I always seem to hesitate when it comes to watching a film involving faith and/or religious beliefs. I have come up with several reasons why-
First, faith and belief films are dangerous because it can be hard to tell when the filmmakers are merely throwing a viewpoint out there or are preaching to you in an attempt to convert the masses (discussion vs. propaganda).
Second, the faith or beliefs portrayed in a film could be factually or categorically incorrect.
Third and lastly, negative or positive reviews for the film can be controversial and people may claim your rating is based largely off of whether or not you agree with the beliefs on display.
I assure you, these kind of films can be difficult to rate. Some faith-based films are easily swept under the rug because they are simply not well done. Others are not so easily dismissed. Case in point: Conversations with God.
The film presents itself as a docudrama about Neale Donald Walsch and how he went from being a homeless man to a best-selling Neo-Christian author. Most of the film details how horrible his life was and the trials and tribulations he endured before God began speaking to him one night. The remaining 1/3 or so of the film shows his rise to fame, as he writes down everything God is telling him and he turns it into a series of books and some of the situations he faces based on the public’s perception of his ideas.
There is only a sprinkling of the content of Walsch’s books present in the film, which I felt was a strike against it. Judging from just the snippets of Walsch’s proposed changes to Christian thought (which may or may not have been divinely inspired) the film makes it look as if there was no controversy surrounding his series. I’m sure there had to be some uproar over this guy. Maybe not. Evangelicals may not have been as vocal back in the mid 90s, but I’m sure the filmmakers glossed over whatever controversy there was. Instead, we’re led to believe this guy made waves in Christianity and his ideas sparked some kind of small-scale theological revolution.
This is obviously not true, as I had never heard of the guy before, though seemed to vaguely recognize the title of his book series. And in this way, the film does kind of make a mountain out of a molehill. Sure, the guy made millions of dollars off his books, but the fact that he hasn’t made a big splash in the writing world since I was in middle school tells me something- either this film was made by over-zealous followers of Walsch who wish to spread his message, or there’s money involved.
Maybe it’s a little of each. Walsch was involved with writing the screenplay, which is understandable, because I wouldn’t want anybody mucking up my life story. This makes me wonder if he helped keep things accurate to reality or if some of the cheesy dialog was amped up at his request.
There are a number of parts in this film that, although they actually happened (to some degree), are undeniably cheesy and cliché. How depressing is it when a true story of overcoming hardship feels conventional? I think that’s more telling of us as a society than it is of the film’s quality, but that’s just a side-tangent. But yes, due to the over-saturation of sappy, feel-good, underdog stories in cinema and on such networks as Lifetime and the Hallmark Channel, one can’t help but roll their eyes at a situation that feels at least 60% familiar. Each feel-good story has its own unique elements for sure, but there is almost always the notion that we have seen something almost exactly like this before.
Beyond the fill-in-the-blank structure of this success story, there is enough product placement to pique your interest in what all Walsch says in his books and the film leaves just content out to make you actually want to go out and buy/borrow a copy. This is partly where the film crossed the line for me. Here it began to straddle the line between docudrama and infomercial. It has been 10 years or more since Walsch’s books hit shelves everywhere and his relative obscurity nowadays makes me think this film also was intended to spark new interest in his books. I felt slightly indignant about this, but there’s enough ambiguity in that court to avoid offending me out right.
The film certainly does do a good job at hammering home how wretched the man’s life was before his book series, but it stretches on for an almost uncomfortably long majority of the film. There’s a line between highlighting your protagonist’s misery and brooding in it, and I think Conversations with God may have crossed that line. An audience can only take so much sorrow and depressing environments before it either becomes too much to bear or borders on annoying. And I didn’t find that there was enough joy on the upswing side of the story to sufficiently makeup for all the wallowing that went on. Perhaps the story feels incomplete because Walsch’s success isn’t over now that we’re all interested in reading his books. Or maybe they were trying to keep the story humble. It’s actually a tad difficult to tell.
Finally, the acting isn’t so bad. Henry Czerny is believable as Walsch, creating a character who feels desperate and someone you can really sympathize for. He’s not your typical gorgeous Hollywood type. He looks like an average Joe, which helps him and the film. I must say, however, that Czerny’s performance involves a lot of staring and hopeless gazing. The last time I can remember someone acting so much through their eyes was Tom Cruise in The Last Samurai. And no, that’s not a compliment.
Something about this film just feels off to me, and it’s not just the quasi-“new age” beliefs it seems to support (subjectivity in regard the religious content did factor slightly into the rating). Part of it feels fabricated and designed to make you want to read those books of Walsch’s, which seems dishonest. And also, how did Walsch know it was God talking to him? I don’t recall him ever questioning that, which seems odd. When people claim to be vessels of God’s wisdom, this reviewer grows a little wary.
Spider-Man 2 was on the cusp of greatness. The writing and acting were superb; it had the right amount of cheeky humor inherent to the Spider-Man comics; and the digital effects, though pretty dated and mediocre looking now, were adequate. Spider-Man 2 left me with high hopes for the third and (supposedly) final installment to the series.
Needless to say, I was let down. And none too gently. While Spider-Man 3 does grow in some areas, it falls short in too many other aspects to be considered a worthy installment in the series.
Some of the characters have matured and show more depth and range of emotions. For instance, Mary Jane Watson is no longer just a starry-eyed, melon-breasted girl missing the obvious affections of her pal Peter Parker. This time around, she and Peter are struggling to keep their relationship afloat. She has real needs, desires and demands.
Peter, on the other hand, has selflessly devoted most of his life to being Spider-Man and helping out the cops fight crime in New York City. He’s grown more adept at balancing his studies and scratching a living off photojournalism as well. Unfortunately, Peter has unwittingly let being Spider-Man go to his head and it is slowly destroying his relationship with Mary Jane.
MJ has become an up-and-coming starlet of the stage and struggles with feelings of inadequacy, especially with having her every move and nuance scrutinized by relentless critics that will either make or break her young career. Peter, being the nerdy guy that he is, attempts to help his girlfriend cope with all this by comparing it to how he is scrutinized as Spider-Man.
To be honest, I thought it was initially a very good comparison. Of course, up to that point we had seen very little of Peter Parker’s selfish and conceited behavior outside of putting on a show kiss as Spider-Man with the police chief’s daughter during a publicity event. Herein lies the first problem of the movie-
The filmmakers should have established Peter’s internal conflict as a more innocent battle against his own ego. Instead of shedding a bad ego, Peter/Spider-Man should be entering a new phase of growth in dealing with his dual roles in life. The problem truly is innocent at first- Peter, being the nerd that he is, just gets excited and embraces all his ups and downs as Spider-Man to try and help out. It’s the only part of his life that allows him to even be able to compare with Mary Jane’s quest for stardom, but she doesn’t even want to hear it.
Hearing one talk about their alter ego all the time would be annoying, but Mary Jane (and all women as well) need to be reminded that men are not psychic. If you’re having issues and the way we’re trying to help you cope isn’t working, tell us. Don’t leave things for us to try and infer based on a mopey face, teary eyes and a warbling voice. It just goes to show you that communication issues can plague any couple. Superhero/wannabe celebrity couples doubly so.
From here, the film descends into blandness. While the decision to make Peter and Mary Jane’s relationship struggles one of the centerpieces of the overall story (a pretty good idea in my opinion), it ultimately takes over too much of the film’s running time. New characters like Gwen Stacy, Sandman and Venom aren’t developed enough to make them anything but momentary distractions and obligatory subplot inclusions, as a stand-alone fractured romance tale would draw nothing but ire from comic book fanboys and those who have enjoyed the series thus far. Even series regular James Franco’s Harry Osborne/New Goblin role seems underdeveloped and misused.
The overall plot is Peter and Mary Jane’s relationship issues, but of course things just have to get in the way. A freaky alien symbiote falls to earth during a meteor shower and it follows Peter and latches onto him. It alters his mentality and his emotional status. He becomes even more arrogant and aggressive. He eventually rids himself of it, which results in a man named Eddie Brock becoming the next host and turning into the evil character Venom. He and Sandman cause a ruckus and Spider-Man ends up teaming up with the New Goblin, his former best friend Harry, to save the day.
The Sandman is Flint Marko, played by Thomas Hayden Church. He is an escaped convict that falls into a sand pit being used for some bizarre physics experiment, the purpose of which is never actually explained. The result is a complete alteration of his body’s composition, reducing him to nothing but particles of sand and silica dust which he can move and mold into any shape he wants. He can also control any other loose sand or dust in his vicinity. His goal is to rob banks so he can provide money to treat his terminally ill daughter. This creates a unique villain for the series, as he is not being selfish in his law breaking.
The one aspect of Sandman that I was concerned about is the slight retconning the history and making Marko responsible for the death of Peter’s uncle in the first film (a flashback reveals he was partners with the robber Peter let escape. That turned out better than I had thought it would, and in the end, Sandman and Spider-Man have a sort of heart-to-heart chat, in which Peter forgives him for his uncle’s death and he even lets Sandman go free. An interesting mutual understanding of troubled men with superpowers indeed.
Venom, however, is treated less admirably. Topher Grace plays Eddie Brock, a rival photojournalist to Peter Parker. Brock delivers seemingly incriminating photographs of Spider-Man robbing a bank, but Peter exposes his photos as fraud and Brock is fired. Later on, Brock sees Peter out on a date with Gwen Stacy, whom Brock was sweet on. This pushes him over the edge and when the symbiote attaches to him he goes on a frenzied rampage, hell bent on destroying Peter Parker and Spider-Man. This just seemed silly to me. I can see how he’d be miffed for being exposed as a phony, but the jilted lover twist was over the top.
I did some research and found that, in the comics, Brock turns evil over seemingly minor things as well. This still isn’t good enough for me though. The Green Goblin was psychotic and Doc Ock’s appendages had taken over part of his mind, so Venom needed to come about over more than just a few minor offenses. Or, the filmmakers should have shown us more of Brock’s instability, perhaps having his hatred for Peter develop over a few films instead of the first hour of this one. Also, the effects to create Venom’s toothy, grinning mouth weren’t all that great. He just didn’t look real enough. (Sandman suffered from this as well).
Speaking of visual effects, they just weren’t up to snuff this go around. There is a scene in which Harry, as the New Goblin, chases Peter Parker (sans Spidey suit) down a series of impossibly long and narrow alleys at high speed on his hover jet board. During this chase sequence the two periodically fight. There are plenty of jump cuts and fast action, leading to a lot of CGI work that failed to impress me. At times, everything on screen was computer generated, reminding me of the Smith vs. Neo CGI fest in Matrix Revolutions. I came to see a movie, not a video game, thank you. Also the flow and look of Spider-Man while swooping through the city has finally become passé. He looks to computery against a real skyline and even more fake when the skyline is digitally souped up.
Another major issue with the film is a matter of excessive goofiness. Spider-Man has always been a bit nerdy and the films have always included a dose of cheeky, silly fun, but Spider-Man 3 goes too far. Many dramatic sequences are ruined by a heavy-handed slap of silly that pulled me right out of the mood. For instance: after Mary Jane is fired from her acting gig she lands a spot as a singing cocktail waitress in a local bar. Peter (under the influence of the evil symbiote) decides to take the lovely Gwen Stacy to that bar specifically so he can rub it in MJ’s face since she dumped him not too long ago.
This scene is a brilliant concept and also kind of cliché at the same time. The fact that the symbiote is powerful enough to affect Peter’s better judgment and morality is fine too. But when Peter dons an emo/goth haircut and magically knows how to perform a saucy, naughty tango like a ballroom master, the film jumped to Ludicrous Speed. Some things just don’t belong in a Spider-Man film. A Latin dance number is one of them (but at least it’s not as bad as putting nipples on the batsuit).
I was also a little peeved about this misuse of the Gwen Stacy character. In the comics, Peter develops real feelings for her. Here, she is simply used as a piece of arm candy for revenge. Bryce Dallas Howard is both beautiful and talented as an actress and was severely misused in this film. If they do make a Spider-Man 4, I would hope they would bring her back and straighten out her role in Spidey’s world.
My final qualm is with the handling of the New Goblin. Sure, Harry has been plotting his revenge against Peter/Spidey for a while now, but it comes on so randomly in the movie it threw me off balance in a bad way. Then, as soon as it the assault starts, Harry nails his head on a pipe, leaving him with amnesia. For much of the film he gawks and smiles like a half-idiot, not remembering much from the last five years. Eventually a well-timed vision of his father (kudos to Willem Dafoe for coming back) sets him off again. But only briefly. He ends up joining sides with Spidey and sacrifices himself to stop Sandman and Venom. It’s all just a bit too chaotic and bi-polar to be very believable.
Overall, Spider-Man 3 does provide plenty of the effects and action that summer crowds tend to drool over, but it seems like the filmmakers gave up on making Spider-Man films stand apart from the rest of the summertime ilk. Spider-Man started out as a boldly smart superhero series but by this third installment, our friendly neighborhood web slinger has given in to convention. Comic books fans will find it more enjoyable than most due to the enormous amount of allusions to events and people from the comics, but for us regular folk, it’s a lukewarm melodrama with too much going on.
You’d think that there is nowhere to go but up with a potential sequel on the distant horizon, but I seriously have my doubts if a Spider-Man 4 could rise from the ashes of this marginally disappointing tale.
After finally seeing this film, I was surprised that it managed to win Best Picture at the Oscars. When I think of the Oscars I typically think of films like Gone With the Wind and Casablanca, or West Side Story and (sadly) Shakespeare in Love. Majestic in scope and in some cases artsy, these are the movies that seem to typify what is Oscar material.
The Departed, at first glance is anything but. This is such a guy movie it’s not even funny.
A tough, raw, intense police drama with a stellar cast (can any film with a Baldwin in it claim to have an all-star cast?) grabs you by the throat and won’t let go until it's done telling its story.
Okay, that’s a bit much. There are some slow scenes and it's not all action. In fact, there are some points where I found myself confused as to just what is going on. Fortunately, director Martin Scorsese straightens out this convoluted thriller come the final reel (and what a reel!).
This is a very smart film and treats its thinking viewers with a myriad of twists, turns and plenty of jolts along the way. I can almost guarantee that you will gasp and/or flinch at least once during this movie from all the drama. The Departed is simply a film that is very well put together. With this in mind, it really isn’t so surprising that it won Best Picture. It also helps that the Academy felt particularly bad this past year about neglecting Scorsese all this time.
The Departed certainly fits into the lexicon of Best Picture winners that are very well made, like Platoon, Rocky and The French Connection. Maybe it’s not quite the best picture of the year, but you’d have a tough time faulting the Academy for it.
And I guess that’s what The Departed boils down to- it may not be the greatest picture of the year, but it is one of the most complete in terms of its scope. The acting is brilliant and believable (notably only the third time I can honestly say that I enjoyed Leonardo DiCaprio's performance); Scorsese and his crew work their magic with editing, the soundtrack and score; and the story itself is very well written. But that can’t quite make up for two hugely important factors- 1) This film is a remake of film from Hong Kong called Infernal Affairs, and 2) while the film has many strengths, it doesn’t quite have the staying power that other Best Picture winners have had.
While I have never seen Infernal Affairs, and although this American version was rewritten and likely differs in ways from the original, it’s impossible to escape the stigma that a film is a remake. Instead of Hong Kong, we get Boston. A newly graduated policeman (Leonardo DiCaprio) is hired to infiltrate a notorious gangster’s (Jack Nicholson) criminal empire. Along the way there is denial, deception and death. Things are never quite what they seem, which is the film’s key strength, but it is a bit of a slight to the mind of the viewer to realize that the premise did not originate from the filmmakers presenting it. This isn’t the first time this story has been told, and we have to wonder, has it been done better?
Whatever the answer to that question is, The Departed is undeniably one of the best films of 2006. Whether it was intended to be commercially successful or just appreciable from a film lover's point of view is irrelevant. It was a huge hit, but I doubt it will be remembered as fondly as many of Scorsese’s other works. It is, to date, Scorsese’s highest rated film on my list, but hardly the most memorable.
In the pantheon of Oscar winners for Best Picture, I have a feeling that The Departed is more likely to fall by the wayside like The Last Emperor or The English Patient rather than engraining itself in minds and becoming a commonplace reference in our culture like Forrest Gump, Rain Man or Silence of the Lambs.
With Captain Picard’s Enterprise-D being destroyed at the end of Star Trek: Generations, it was little surprise to see him piloting the new (and much bigger) Enterprise-E. (Seriously, the Federation must be loaded if it can afford a replacement Enterprise every couple of years) Picard and company are out and about when the Borg attacks Earth. For you non-Trek savvy folk out there, the Borg is a colony of cyborgs that capture living subjects and turn them into cyborgs with no individuality whatsoever and also adding the individual’s knowledge into their collective brain.
Instead of helping Earth, Star Fleet orders the Enterprise to stay in the neutral zone and make sure the Romulans don’t get frisky with all the hub-bub going on. Really, Star Fleet doesn’t trust Picard to fight the Borg. He was once assimilated by them but escaped and holds quite a grudge. In other words, it’s kind of a rehash of Kirk vs. the Klingons from the original series.
Picard defies orders and helps save the day. But, the Borg shoots a probe into the past in order to prevent humans from ever discovering warp speed travel. The Enterprise follows in hot pursuit and ends up orbiting a mid-21st Century Earth. The crew goes down to investigate any damage the Borg did and realize that the Borg has nearly altered human history. The crew then makes it their mission to make sure a loony scientist does in fact discover warp travel and makes first contact with extraterrestrial life. Meanwhile, those still on the Enterprise must face off against a faction of the Borg that beamed itself on board and are now assimilating the crew and taking over the ship.
While a standalone Picard vs. the Borg plot would have made for a boring movie (again, think Kirk vs. Klingons) the sub-plot of help ensure Earth’s first contact with extraterrestrials makes Star Trek: First Contact one of the most original films in the Star Trek series.
Sure, we’ve already done the whole ‘time travel with the fate of the Earth in our hands’ thing before, but the way they do it gets brownie points from me. And the fact that the two plots tie in well with each other makes it rather good. Instead of a flimsy deus ex machina kind of tie in, the fates of one group directly affect the fates of the other.
The visuals are actually pretty good, up until the end, where a level of the Enterprise fills up with a very poorly constructed cloud of CGI gas, resulting in some lousy blue screen work. The biggest fault of this film involves the cast. The crew of The Next Generation just aren’t as engaging as the original series bunch. I even grew up watching a few episodes of The Next Generation, but there just wasn’t as much chemistry. This was also fairly apparent in Star Trek: Generations, but I feel more strongly about commenting on it here.
Captain Picard is a joy to watch- he’s well read and very intelligent. Data is pretty much an annoying android version of Spock, except that instead of pondering the illogical behavior of humans as Spock did, Data actually strives to become more human. Sometimes it works but it usually comes off as being a little trite. Worf is kind of like Gimli from Lord of the Rings. He’s there to add that dash of extreme culture clash (being Klingon), but he never really manages to grow on you during the course of the film. The rest of the crew are just kind of there on the periphery and barely do anything memorable. It’s almost as if you’d need to watch the entire Next Generation series to understand where everybody is coming from.
Despite whatever shortcomings exist among the cast, the story makes up for it pretty well. There are some very cool literary allusions and some fine acting on Patrick Stewart’s part. The Borg actually do make for a good opponent as their bland features and emotionless state effectively creeps you out each time they’re on screen. A better cast dynamic and some better visual effects in certain places would put First Contact on even footing with the best films in the series (Star Trek II and III).
I still can’t quite figure this one out. Much in the same way that Star Trek IV straddled the line between clever and stupid, Star Trek: Generations wanders along the fine line between being endearing and just plain silly.
It starts off with Kirk, Scotty and Chekov being on hand for the maiden voyage of the Enterprise-B Federation Starship. They are in their twilight years in service to the Federation and are merely on the bridge as a matter of ceremony. Along the virgin trip, a distress signal comes in and Kirk urges the new captain to spring into action. During the attempted rescue of two ships from a bizarre energy field, the Enterprise-B is damaged and Kirk lost into space. Among the survivors is Malcolm McDowell, a long-living scientist who plots to return to the energy field he had been stuck in.
Flash forward nearly 80 years and we’re smack-dab in the middle of Star Trek: The Next Generation territory. The Enterprise-D, under the leadership of Captain Jean-Luc Picard, receives a distress call from a science outpost. Sure enough, McDowell is the lone survivor of what appears to be an attack by the Romulans. But, McDowell is actually working with a rogue group of Klingons seeking his star system-destroying technology (seems old habits die hard with the Klingons).
McDowell is destroying star systems to lure this traveling energy field he was pulled from (called the Nexus) to a location where he can re-enter it. Picard tries to stop and ends up inside the Nexus as well. There he finds bliss and joy as he is able to live out everything he ever dreamed of. But he realizes this is all a lie and recalls that one Captain Kirk also happens to be caught up in the Nexus as well. They meet, team up and cross time and space to save the day. An interesting homage to the original series films is played out regarding Captain Kirk. That’ll make sense if you paid attention during the other films. Otherwise, enjoy the cheekiness this movie is full of.
The scenes with Shatner are juts odd. He certainly seems to be having fun with the part one last time, but some of the lines he delivers and actions he does (the horse scene anyone?) are just a bit too campy for their own good. There is a subtle theme of sacrifice throughout the movie, but it never really grabs hold and makes its presence felt enough to list it as an asset. The effects are more or less caught up with the times, but the whole package is still dumbed down to the level of aw-shucks-who-cares-if-it-looks-silly that has pervaded the Star Trek series from day one. Hardcore Trekkies will be able to overlook this stuff, but I’m a movie guy- it’s either there or it’s not. This time it’s not.
I wouldn’t say this film is much better than the last few Trek offerings, because it certainly isn’t much of an improvement on anything, but it does have a few redeeming qualities and enough feel-good fun to make it a perfect example of a sci-fi guilty pleasure movie.
Evidently created to act as a prologue/segue into the world of Star Trek: The Next Generation, The Undiscovered Country brings resolution to the age old conflict between the Klingons and the people of Earth. The Klingons are still a bit peeved about Captain Kirk being responsible for the deaths of several Klingons, but after their planetary moon explodes, destroying their chief energy production facility, their leader decides it is time to set peace accords in place.
The Enterprise is called to act as the Klingon ambassador’s bodyguard ship as it heads to the peace summit. After an awkward dinner party between the Klingons and Enterprise folks, the Klingon ambassador is assassinated and his ship attacked by the Enterprise. Or so it seems. Kirk and McCoy board the Klingon vessel in an attempt to help the wounded and they are taken as political prisoners. They face a show trial on the Klingon home world and are sentenced to life imprisonment on a frozen labor camp planet.
Spock and the rest of the Enterprise crew work to figure out how it appeared the Enterprise attacked the Klingons when all their weapons are accounted for, and who is the mole among them responsible for assassinating the ambassador.
In the end, everything works out in an all-too-clean manner. From the get-go, I was able to figure out who the mole is. The reasoning behind the attack and its orchestration is interesting, but it’s also a little too convenient to be appreciated. Star Trek VI suffers from a bit too much excess. Excess in over-dramatizing much of film’s contents, and excess in overacting by good guys and bad guys alike hurt this film, which had limited potential to begin with. On the whole it feels like an overdrawn, overblown excuse for one last hurrah before finally (and begrudgingly) passing the Star Trek torch off to the cast of The Next Generation.
It’s like a parent that just doesn’t know when to let go and definitely puts to rest the notion that even numbered Trek films are superior. If you must watch, you’ll see oddball appearances by both Kim Cattrall and Christian Slater. But in reality, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country is best left undiscovered.
Not knowing when to leave well enough alone, the Star Trek series returns for its fifth installment, this time directed by William Shatner. A little bit more time and money during the development phase could have cleared up this oddball film and turned it into something really good. The potential is there, but The Final Frontier falters in the execution of it all.
Star Trek V won the Razzie Award for Worst Picture of 1989, which I doubt is an accurate reflection of bad movies made that year. While the movie isn’t up to par with its predecessors, it still manages to channel that Star Trek vibe pretty well. Star Trek has always been a little campy and mediocre, so you’ll be hard pressed to find a bad Star Trek film. They don’t try hard enough to be great, so they can’t possibly be bad.
Weird is a good way to describe it, actually. A rogue Vulcan mystic named Sybok sets out to commandeer a starship and take it into the center of the galaxy, beyond an energy field that has sealed off the galactic core for time immemorial. After taking hostages on a rinky dink planet, which Kirk and company travel to as a rescue party, Sybok uses his powers to free the Enterprise crew of their innermost pain that haunts them. In gratitude for their relief, they end up doing his will and set course for the galactic core.
The one catch is that Kirk doesn’t give in to Sybok’s plan. In a unique scene, Kirk declares, “I want my pain! I need my pain!” The clever exploration of what makes a person a person, pain and all is really quite remarkable for a sci-fi films. I give kudos to Shattner for trying to include such philosophical content into a Trek film. However, things go downhill once the Enterprise reaches the center of the galaxy.
Sybok is seeking out a planet beyond this energy field which holds the secrets of the origins of life in the universe. Turns out, Sybok is Spock’s half-brother and the planet was just a prison for some maligned entity with great destructive power. Kirk, Spock, Sybok and Dr. McCoy approach and interact with this dangerous entity (which appears as a floating head) and at first believe it is God, the creator of all things. God asks Sybok if he has brought a starship with him, promising to reveal the mysteries of the Universe if they promise to take him aboard their starship and back into the rest of the galaxy. At this point, teeming with anticipation and all kinds of philosophical outlets, Kirk blurts out the following line in stereotypical Shatner-speak: “What does God need with a starship?”
A good question, but it totally deflates the situation at hand. The jig is up and the floating head decides to try and kill them all. Also, Klingons figure into this puzzle awkwardly as well. There is also a rather bizarre sequence in the beginning and end where Kirk, Spock and McCoy are camping. Spock camping is odd enough without the inclusion of “Row, Row, Row Your Boat.”
Make of it what you will, but more cheesy special effects and some stereotypical Shatner puts a damper on Star Trek 5. With a little more focus and effort, the cool philosophical points could have made for quite a unique movie, though it is still tolerable and amusing as it is.
They might as well have just called this one Star Trek Saves the Whales, because that’s all that this film really amounts to. Straddling the precariously thin line between clever and stupid, Star Trek IV is clearly just in it for the sake of having fun. This isn’t such a bad thing, as the last two Trek films were heavier in tone, one being fairly dark and the other being complex. There is however a line and I feel as though they may have crossed it.
Picking up shortly after the events of Star Trek III, Kirk and company are on Vulcan but have decided to return to Earth and face the punishment for violating Federation rules on their quest to recover Spock. On the way to Earth in their hijacked Klingon vessel, they receive a distress call from Earth. Some bizarre alien probe (looking like a can of soup wrapped in tin foil) is assaulting the Earth and destroying all computer and electrical systems within range. After analyzing the signal the probe is emitting, Kirk’s crew find that it is trying to establish contact with Humpback whales, which have been extinct on Earth since part way through the 21st Century.
The only solution is to travel back in time, via a risky sling shot maneuver around the Sun, transporting our intrepid crew to Earth of 1986. There they find that humans are woefully inferior beings, using coarse language, poor communication skills, and worst of all, have a focus on money (for which there is no need in the 23rd Century). After peppering the audience with some light pro-socialist ideals the film focuses on the struggle to locate some Humpback whales and how to rig the Klingon ship to carry them home.
Chance would have it that Kirk and Spock meet a pretty lady who happens to be the caretaker of two Humpbacks. After much culture shock and coincidence, Scotty builds holding tanks inside the ship and they get their whales. They make it back through time and just barely save the day. While the whales concept has a unique side, as it explores the notion that alien species may not be searching for intelligent life that resembles humans, it’s still a bit too ‘earth first’ goofy for me to really get behind. And besides, they saved two whales. It’s not like the species will survive. Their offspring would be the last generation before inbreeding occurs.
There’s plenty of humor in the fish-out-of water scenario for all the Enterprise crew, and Chekov’s pronunciation of V’s as W’s is hammed up awful fierce, but the film relies on an extended gimmick to support itself. In the end, we are treated to some happiness, as Kirk and his crew are all exonerated, though he is demoted back to Captain. And he gets a new Enterprise.
This was the closing chapter in a 3 movie arc, and may have been meant to be the final Star Trek film for the Original Series cast. While sporting better special effects than usual, it still doesn’t compare to effects masterpieces like Star Wars, but Star Trek never really set out to compete with Star Wars in the first place. Star Trek IV wraps up the story in a pretty neat fashion, with humor and heart to spare.
With the Star Trek movies, there exists a rule of thumb which states that the odd-numbered films are inferior to the even numbered ones. I beg to differ, as Star Trek III: The Search for Spock is quite interesting and a good follow up to The Wrath of Khan.
The story takes place right where Khan left off. The Enterprise is headed back to earth, where it will be decommissioned. Spock, having died at the end of Khan, is not aboard the ship. Or so they think. Evidently, shortly before Spock perished, he mind-melded with Dr. McCoy, so his spirit lives on in McCoy’s mind, while causing him quite a bit of mental duress. Once the crew returns to Earth, Kirk is met by Spock’s father who informs him of the situation. Kirk feels like a fool and is intent on resurrecting his friend.
The only problem is that Spock’s body was jettisoned to the surface of the new planet created at the end of Khan. What’s a space Admiral to do? Why, steal his old ship and go after his friend of course! Kirk and crew hijack the Enterprise, violating many rules in the process, and goes vigilante to find his friend (hence the title).
To add a little spice to the story, a rogue group of Klingons are desperate to get their hands on the plans for the Genesis experiment, seeking its power to destroy an entire planet. They destroy a Federation starship and ambush a science team (the same one from Khan, including Kirk’s son) holding such plans.
It all makes for an interesting face-off resulting in the death of Kirk’s son at the hands of the Klingons (creating another memorable line- “You Klingon bastards, you murdered my son!”) and the destruction of the Enterprise. The crew all escapes safely after hijacking the Klingon’s own vessel, with Spock’s recovered body in tow. They head for Vulcan, where they will be momentarily safe from both the Federation and the Klingons out for Kirk’s blood. Spock’s soul is reunited with his body and the film ends on an uneasy note of what the future will bring.
The thing I liked most about this film is how deep and contemplative it gets. The Vulcans are very Buddhist in their approach to life and understanding. Being a fan of Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies, I enjoyed the subtle deep concepts running all through this film. While Khan was well-received for being the most exciting and fun Trek installment, The Search for Spock is appreciable for being the smartest and most thought-provoking of the series. It does, however, suffer from a few minor cases of poor special effects, which factor pretty significantly with my ratings.
All in all, it’s a good companion piece to its predecessor. It’s also interesting to see Christopher Lloyd as a Klingon. Great Scot!
Quite instantly besting its predecessor, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is darker and richer than anything Star Trek we have seen before and are likely to see again. It’s all about one psychopath’s quest for revenge against Admiral Kirk and the consequences thereof. It also is the first chapter in a three film arc that makes the early Trek films worthwhile and unique.
Khan was a villain in an episode of the Star Trek TV series. He was some kind of genetically altered superhuman and was banished to a desolate world after being thwarted by then Captain Kirk. Many years later, a Federation science team is taken hostage by Khan, who manages to lure Kirk to his outpost. Khan is an embodiment of evil and lusts for revenge. But he is also incredibly smart and well-read. He is a sort of philosophical madman, which creates for a very engaging story and an interesting matchup with Kirk.
However, two things could have made this movie solidly good: better special effects and consistency with the title score. I was immediately shocked to find that the opening music was not the same theme as for the original Star Trek film. I still haven't found a reason for this. Consistency is important in a movie series and changing your opening music is anything but consistent.
Also, the TV sensibilities are back and the visual effects show it. The budget was tight, which never helps, and maybe “true” fans of Star Trek wouldn’t mind some mediocre effects here and there, but it was a slight turnoff to me. All in all, this is a pretty well done piece of science-fiction. Watching The Wrath of Khan with an open mind will allow you to appreciate what Trekkies have going for them. While it’s not spectacular, my guess is that it wasn’t really trying to be in the first place.
Good fun, and you’ll finally understand why Trekkies pause and shout “KHAN!!!!”
I surprised myself when I decided to work my way through the Star Trek series. As you may know, I am a huge Star Wars freak, and it’s often been said that Star Wars fans and Trekkies don’t mix well. I still think Star Wars is by far the superior series (although the prequel trilogy went a long way towards evening things out) but I can’t look down upon Trekkies anymore, because they’ve got a pretty decent thing going for them.
My first surprise was the opening music, which I recalled as the Star Trek: The Next Generation theme. Evidently the piece was written for this, the first of an ongoing series of films. It’s certainly an improvement upon the goofy theme from the original TV series. However, the film is hurt most by clinging to another aspect of the original series. Apparently this project was supposed to be an extended pilot episode for a new TV series, but it got turned into a motion picture. The TV sensibilities were carried over, hurting the special effects and overall tone of the film. Star Trek seems to use a lot of upper echelon made-for-TV movie effects along with some standard Hollywood magic, resulting in an end product that pales greatly in comparison to Star Wars, which had come out just two years prior.
The story also plays out like an extended TV episode, with very little gripping action and an ending that seemed kind of silly and cheap. Fortunately, the colorful cast of characters made me feel comfortable with the environment. Their familiarity with everything made it easier for me to just sit back and enjoy the ride. You don’t need to have watched the original series to be able to embrace this film, which is an important asset, but its weaknesses end up winning out over its strengths.
After seeing the “it” movie of 2006, I seriously felt like my brain had been tossed in a blender. Borat is quite a piece of work, but whether or not that’s entirely a good thing is up for debate.
In case you don’t know, Borat is a fake documentary of a Kazakh reporter’s journey across America. He is to gather information on the culture and compile his findings for his homeland. What we end up with is a grim yet darkly humorous view of stereotypes and prejudice in America today. Borat (Sacha Baron Cohen) finds a way to expose various levels of sexism, misogyny, homophobia, racism, as well as cultural and religious insensitivity through unwitting passersby who think they are taking part in a documentary for Kazakhstan.
The truly scary part about all that Borat exposes is how much of it is consciously expressed. This is the 21st Century for crying out loud- people should know better than to say some of the things they do during the course of this movie. The fact that they are saying such things knowing that it may be used in a documentary elevates the absurdity of the whole thing. Simply saying it on camera is merely in bad taste, but saying it for a documentary when you full well know better is absurd.
This concept of quick snippets of prejudice would get old quick, so Borat includes several longer bits where he allows his own cultural misunderstandings to be a catalyst for the humor. His seeming innocence brings out some good in people, as it shows that some Americans are at least willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Borat of course exploits this and takes them to their respective limits. I’m amazed by the fact that Cohen managed to stay completely in character during all the scenes and that nobody killed him during filming. Most of what he does in the film is fairly harmless and I had no problem with it. However, one scene gave me chills and I desperately hope it was staged-
Borat enters a Civil War antique store in the South (presumably filled with Confederate era antiques) and he proceeds to “accidentally” knock over and destroy hundreds of dollars of antique lamps and dinnerware. At this point, Cohen goes too far and the situation is no longer funny. You can say what you want about the Confederacy and how it shouldn’t be remembered in a positive light, but antiques are antiques. They are pieces of American history and should be respected as such. So far I have not been able to find out if this scene was genuine, but I sincerely hope it was not. The destruction of historic artifacts is not within the bounds of humor.
The other part that was a turn off for me was the naked fight in the hotel. Borat and his producer end up fighting nude in their hotel room and carry the fight downstairs into the middle of a convention being held at the hotel. The fight went on too long and it indulged a bit too much in schlock humor seen mostly in the Jackass series.
In the end, Borat’s long and demented journey across our nation makes you laugh for all the wrong reasons and then makes you laugh again when you realize that you shouldn’t be laughing in the first place. Thinking people will pick up on how bleak a picture of American culture has been painted. While not everyone in the country is like the people on display in Borat, there are enough people like them out there to make their prejudices and insensitivities seem commonplace and normal.
I feel no sympathy at all for the people who had their racist and sexist views displayed to the world through this movie. Some filed suit claiming Borat either misrepresented them in some way or tarnished their reputations. I call BS on all of you- you were racist/sexist/whatever before and while you made those comments. The world just knows now that you think that way.
Borat is potentially highly offensive and can be a difficult film to watch at times, but it’s worth seeing, if you can handle it.
This is a very challenging film to watch. It’s violent and intense but also emotionally jarring. The main characters display a wide range of emotions and mental states. From cold and calculating to outright paranoid, this film really has a good sense of itself.
In 1972, several Palestinian/Arab terrorists executed Israeli athletes during the Summer Olympic Games in Munich, Germany. The world was shocked and the event is well-documented in history. What is not so well-documented is Israel’s response to the slaughter. Several former Israeli operatives have come forth over the years and told accounts of top-secret Israeli hit squads. Israel has denied any such accusation and continues to maintain that no such assassin teams ever existed, yet refuses to declassify many government files related to these operations, which cover a good stretch of time throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s.
Munich is based on a book written by a former member of one of these “never existed” hit squads assigned to kill specific PLO supporters believed to be members of the terrorist network behind Munich. Eric Bana stars as the leader of the team as they move throughout Europe over the course a few years, following information in the hopes of finding another of their targets. Along the way the team shares tender moments with each other and slowly become disillusioned with their task.
While they initially view their mission as simply wiping out enemies, they discover the human side of their targets, encountering their intended victims’ friends, families and children. This makes it all the more difficult to carry out their mission as they begin to ponder how the bad guys seem so normal when taken out of context of blind faith and the Munich massacre. Some critics and moviegoers complained that this portrayed a sympathetic view of terrorists and was irresponsible for director Steven Spielberg to do so.
It’s called character development, people- deal with it. These moments and nuances call to mind the saying “One man’s terrorist is another man’s hero.” It helps hammer home the point that, in situations like Munich and its aftermath (and even today), both sides of the battle are engaged in shady tactics and both sides have blood on their hands. There is no justification for this kind of activity, no matter how badly you want to think there is.
Eventually, things begin to fall apart for the team, as members are killed and those remaining realize that they are now being hunted by Palestinian hit squads. Bana’s character especially plunges into extreme paranoia. He examines everything around him, looking for signs of the very same booby traps and setups his team had been using to eliminate their own targets. In the end he questions what good his mission did- sure he took out targets that were believed to have masterminded terrible bloodshed, but those assassinations resulted in little more than emboldening his foes even further in their cause.
Munich is a solid film, though it runs a tad longer than the average Joe can tolerate, and provides a unique study of violence begetting more violence and what some people are willing to do in the name of God. I think it was worthy of an Oscar nod, despite being a dark horse for winning.
WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!
