LEADING LADIES: ZITA JOHANN

0
mummy 1932 karloff - johann

Boris Karloff and Zita Johann in THE MUMMY (1932).

 

Zita Johann only had eight screen credits, but one of them is well-known to horror fans.

When she starred opposite Boris Karloff in THE MUMMY (1932) she delivered one of the great performances in a Universal monster movie. Her portrayal of Helen Grosvenor, the reincarnated Princess Anckesen-Amon, was mystical, mysterious, tragic, and very sexy.

And in terms of classic horror, that’s all she wrote. It was one and done for Johann, which is too bad, because she was really good in THE MUMMY.

Here’s a partial look at Johann’s film career:

THE STRUGGLE (1931) – Florrie – Johann’s film debut is in this drama about alcoholism, the final feature directed by D.W. Griffith.

TIGER SHARK (1932) – Quita Silva- Romance directed by Howard Hawks, also starring Edward G. Robinson and featuring J. Carroll Naish.

THE MUMMY (1932)- Helen Grosvenor – one of Universal’s best monster movies. Slow-paced but eerie to its core, this Karl Freund directed thriller features a remarkable performance by Boris Karloff as the living mummy Im Ho Tep, who, once resurrected, seeks out the mummified body of his former love, the Princess Anckesen-Amon.

THE MUMMY is really a tragic love story. Im Ho Tep’s life is shattered when his forbidden love, the Princess Anckesen-Amon, dies at a young age. When he tries to resurrect her using the Scroll of Thoth, he’s found out and sentenced to death. He meets a horrifying end as he’s buried alive.

Centuries later, in 1921, his mummified body is discovered and accidentally resurrected. He resurfaces in 1932 and helps archeologists unearth the tomb of the mummified Princess Anckesen-Amon, in the hopes of once more bringing her back to life.

While attempting to do so, he discovers Helen Grosvenor (Zita Johann), who’s the splitting image of Anckesen-Amon. Convinced that Helen is Anckesen-Amon reincarnated, Im Ho Tep seeks to kill her and bring her back to life so they can live together for all eternity.

THE MUMMY also features the phenomenal make-up work of Jack Pierce, and fine supporting performances by Edward Van Sloan and David Manners, but it’s Boris Karloff and Zita Johann who drive THE MUMMY.

Johann’s wide eyes and dark features give her a sensual, mysterious presence. She makes for a strong, independent female character, and she’s convincing as the reincarnated princess.

In THE MUMMY, Johann delivers one of my favorite performances by an actress in the Universal monster movies.

RAIDERS OF THE LIVING DEAD (1986) – Librarian – Zita Johann’s final screen credit in this 1980s zombie flick.

Zita Johann was born on July 14, 1904 in Austria-Hungary. Before acting in the movies, she performed on Broadway starting in 1924.

In THE MUMMY, she and director Karl Freund did not get along. According to Johann, Freund went out of his way to make her life miserable on set. That being said, Johann did develop the reputation for being a difficult actress to work with. Evidently, she turned down lots of scripts, which may explain why she made so few movies.

I wish Johann had made more movies. Her performance as Helen Grosvenor has always been a treat for me and one of the best parts of THE MUMMY. Watching Johan portray Grosvenor, you’ll easily see why Karloff’s Im Ho Tep was in love with her.

Johann passed away on September 20, 1993 in Nyack, New York at the age of 89 from pneumonia.

Zita Johann – July 14, 1904 – September 20, 1993.

I hope you enjoyed this LEADING LADIES column and will join me again next time when we look at another leading lady from horror cinema.

Thanks for reading!

—Michael

Advertisements

IN THE SPOOKLIGHT: STEPHANIE (2017)

1
stephanie

Shree Crooks as STEPHANIE (2017)

STEPHANIE (2017), a horror film about a little girl facing an unknown horrific threat all by her lonesome almost works.

Almost.

What stops this flick from ultimately succeeding is a lack of courage on the part of the filmmakers to take this story to the deepest dark places it should have gone. Instead, we have a plot tweak midway through that changes everything, and the film is worse off for it.

When STEPHANIE opens, young Stephanie (Shree Crooks) is home alone, occupying herself with her imaginary stuffed animal friends, getting into mischief as any child would do left to their own devices. She attempts among other things to cook and clean on her own, running afoul of every day threats like broken glass on the floor while walking barefoot. You’ll wince even before the supernatural elements are introduced.  Just why she’s by herself we’re not exactly sure, although there seems to have been some sort of apocalyptic incident that has wiped out at the very least the population around her.

One night, as she brushes her teeth and plays in front of the bathroom mirror, she hears a strange noise coming from the darkness. She knows what it is. Evidently, there is some sort of “monster” which enters her house at times, and to escape, she has to hide and remain silent. She hears the monster foraging throughout the house, growling and sniffing for prey, and then it leaves.

Adding to the mystery there’s also a dead body in her house, Stephanie’s brother, who seems to have succumbed to whatever malady wiped out everyone else. Stephanie it appears is immune. But then one day, Stephanie’s parents return, and while she is overjoyed to see them, she suddenly wonders why they left her alone in the first place.

And it’s at this point in the movie where the plot changes, and from here on in, things just  don’t work as well because the story enters territory we’ve all seen before and any innovative freshness the film possessed earlier disappears.

Which is too bad because the first half of STEPHANIE is really, really good, and the biggest reason why is the performance by young actress Shree Crooks as Stephanie. I hesitate to give such high praise to such a young actress, but she’s so good here she’s nearly mesmerizing. Early on, when she has the run of the house, she’s fun to watch, and later when the monster invades, you share in Stephanie’s terror. Crooks does fear really well.

So, early on the story had me hooked. I wanted to know why Stephanie was alone and just what kind of monster kept breaking into her house.  And I cared enough about young Stephanie that I was ready to watch a film about just one little girl on her own having to square off against a monstrous threat.

But ultimately this isn’t the story STEPHANIE has to tell. Her parents arrive home, and the inevitable plot twist isn’t up to snuff and only serves to steer the story into familiar territory, which is far less satisfying than what had come before it. Unfortunately, when all is said and done, STEPHANIE ends up being just a standard horror movie.

Frank Grillo and Anna Torv [recently of Netflix’ MINDHUNTER (2017-19)] play Stephanie’s parents, and while there’s nothing wrong with their performances, they unfortunately appear in the film’s inferior second half.

The screenplay by Ben Collins and Luke Piotrowski tells two different stories, and I enjoyed the first story much better than the second. The first half of the story with Stephanie home alone works so well I was really looking forward to seeing how she was going to deal with the monster in her house, but that confrontation never happens.

Director Akiva Goldsman sets up some suspenseful scenes early on, especially when the monster invades the house. Goldsman also deserves plenty of credit for capturing such a powerful performance from such a young performer. Shree Crooks completely carries the first half of the movie all by her lonesome.

Later, when the story pivots, the scares are much more standard, the results more predictable.

STEPHANIE did not have a theatrical release and was instead marketed straight to video on demand. I saw it on Netflix.

As it stands, it’s not a bad horror movie, but based on the way it started, it had the potential to be something very special, if only the initial story had been allowed to develop.

In spite of this, Shree Crooks delivers the performance of the movie. She’s terrific throughout, and she’s the main reason to see STEPHANIE.

—END—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ISN’T IT ROMANTIC (2019) – Rom Com Spoof Short on Laughs

0

isn't it romantic

Isn’t it romantic?

Sure is.

But is it funny? Er, not so much.

And therein lies the problem with ISN’T IT ROMANTIC (2019), the new rom com starring Rebel Wilson as an architect disillusioned with love, who after a bonk on the head wakes up and finds herself living inside the world of a romantic comedy. While the gimmick here is that Wilson’s character has to deal with the very world she’s spent her life making fun of, the problem is the film is funnier when it takes place in the real world because it’s more fun watching Wilson taking potshots at reality than soaking up life in a romantic fantasy.

While architect Natalie (Rebel Wilson) is down on love, she actually has a pretty happy life. She’s got a good job, a best friend at work, Whitney (Betty Gilpin), as well as a best guy friend at work Josh (Adam Devine) who tries but fails to catch her attention. So, while she slams both true love and romantic comedy movies, her life is a good one. She doesn’t really need a romantic fantasy to save her, which definitely gets in the way of the film’s major plot point.

After the clonk on the head, she awakes and finds herself living in a movie world, specifically the rom com. The handsome hunk she met briefly at a meeting, who was a complete jerk, Blake (Liam Hemsworth), now falls madly in love with Natalie. At this point, the film goes through all the rom com clichés with Natalie commenting on them throughout, since she knows these films inside and out. And it’s in this fantasy world that she finally sees the light about Josh and realizes that perhaps it’s with him that her future lies.

ISN’T IT ROMANTIC is an amiable enough movie but it’s simply not all that funny. Again, the funniest bits are when Natalie is in the real world, at the beginning and end of the film. The main part of the film, where the story employs its gimmick of Natalie living inside a movie, is playful and light, but the laughs simply aren’t there.

There’s plenty of romance to be sure, but it’s the kind that’s superficial without resonance.

Rebel Wilson is a fun actress to watch, going all the way back to her role in BRIDESMAIDS (2011), and she’s certainly enjoyable here, even if the material isn’t all that sharp.

Liam Hemsworth chews up the scenery as handsome hunk Blake, and it’s clear that he’s having a good time throughout. Betty Gilpin is very good as Natalie’s best friend Whitney, but her best scenes also occur when the film takes place in the real world. In the fantasy sequence, Whitney becomes Natalie’s rival, a trope of the rom com, but sadly, it’s a trope that isn’t funny here.

Adam Devine is enjoyable to watch as Josh, the likable co-worker who has eyes for Natalie. Interestingly, his character remains the same in both the real and fantasy worlds.

Priyanka Chopra impresses as Isabella, a beautiful model who Josh saves from choking and then marries during the rom com scenes. Like Hemsworth, it’s clear that Chopra is having fun throughout.

Probably my favorite performance in the movie belongs to Brandon Scott Jones who plays Donny, Natalie’s irritable neighbor who in the rom com sequence becomes the stereotypical flamboyantly gay best friend. It’s the liveliest performance in the film.

Screenwriters Erin Cardillo, Dana Fox, and Katie Silberman’s main premise of Natalie entering the world of a rom com movie is okay, but it would have worked better had Natalie needed it more. Sure, her friends tell her she needs love, but she seems perfectly content without it. And the jokes just aren’t all that funny.

Some of the jokes do work however, like the running gag of Natalie not being able to swear since she’s living inside the world of a PG-13 romantic comedy. Likewise, the sequence where she’s trying to have sex with Blake, but the film keeps cutting away since again it’s rated PG-13 is good for some laughs. But there aren’t a whole lot of these moments.

Director Todd Strauss-Schulson keeps things bright, happy, and romantic, but since this is supposed to be a rom com that pokes fun at the genre it’s disappointing that the humor isn’t all that sharp. The liveliest sequence in the movie is the closing dance number, a bit late in the game.

ISN’T IT ROMANTIC is a likable enough movie, but it falls way short of being the kind of send-up to the genre which it purports itself to be. Which means, at the end of the day, ISN’T IT ROMANTIC really isn’t anything more than just another cliche-ridden rom com, even if it surrounds those clichés with lots of knowing winks and nods.

—END—

ON THE BASIS OF SEX (2018) – Ruth Bader Ginsburg Movie Makes Its Case

0

on the basis of sex

ON THE BASIS OF SEX (2018) is not getting much love, and that’s too bad, because this bio pic on Ruth Bader Ginsburg happens to be a really good movie.

So, what’s the scoop? Why the cold shoulder?

For starters, it’s the second film from 2018 on the life of Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg, following the much better received and critically acclaimed documentary RBG (2018), and so it’s operating in the shadows of that film.  Likewise, RBG received some Oscar nominations. ON THE BASIS OF SEX didn’t receive any.

Critics have been lukewarm to the film, and much of the criticism has been focused on the script which a lot of folks have called superficial, which reminds me of a lot of the same things which were originally written about HIDDEN FIGURES (2016), another outstanding film which also didn’t receive much love. Initially.

ON THE BASIS OF SEX is also not performing well at the box office. I think a big reason for this is that it had a lackluster ad campaign. I know in my neck of the woods there was barely any publicity for this film.

However, I saw the movie several weeks after its initial release, and the theater was packed, and the audience certainly seemed to enjoy it.

As did I.

ON THE BASIS OF SEX opens in 1956 showing Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Felicity Jones) entering Harvard Law School. From the get-go, Ginsburg experiences gender inequality, from professors who don’t call on her in class to an awkward dinner held by Dean Griswold (Sam Waterston) for the female law students in which he requests that they tell him why it is that they have chosen spots at the law school that could have gone to men.

The action jumps ahead to 1970 where Ginsburg is working as a law professor because no law firm would hire her because she was a woman, in spite of the fact that she graduated at the top of her class. She lives in New York City with her husband Martin (Armie Hammer), a successful tax attorney, their teenage daughter Jane (Cailee Spaeny) and their younger son James.

Ginsburg decides to take on the case of a man Charles Moritz (Chris Mulkey) who was denied a caregiver tax deduction which he filed for because he was caring for his sick mother, and he was subsequently charged because of this filing. The reason? He was a man. And the caregiver tax deduction was meant only for women because they were assumed to be the only ones who were natural caregivers. Ginsburg realizes that this is a case of gender discrimination, where the one big difference is that the victim is a man. She knows that if she can win this case, it will be a huge victory, a step towards repealing gender discrimination in other cases as well.

She takes the case, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Felicity Jones delivers a spirited performance as Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It’s certainly a potent enough performance to carry the movie, even though Jones doesn’t have to, since she receives fine support from the other actors in this one.  I really enjoyed Jones in ROGUE ONE: A STAR WARS STORY (2016) in which she played Jyn Erso, a film I have liked more each time I’ve seen it, and Jones’ performance in that movie remains one of its strongest attributes. She’s equally as good here as Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

One of the film’s highlights is the dynamic between Ginsburg and her daughter Jane, as they share key moments together, as in when Ginsburg realizes that things her daughter is saying are things she couldn’t have said fifteen years ago, opening her eyes to the realization that the times have already changed and so it’s time for the law to catch up. There’s also the realization that the work she is doing for gender rights is for her daughter’s future, which gives her drive when things look bleak.

As such, the role of Jane is a central one in the movie, and she’s well-played by Cailee Spaeny, who was equally as memorable in BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE (2018). Spaeny also looked completely different in that movie, and she played a very different role. She’s certainly a young actress to keep your eye on.

Armie Hammer plays Ginsburg’s husband Martin, and their relationship is also central to the story. Martin is diagnosed with testicular cancer while still in law school, and it’s largely Ruth’s drive to survive that helps him beat the cancer back for as long as possible. He’s also an incredibly supportive husband, and he’s one of the few males in her life who sees what she sees and constantly pushes her on to continue her work. While it’s not groundbreaking dramatic stuff, it’s one of the better performances I’ve seen Hammer give.

Justin Theroux throws in a colorful performance as ACLU director Mel Wulf, who in spite of being Ginsburg’s friend doesn’t always see things the same way she does and makes decisions which get in the way of progress.

Veteran actor Sam Waterston adds solid support as Harvard Law School Dean Erwin Griswold. His sexist comments will be sure to rankle. Kathy Bates is also on hand, albeit briefly, as Dorothy Kenyon.

The screenplay by Daniel Stiepleman, who happens to be Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s nephew, is a good one and gets the job done. It tells its story in straightforward fashion and builds to a solid climax as Ginsburg argues her case in court. The screenplay has been criticized as being “by the numbers” and superficial, but that’s not the case.  Sure, in terms of legalese, the film keeps things simple, nor does the film present Ginsburg from multiple nuanced angles. She’s a straight shooter here, and the film makes its case by getting in and out without any additional distractions or subplots. For me, the entire story worked.

Likewise, director Mimi Leder keeps things straightforward and simple as well. The film looks good, it does a nice job with costumes and setting, and I easily bought into the whole story.

ON THE BASIS OF SEX succeeds in what it sets out to do, which is to tell the story of how Ruth Bader Ginsburg overcame the odds and argued a groundbreaking gender discrimination case which would open the door for gender equality for years to come. And it does so in a manner that is both informative and emotional.

Don’t believe the naysayers.  ON THE BASIS OF SEX is worthy of some love.

Go out and see this one before it leaves the theaters.

—END—

 

 

 

 

 

 

SPIDER-MAN: INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE (2018) – Animated Spidey Feature Decent, Not Outstanding

0

spider man into the spider universe

So, I went to see SPIDER-MAN: INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE (2018), a new animated Marvel superhero movie, because the initial reviews were off the charts wild.

Best animated movie of the year! Best Spider-Man movie ever!

That’s some high praise, and so while I don’t usually catch animated films at the theater (I save those for Netflix) I decided to see this one to judge for myself: best Spider-Man movie ever?

I’ll save you the suspense: Nope!

While I enjoyed  SPIDER-MAN: INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE, to call it the best Spider-Man movie ever is an overstatement.  SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING (2017) with Tom Holland was a better movie, as was Tobey Maguire’s SPIDER-MAN (2002) way back when.

The theme of SPIDER-MAN: INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE is that Spider-Man is not the only game in town. We are all superheroes. We all have value. It’s a message of inclusion that resonates, not only because these days promoting messages like this seem to be an uphill battle, but also because it was an ongoing theme in the work of Marvel giant Stan Lee, who just recently passed away.

Speaking of Stan Lee, he lent his voice to this one before he passed away, and so yes, there is yet another Stan Lee cameo in this movie, albeit an animated one.

When the movie opens, Spider-Man boasts that he’s the one and only Spider-Man. But then young Miles Morales is bitten by a radioactive spider, and soon he finds that he too possesses Spider-Man’s abilities. Then, when Wilson Fisk’s secret weapon opens up portals to different dimensions, other versions of Spider-Man enter our present reality. Together, they have to fight Wilson Fisk and also find a way to return the other Spider-Beings back to their proper realities.

As stories go, it’s ambitious but handled in a way that made me cognizant that I was watching an animated feature. The pace was nonstop, which for some folks is a good thing, but for me I just wanted it to slow down a bit. It simply never resonated as well with me as it would have had it been a live action flick.

Regarding the boast that it’s the best animated film of the year, while I haven’t seen enough animated films to comment on the suggestion, I will say that the animation didn’t impress me. Again, maybe I’m showing my age.  Things moved so fast, especially the action scenes, that I found them difficult to follow. The animation also appeared blurry at times, and I felt as if I were watching a 3D movie without 3D glasses.

I actually enjoyed the personal story of Miles Morales more than the Spider-Man plot and the battles with Wilson Fisk. Miles is in a deeply troubled relationship with his dad Jefferson Davis, who wants the best for his son but can never seem to say the right thing, constantly coming down too hard on the teen. To further complicate matters, Miles relates much better to his uncle Aaron, his dad’s brother who is viewed by Miles’ dad as not being a very good role model, and for good reason. This story works well and for me was the best part of the movie.

The voice work is pretty impressive throughout.  Shameik Moore is excellent as young Miles, making the teen likable and sympathetic.

Mahershala Ali knocks it out of the park as Uncle Aaron, which comes as no surprise. Ali is one of my favorite actors working today, and he show here that he can even dominate a movie just by using his voice.

Also lending their talents to this one are Hailee Steinfeld as Gwen Stacy, Brian Tyree Henry as Jefferson Davis Morales, Lily Tomlin as Aunt May, Jake Johnson as Peter B. Parker, Nicholas Cage as Spider-Man Noir, Liev Schreiber as Wilson Fisk, and Chris Pine as Peter Parker.

SPIDER-MAN: INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE was directed by Bob Persichetti, Peter Ramsey, and Rodney Rothman. Rothman also co-wrote the screenplay with Phil Lord.

And like most other Marvel superhero movies, there is an after-credits scene, and you have to wait until the very end to see it. As after credit scenes go, I found this one a head scratcher. Don’t expect to see Thanos turning anyone to dust.

SPIDER-MAN: INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE is a decent enough Spider-Man movie, and is sufficiently satisfying to make it a solid animated film.

But the best Spider-Man movie ever?

Not even close.

—END—

 

William Shatner Live! – Captain Kirk Beams Down to Concord, New Hampshire.

2
18020 Fidelity Clearing & Custody Solutions Portriats

The photo op with Willam Shatner. That’s me on the left (yours truly, Michael Arruda), my son Jonny, William Shatner, and my son Lucas.

KHAAAAAHNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!

Yup, one of William Shatner’s iconic moments from the movie STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN (1982), and we got to hear it twice, once in the movie and once live, roared by the man himself, William Shatner, in person, as part of William Shatner Live on Stage! an event which my two sons and I were fortunate to attend the other night at the Capitol Center for the Arts in Concord, NH.

The event was comprised of two parts, the screening of STAR TREK II, and then Shatner’s appearance on stage.

It was fun to see STAR TREK II back on the big screen again.  The last time that happened for me was probably in 1985 or so, when waaay back when I was in college, it was part of a film series at my dorm at Boston University. It was probably a 16 mm print. And while back in the day we college students were certainly Star Trek fans, the audience at the Capitol Center was jam-packed with enthusiastic and very vocal Star Trek fans which made watching the film even more rewarding.

Cheers erupted at each star’s name in the opening credits and on their initial appearances, as well as during their most memorable lines. The aforementioned cry of “Khan!!!” had the theater rocking.

Still, this Star Trek enthusiasm at the movies was hardly a first for me. I’m old enough to have seen the first film, STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE (1979) on the big screen and remember the audience cheering out loud at the actors’ names during the opening credits and during their initial appearances, since this was the first time we had seen these characters since the original 1960s TV show. I also remember waiting in a long line for tickets in Boston to see STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME (1986) which probably received the most hype, all of it deserved, of any Star Trek film other than the first one.

It was fun to watch STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN to be sure, but the reason the auditorium was filled was not for the movie, but for the man, William Shatner who came out on stage after the film to be interviewed and answer pre-selected questions from the audience.

If you’ve seen Shatner speak when he’s not in character, you know he’s full of energy and is a gifted storyteller.  Making this even more amazing is his age.  He’s 87. You wouldn’t know it by the vigor he displayed on stage.  He seemed considerably younger.

As I said, Shatner is a gifted storyteller, and he spoke for just under an hour after the movie, and it was a lively, humorous, and highly entertaining event.  For me, the best part were his recollections and anecdotes from his time as Captain Kirk, and even though I had heard some of the stories before, as I’ve read the books he’s written on his Star Trek memories, they were still laugh out loud funny, like when he told the story of how he used to prank De Forest Kelley.

He also spoke of his friendship with Leonard Nimoy, and shared interesting tidbits on Star Trek, like how after every movie the studio would destroy the sets because they believed it would be the last movie in the series, but the films kept making money.

Shatner also spoke on his love of horses, motorcycle riding, race car driving, and his work on other shows, including BOSTON LEGAL (2004-2008), T.J. HOOKER (1982-1986), and THE TWILIGHT ZONE (1959-1964).  He spoke of his friendship with James Spader, and used it as an example of how most showbiz friendships work, in that actors intend to stay in touch but usually don’t because they are so busy. As such, Shatner said as much as he enjoyed his friendship with Spader, he hasn’t seen him since the show ended.  Shatner said this would have happened between him and Leonard Nimoy, but the films kept bringing them back together, enabling the two to establish a much longer friendship.

Shatner also spoke of his famous TWILIGHT ZONE episode, with the humorous anecdote of how his children used to ask him to show them “the look,” which was his frightened expression from that TWILIGHT ZONE episode, an expression he delighted the audience with by springing it on us at just the right time.

And, as I said, he bellowed out to us, “Khaaaann!!!” in person, which once more produced thunderous applause.

My sons and I had purchased the special VIP ticket, which enabled us to go back stage afterwards for a special photo-op with Mr. Shatner (see photo above.) By the size of the line, I would say that at least half of the audience had also purchased these tickets.

It was a special moment to be sure. Yeah, it lasted only a couple of seconds, but to be able to stand next to William Shatner, say hello and thank him, and have him respond, that’s special.  I was so caught up in the moment I can’t honestly remember what he said in response, but it was gracious and warm, and it was a gratifying moment.

I was fortunate enough to have met James Doohan who played Scotty on STAR TREK back in 1986 when he visited Boston University, and so I’m happy to have met two members of the original Starship Enterprise.

I know, it’s just a TV show, and William Shatner is just an actor, a celebrity.

But STAR TREK is more than just a show, for so many reasons, and the biggest is its positive view of the future, and William Shatner with his iconic portrayal of Captain James T. Kirk had a lot to do with shaping that view.

For so many of us, STAR TREK is a major part of our lives, not only as a form of entertainment, but as way of thinking and seeing the future, an open-mindedness and acceptance that sadly does not always exist in the real world today.

But let’s not get too deep here.

The bottom line is seeing William Shatner live on stage was a good time, and honestly I’m amazed at how good Shatner looked and how much energy he had throughout the interview.

It was certainly a night I won’t forget any time soon.

Live long and prosper!

Thanks for reading!

—Michael