that he’s been double-crossed by Stryker and sets off on his own to track down Victor.

In recapping the plot, it’s easy to see how disconnected and arbitrary some, if not all, of the causality is. The experience is not unlike actually reading the Wolverine comics. Sometimes you miss an issue or two; creative teams change and “shake things up” needlessly; characters go from being good to evil to slightly less evil. I think director Gavin Hood unintentionally captures the semi-coherence of the comics. Let’s see if that blurb winds up on the DVD cover!

Fans who are aggressively disappointed by this movie feel that way because they walked into the theater with chips on their shoulders. They wanted to hate it, and by gum, they did just that! Bully for them. The audience I saw “Wolverine” with ate this movie up with a spoon. The only thing that went over like a lead balloon was the post-credits scene. Interestingly enough, prints of “Wolverine” carry one of three different post-credits scenes, each revealing the fate of a different character. The tag I saw was kind of meh-worthy and had Wolverine in it.

Believe it or not, it sets up a sequel!

-Brad Lohan

Well, in late March of ‘99, I watched a print of “The Matrix” with a few of my co-people after work. I felt so cool for having seen it before anyone else, like I’d been offered a glimpse into the future or something. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve come to realize that most people really don’t give a shit about what movies I’ve seen and when. And so, I will get off this tangent.

At any rate, “The Matrix” is ten years old this month. It doesn’t seem that long, and yet, I guess a decade is about right. The film was a game-changer for action cinema. It was a movie that suddenly every subsequent actioner tried to ape. Then the sequels came along, and every action flick tried being something else. It was the “Star Wars” of the Y2K era. Oddly enough, another “Star Wars” movie was released less than two months after “The Matrix” and it felt instantly anachronistic. Audiences no longer cared about a story set “A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.” They wanted a vision of the near future, a dystopia lorded over by machines that have created a CGI dream state where we all remain oblivious to our enslavement.

In “The Matrix,” Keanu Reeves stars as Thomas A. Anderson, a spacey computer programmer whose job is to sit in his cubicle and stare at a blank computer screen all day; and if he’s late for this peculiar job, his boss really cracks down on him. He’s soon approached by a woman named Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) who knows him by his computer hacker alias, Neo. Trinity and her mentor, Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne), believe Neo is “The One,” a messianic figure who can free mankind from the machines. So they extricate him from The Matrix — the computerized dream world — and teach him martial arts; kung fu is extremely necessary when beating back binary code. When Morpheus is later captured by The Agents — self-aware programs who wear expensive suits and have high foreheads — Neo and Trinity embark on a suicide mission within The Matrix to save him.

Summing up this film in a paragraph or less is extremely difficult to do. I think I was partly successful. The film isn’t simply a mindless action vehicle, though. What’s revolutionary about “The Matrix” is that the filmmakers don’t ask you to turn your brain off. The Wachowski Bros., who co-wrote and co-directed the film, are genuinely interested in engaging the audience with a little bit of philosophy between the wire-fu sequences. The whole ’90s-era “Question Reality” bumper sticker mentality is felt throughout. It doesn’t slow the movie to a halt, like it does in the two sequels, but instead the post-modern navel gazing engages viewers in a way most films try to avoid. Of course, thinking man’s action movies fell by the wayside once Bush stepped into the White House, and culturally, we all decided entertainments that made us think were caca-doodoo.

I hope we’re waking up from that trance now. The lukewarm reaction to “Watchmen” earlier this month, however, indicates that we all must’ve slept funny. But I digress.

I can’t tell you how refreshing it was to revisit a film with coherent action sequences. The fight scenes in “The Matrix” are not only breathtaking, but the shot compositions and editing actually maintain a sense of geography. In short, I could tell what was going on the whole time! I think the final third of the film maybe has too many climaxes, and yet I can hardly complain about there being too much action when it’s all put together so expertly.

Yes, the movie’s a little flabby and a little convoluted. Some of the greenscreen shots are pretty obvious. But the shot of Neo dodging gunfire in super-slow-mo “bullet time” remains one of the most iconic images of action cinema — ever. “The Matrix” was and still is a masterpiece of cyberpunk. A decade on, it’s more thrilling than most actioners released in the past year. Happy 10th birthday, “The Matrix!”

-Brad Lohan

The best thing about “Casino Royale” is all the time it takes to develop James Bond as a character. Daniel Craig makes the role his own and there’s so much potential for him in subsequent films to continue surprising us. What’s so frustrating about “Quantum of Solace” is how he’s given little to do beyond hitting his marks. Bond’s obviously still anguished over Vesper Lynd’s death in the previous film, but his grief is only touched upon. More time is devoted to the Cirque du Soleil acrobatics during the scaffold fight than to character development.

I don’t think one underwhelming entry signals a trend. Craig is certainly not going to bow out after two films like Timothy Dalton. He’s locked in for at least three more pictures. And I think the next film will really define his legacy. “Goldfinger” is the third, and perhaps the best, Sean Connery outing as Bond. “From Russia With Love,” Roger Moore’s third appearance as Bond, is also undeniably his best film in the series. Conversely, Pierce Brosnan’s third Bond installment, “The World Is Not Enough,” is only slightly less stupid than “Die Another Day.”

So what needs to happen in “Bond 23″ that’ll guarantee the franchise doesn’t simply become the British version of “The Bourne Identity?” Here are my suggestions:

Bond Must Be a British Gentleman. Bond is able to usurp whatever damn foreigner he’s pitted against for one very simple reason: he is a perfect gentleman. He wears the nicest clothes, drives the best cars, drinks the finest alcoholic beverages, smokes a custom-made brand of cigarettes and doesn’t cheat in friendly competitions. Yes, he’s a womanizer, too, but nobody’s perfect. At any rate, the next film must continue to establish Bond as, first and foremost, the perfect English gentleman. The rough edges the Craig’s Bond has in the first two films should be filed down by now. Why? Well, that leads to my next point.

Bond Must Be Ruthless. This is something that is front and center in the most recent two films — Bond’s ruthlessness. He’s a man who’s very capable of killing and will do so coldly and efficiently. What separates him from the Terminator, though, is his ruthlessness must have a counterpoint. And that’s why he must also be a British gentleman. Beneath the veneer of a well-dressed Englishman is an effective killing machine. It’s a fascinating dichotomy that shouldn’t be downplayed.

Bond Must Be Vulnerable. Bond has to remain empathetic in spite of his cold-blooded nature. He’s experienced some sort of closure regarding Vesper, confident in the knowledge that her former lover is now imprisoned and being tortured; this goes back to my earlier point about his ruthlessness. Moving forward, Bond will get involved with countless Bond Girls. The films should take a cue from the books and emphasize the emotional toll this has on him. Bond’s nature won’t allow him to ever settle down and get married. However, the thought will cross his mind from time to time. In the end, he’ll part ways with whomever he’s with, and it will have an effect on how he feels about himself.

Bond Must Be MI6’s Best Agent. That being said, he cannot go rogue. Bond’s gone rogue at one point or another in the last three films. He also went rogue in the second Dalton film. More than half of the Bond pictures released in the past twenty years have seen Bond as a rogue agent. I blame the rise in popularity of cop movies with heroes who don’t play by the rules. At any rate, Bond should take his orders from M at the top of the next film and follow them to the best of his abilities, sometimes begrudgingly so.

Bond Must Have a Worthy Opponent. A Bond Villain doesn’t need to have some gimmick like a claw for a hand or metal teeth or a third nipple. But it doesn’t hurt. What’s important for a Bond Villain is that he present a unique challenge to Bond. In “Casino Royale,” Le Chiffre is an expert gambler who Bond has to beat at poker to prevent millions of dollars from winding up in the hands of terrorists. The concept is bizarre, but basically a distillation of the entire film series. Bond is always matching wits and playing against the odds to overcome some evil threat. That their drama takes place around a card table and not in an underground lair is of little consequence. The problem with Dominic Greene in “Quantum of Solace” is that his plot was too meh-worthy for it to seem like Bond should even bother with him. Also, when you’re Bond Villain is shorter than your Bond Girl (and he’s not Herve Villechaize), it just doesn’t make for an exciting climactic showdown.

According to IMDb, “Bond 23″ is set for release in 2011 and might be based on the short story “007 in New York.” I know I read that one a couple years ago, but I remember bugger-all about it. It was that good! I’d like to see Bond in the States. He hasn’t been to New York since “Live and Let Die,” when Roger Moore visited Harlem. Although “Quantum of Solace” doesn’t quite stick the landing, I’m still eager to see where things to from here.

-Brad Lohan

The trailer will probably be attached to prints of “Watchmen” this weekend, and at least one goofball at every screening will shout, “Why are you trashing my f***ing scene?!” in his best Welsh accent as Christian Bale shoots a T-600 in its metallic dome. Nonetheless, there’s plenty of eye-candy on display here, and I’m not just talking about Bryce Dallas Howard. I especially like the shot of the Terminator-cycle zipping under a car that’s flipping down the highway. Say what you will about DP Shane Hurlbut’s tweaking of lights during a take. I’m truly impressed with the look of the film.

As far as giant robot movies go, I’m more excited about this than, say, “Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen.” I’ve read a few spoilers about the film that bring some interesting ideas to the material. The trailer gives a lot away, too. But what trailer doesn’t?

-Brad Lohan

I blame sports for this nonsense. A movie’s box office haul is like its score. And fans want their favorite movie, like their favorite sports team, to score bigger than everyone else. That gives them bragging rights, I suppose. I think it’s insipid.

If a movie doesn’t perform at the box office, it’s called a “bomb” or a “flop,” and people who haven’t seen it assume it’s ungood. Never mind that lots of crap movies have made a pile of money. A film’s box office take is a lousy way to measure its quality. Look at “Blade Runner.” It died at the B.O. and was poorly reviewed but has since gone on to become the most influential science fiction film of the last quarter century. The movie found its audience on home video, like so many underperformers in the late 20th century. Box office is sometimes meaningless in determining a film’s cultural impact.

That said, it’s amazing that average movie-goers still obsess over weekend grosses. I even find myself checking them on Sunday, but I don’t despair if a movie I like was trounced by something like “Madea vs. Predator.” I know that most people who go to the movies are dumbasses. I heard audiences applaud during the trailer for “Star Wars: The Clone Wars” last summer for Chrissakes. That those same morons might avoid “Watchmen” this weekend doesn’t bother me. I don’t gauge my opinion of something based on the general consensus. Groupthink isn’t my style.

If “Watchmen” bombs, the studio won’t make another one. Funnily enough, “Watchmen” is self-contained, and a sequel or prequel wouldn’t make sense anyway. What’s important is that the film got made and that it looks great. If it doesn’t resonate immediately (or ever) with mainstream audiences, I don’t think it’s worth losing sleep over. “Watchmen” is a $100 million cult movie at the end of the day. The film might bomb, it might break even and it might even go into the black. At any rate, it’s not my money. It’s not yours either. The only thing you should worry about is getting your ten dollars’ worth.

-Brad Lohan

Computer-animated films, on the other hand, are not in short supply. Of the eleventeen trailers shown before “Coraline,” I think all but one were for CGI ‘toons. As long as I’m lamenting the dearth of stop-motion animated films, I should also bemoan the lack of pencil-drawn cartoons, which can be just as visually breathtaking as a computer-animated film.

At any rate, the only trailer that left me cold was the one for Disney-Pixar’s “Up.” I’ll see “Monsters vs. Aliens,” and “Ice Age 3″ and “Tim Burton’s 9.” But I have absolutely no interest in Pixar’s latest film. It’ll be the fourth Disney-Pixar movie in a row I skip, coming on the heels of “Wall*E,” “Ratatouille” and “Cars.” The last Pixar movie I saw theatrically was “The Incredibles,” which I don’t really like all that much anymore because it’s so unrepentantly dour.

The geek community salivates over all things Pixar. I think there’s a bit of a backlash directed at “A Bug’s Life” and “Cars,” but for the most part, geeks think the animation house can do no wrong. I wholly disagree. I think Pixar’s forgotten how to have fun. They don’t make movies like “Toy Story” or “Finding Nemo” anymore, films that appeal to kids and grown-ups. “Cars” is a toy commercial. “Ratatouille” is a clever idea for a short. “Wall*E” is another clever idea for a short. “Up” looks like more of the same.

I wish Pixar would tackle something more Disney-like, more magical. I’d like to see them try their hand at adapting a literary classic. That said, I’d also like to see Disney characters like Mickey and Donald and Goofy return to the big screen. Why not shoehorn them into an all-CGI retelling of “The Three Musketeers?” I can imagine the geek outcry against such a project would be deafening, but Pixar’s made more than enough geek-centric movies already. It’s time Disney-Pixar went back to making movies I get excited about again.

-Brad Lohan