doctorwholittle Reviews

Flash Gordon: The Greatest Adventure of All (1982 TV Movie)

Filmation's Finest - Needs a Blu-Ray Release!!

[9/10 · 9 May 2024]

Filmation has gotten its ample share of criticism of their somewhat slap-dash animation, and not undeservedly (although the same can be said for pretty much every animation studio producing Saturday morning fare). Their animation did improve in the '70s as they, somewhat surprisingly, adopted rather expensive and intesively-detailed rotoscoping technology to their bag of tricks. This upgrade was evident, if overly overused, in their later offerings of Tarzan, Zorro, The Lone Ranger, and so forth.

None of these come close to comparing to the masterpiece that is "Flash Gordon - The Greatest Adventure of All".

While the animation style is utterly familiar as being Filmation's, there is a subtle grace here that is not evident in even their better Saturday morning productions. There are actually entire passages where the lip movements match the dialog. What you have to understand is that Filmation was not known for this type of detail, so to the initiated, it's nothing short of breathtaking to behold.

The story is extremely faithful to the comics and mythos, while having some darker, more realistic elements added, another pleasant surprise.

While initially intended as a live action feature, costs mandated it be animated, and it's much better for it. NBC were so impressed that they shelved this movie in favour of ponying up more geld for a Saturday morning series (not going into that here), finally airing it in 1982, three years later.

This can be found on YouTube, as well as other places around the web, so it isn't difficult to locate, but it would be wonderful to have a proper, official blu-ray release.

Deathlands (2003 TV Movie)

Could've been a LOT worse...

[5/10 · 27 June 2006]

It's always a gamble when a book is adapted to screen. It's more of a gamble when a popular book is adapted to screen.

However, when you take a book that's got "CULT" written all over it, that's where your real problems begin.

I've only read a few of James Axler's "DEATHLANDS" books, but enough to know they definitely took some liberties. A major character from the group was completely omitted (Doc Tanner), and a good deal of the backstory was changed, but not really enough to ruin the movie for me. Oscar-worthy, it ain't, but it's nowhere nearly as bad as a lot of people are making it out to be.

What puzzles me is people who claim to read the series are complaining about the rather tepid dialogue. Well, what books HAVE you been reading?! The dialogue in the "DEATHLANDS" series is about as sophomoric as any adventure series (barring "THE DESTROYER" and DL's "sister" series, "OUTLANDERS"). The terms "fireblast", "nukesh*tting", just to cite a couple of examples, pepper the prose throughout these books. Not exactly Henry James.

But, I digress...

Vincent Spano, never one of my favourite actors, actually did a passable turn as Ryan Cawdor, 'though I would've preferred him to be more like the introspective "Snake Plissken" clone the character was created to resemble. Jenya Lano was admirably cast as Krysty Wroth, even if the on screen version was a bit too timid. Cliff Saunders, physically a bit too Phil Collins-esquire to accurately portray the gaunt Armourer, JB Dix, did a good turn, though a bit more talkative than his literary counterpart. A lot of other complaints were that the characters were too "goody-goody". Well, that's as may be, but it's also one of the primary reasons why the "DEATHLANDS" series has a C U L T following instead of mainstream. If these characters were constantly as ruthless on screen as they are in the books, the creators of the movie / proposed TV series would be hard-pressed to get as large a viewership as they'd be aiming to attract.

The villains (and some of the protagonists) were over-the-top, but no more so than in any of the books I've read thus far. While some of these people gave shuddering performances, it strikes me as pretty much spot-on in comparison to the the four books in the series I've read thus far. The violence was toned down SEVERELY, as was the obligatory sex scene between Ryan & Krysty, but, as it's a made-for-cable movie, it's about what I expected, and actually, some of the more graphic scenes they left in really surprised me.

The cinematography was visually startling and very effective, giving the edginess to the Deathlands that the books convey. It's unfortunate that their budget was only around $2 million, but given that's all they had to work with, they have my kudos in spades for even getting it made, let alone seen by anyone.

"HOMEWARD BOUND", the 5th book in the "DEATHLANDS" series, was the director's personal choice from what I read. It was a nice idea, but I think it might've been a bit too ambitious for a debut movie. As far as post-apocalyptic scenarios, the first book in the series, "Pilgimage to Hell", prob'ly would've made a much better choice. The readers are still introduced to the characters one at a time, but there's still some mystery to them, whereas "HOMEWARD BOUND" tries to explain way too much at one time. Had this gone to series, "HB" would've been more apropos as the first season's cliffhanger / second season's opener.

All-in-all, however, it's somewhat heartening to see that the writers and director actually drew from the source material instead of merely paying lip service to it. It gives me hope that they may one day re-do a DL movie, or move on to "OUTLANDERS" with better results.

Yes, this movie could've been a lot better, but it also could've been a lot WORSE.

Doctor Who (2005–2022)

Like Slipping into an Old Leather Coat!

[27 December 2005]

Ever since Michael Grade, then-head of BBC programming, personally ground his axe into "Doctor Who" in 1989, cancelling it after 26 years, fans round the world have been clamouring for a new series, a new miniseries, a new movie, ANYTHING to bring The Doctor back to our screens. A wildly flawed 1996 telemovie, co-financed between the BBC & Universal Television, & aired on FOX-TV, gave fans a glimmer of hope that the sterling Liverpudlian actor, PAUL McGANN, might just realise all their hopes & dreams of seeing The Doctor on screen again, but with better SPFX. Unfortunately, the Americanisation of this production did in the prospect of its becoming an ongoing series almost immediately. It was too British for the US & too Amercian for the UK.

So, back into hiding The Doctor went.

Books, comic strips, & audio plays (excellently done, by the way) flooded the market, & even the BBC got in on giving the fans a "new" 9th Doctor Who, in the online-only, Flash-animated guise of actor RICHARD E GRANT. But, it still wasn't the same.

Then, in early 2004, almost stealthily, it was announced by the BBC that The Doctor would be returning to the medium which spawned him: the telly.

The Internet was set alight with rumours as to who would step into the TARDIS next (poor REG was immediately relegated to "George Lazenby" status of the Doctor Who universe, having only one turn at it; even his old "Withnail & I" mate, Paul McGann, got scads of novels, comic strips, & audio dramas dedicated to his solo outing as the Doctor!). The usual suspects were touted: Bill Nighy, Stephen Fry, Alan Davies, Rowan Atkinson... the list goes on. Russell T Davies, creator of "Queer As Folk" had been tapped to re-develop the series for a modern audience.

When it was finally announced that CHRISTOPHER ECCLESTON ("Shallow Grave", "Gone in 60 Seconds", "28 Days Later...") would man the TARDIS console, decked out in an old, battered leather coat & workboots, many people had begun to scratch their heads. Maybe this ain't such a great idea after all...

WRONG.

While some episodes of this first series have cobbled-together, nonsensical plots (as did "classic" Doctor Who), for the most part, they're all good, & what holds it all together is Chris Eccleston's (as someone once put it) "defiantly working-class" portrayal of the 9th Doctor. Very subtly, he's pieced together different aspects of his predecessors, but has managed to keep his performance untainted from comparison.

The writing & plotting, overall, is very tight & fast, & Eccleston easily matches the frenetic pace, even outdoing it from time to time. Together with former popstress BILLIE PIPER (an excellent actress in her own right) as his companion, Rose Tyler, the duo make the perfect pairing to bring Doctor Who into the 21st century. However, this is much deeper than just "reimagining" or retooling the series; one can easily see how this is a continuation of the series had it not gone off the air in 1989. Seeing this new series, with SPFX far superior to anything the old series had, is like slipping into a comfy old leather coat you've not worn in years. It's new again, but you still remember how good it felt around you.

It's unfortunate that Eccleston decided to depart the role after only one series, but WHAT A SERIES!! There're hardly moments to breathe in most of the episodes, yet this new Doctor, dark & dangerous at times, always gives the confidence that the day will be saved in time to stop off down the local pub for chips. He will definitely be missed, & he will never be forgotten.

10th Doctor David TENNANT finally had his debut on Christmas night, & thus far, his reviews have been sterling as well. Let's hope so -- he's got a very big leather coat to fill.

NBC Special Treat: Into Infinity (1975) Season 1, Episode 3

Backdoor Pilot in case "Space: 1999" Tanked?

[7/10 · 26 December 2005]

I haven't seen this since it aired on a Dallas, TX. NBC affiliate one summer afternoon in 1976 (it was entitled "E=MC2" over here in the US, & "The Day After Tomorrow" everywhere else outside the UK, hence my not being able to find out anything about it for the longest time), so my memories of the details are a bit on the fuzzy side (the DVD is available for sale at Gerry & Sylvia Anderson's official website, so I may have to snag it just to satisfy my curiosity:

From what I recall, Nick Tate is the captain of a ship that gets drawn into a black hole when their mission goes inexplicably awry, & it seemed like it was setting up what this crew's / family's journey into the unknown would entail. Although I was a mere lad at the time, it struck me that maybe Nick Tate was preparing for a new series should the Anderson's current series, "Space: 1999" (also co-starring Tate as Captain Alan Carter) go the way of the dodo. Also, it's interesting to note that this movie's concept predated Disney's "The Black Hole" by three years.

The Andersons have never really been known for "real" sci-fi, but their reputation for over-the-top action / adventure was what kept them going for so long, & this, from what I recall, was no different. Like their Supermarionation series "Thunderbirds Are GO!", "Stingray", & "Captain Scarlet & the Mysterons", as well as their live-action efforts "Journey to the Far Side of the Sun", "UFO" & the aforementioned "Space: 1999", the "Sci" was far less prevalent than the "Fi", but they still made cracking good action series that kept the attention of (mostly) younger viewers.

The SPFX were, as was always the case with the Andersons, state-of-the art & very slick. They'd probably pale in comparison to today's standards, but there's something about the (now) cheesy look that's more than nostalgic. Also, their production values were on par with all their other series / movies, which is to say it looked goooooooood!!

Gerry & Sylvia Anderson are still very much active with their productions company; the CGI remake of "Captain Scarlet & the Mysterons", while recently cancelled, garnered strong ratings, so there's no reason to believe that they'll stop any time soon. I think the concept of "Into Infinity" is definitely worth revisiting & possibly turning into a full-blown series this time around.

UFO (1970–1971)

Welcome to the Swingin' '80s!!!

[26 December 2005]

Gerry & Sylvia Anderson, founders of Century 21 Productions, had tired of their Supermarionation series ("Thunderbirds Are GO!", "Captain Scarlet & the Mysterons", "Stingray", "Joe 90", et cetera) & had branched out into live-action productions. The first of these, the highly underrated & unfortunately out-of-print "Journey to the Far Side of the Sun" (aka "Doppelganger") was a great way to dip their collective toe in the water. The production values that they'd honed on the SM series lent themselves well to the live-action format, so why not go ahead & try a full-fledged series? Enter the ultra-cool, super-suave combatants of extraterrestrial threats, Supreme Headquarters, Alien Defence Organisation, or S.H.A.D.O.

Set a whoppin' TEN YEARS in our future (1980), where men were men & women were gorgeous (if ineffective & under-dressed), nowhere since "The Avengers" has England been so culturally cutting-edge. Gull-wing doors on cars, earth-tone Nehru jackets, & bleached Beatles wigs abound in this rather creepy tale of a super-secret organisation set up to defend the unwashed masses from aliens intent on harvesting Human organs to perpetuate their species.

Ed Bishop portrays the ultra suave Cmdr Ed Straker, head of SHADO, recessed deep beneath their "cover" of a movie studio, who, alongside his right hand man, Michael Billingsley as the super-macho Col Paul Foster, keep vigil over the Earth as the alien nasties try to do their worst to us from space, air, sea, & land.

While a lot of this show can be easily laughed at by today's extremely uptight PC atmosphere (everyone smokes, even in the oxygen-rich environment of the Moonbase; everyone drinks liquor excessively, whether off or on duty; the women -- & men, to be fair & equal -- wear skintight, skimpy & revealing outfits), there's a lot about this unfortunately short-lived series that provides some outstanding entertainment & suspense.

The Aliens were just plain creepy & their motives behind their invasion plans were as chilling as anything Chris Carter ever came up with in "The X Files". The fine line walked by the actors were even more difficult to walk than that of Adam West & Burt Ward in "Batman". Yes, sometimes the dialogue was either stiff or heavy-handed, but once everyone found their groove, some of the plots were as meaningful & effective as the best dramas around today. In the episode "Confetti Check; A-OK", the burden that Straker carries is compounded when his new bride begins to question what he's doing as well as his love for & devotion to her. Ed bishop displays eloquently the anguish of a man who's job is bigger than himself & his family, yet tries to cling to the notion that he can still have a normal life once he's off the clock, which, of course, he never is, nor will he ever be.

With the advent of "sophisticated Sci-Fi", which at its best is certainly refreshing, it's equally refreshing to be transported back to a vision of the future that, while treated equally as serious, was far less jaded than what we've been subjected to of late.

Batman Begins (2005)

"Welcome Home, Master Bruce!!"

[8/10 · 22 June 2005]

Having seen (some might say "having been subjected to") WB's four other "BATMAN" outings, I had rather low expectations of this new Dark Knight film, especially in light of the last three films, capably bungled by Tim Burton & Joel Schumacher, respectively. Despite the fact that director Christopher Nolan has an excellent track record with me, & the cast of this film is absolutely stellar (excepting Katie Holmes -- no offence; just didn't like her performance), I went in expecting the worst. After all, it's been proved time & again that the best "BATMAN" films ("best" meaning "true to the nature of the characters") have been the three films from WB's animation department; "BATMAN: MASK of the PHANTASM", "BATMAN / MR FREEZE: SUBZERO", & "BATMAN BEYOND: THE RETURN of THE JOKER".

With "BATMAN BEGINS", however, Chris Nolan has done a lot of homework & has taken the time to get to know these characters (well... except for the fact that the villain's name is pronounced "Raysh" & not "Razz". Jeez, Chris, make a 'phone call every once in a while, or better yet; ASK A FAN!!), something that neither Burton nor Schumacher seemed to have taken the time to do. His scripting, along with co-scripter David S Goyer, brings out the humanity of Bruce Wayne without pounding the audience over the head with it. Yes, his parents were murdered in front of him. Yes, that's the whole reason he became The Batman. This we know, so why belabour the point? Because, up 'til now, it's never been done *correctly* in a live action "BATMAN" film. Burton & Schumacher paid the event lip service, but only just. Nolan delves fully into this one happening that is the touchstone for why Bruce Wayne dresses up as a flying rodent & beats holy hell outta bad guys.

Christian Bale does a very human turn as Bruce Wayne without making him the flake that the Burton / Keaton films did, or the brooding weirdo that Schumacher / Kilmer / Clooney turned out. He has a firm grasp on who this guy is & what he's trying to accomplish.

The rest of the cast I couldn't be happier with (except the aforementioned block o' wood, Katie Holmes), & while I would love to have seen more of each of them in the film, no one was wasted or cheated; every character on the screen served a purpose & served it well.

As I said earlier, Nolan seems to have done his homework. There were some very clever turns in this movie, the characters & story were well-handled, & I think he's got a good bead on where the celluloid version of The Dark Knight needs to be headed.

Without going into too much detail, we get to see where the legend begins (obviously!). The film borrows heavily from Frank Miller's epic comic book miniseries, "BATMAN: YEAR ONE", & "BATMAN: MASK of the PHANTASM", which are always good sources from which to filch.

There will, of course, be fans of the comics who scream bloody murder about certain things in this film, & there's no changing their minds. However, given the track record of the previous "BATMAN" films, if this is the direction they're taking it, I'll gladly come along for at least one more ride.

Plain Clothes (1988)

Quite a Pleasant Surprise!

[8/10 · 19 June 2005]

This is one of those films that I watched on a Saturday afternoon when there was nothing else on, & man, am I glad I did.

Arliss Howard plays a young detective who must go undercover at a high school in order to clear his younger brother of a murder accusation. Seems straightforward enough, but this film actually tosses in some plot twists that make the viewer have to pay attention. The movie is punctuated by its quirky sense of humour (look for the quick visual gag "Free at Last!" in Robert Stack's office!!) & a refusal to take itself seriously. Adding to the charm of this are excellent performances by Robert Stack, Suzy Amis, Diane Ladd, George Wendt, Seymour Cassel, Reginald VelJohnson, & a howlingly deadpan performance by the great Abe Vigoda!

This film will never win any awards, but the cast are solid & the script is funny. It's a tad more grown-up & far less preachy than most of the '80s pap that garnered all the attention, & if anyone's looking for a good popcorn-muncher that'll give a few good laughs, try this one on for size.

The Rutles 2: Can't Buy Me Lunch (2003 TV Movie)

"Schindler's List" Was Funnier...

[1/10 · 28 March 2005]

Most outings from Python alumni are good for at least one good, hard belly laugh. Unfortunately, that is most definitely NOT the case with "Rutles 2: Can't Buy Me Lunch". I'm not kidding. Not ONCE did I laugh. If I'd actually been able to find & purchase this sold-out-at-all-stores-I-went-to travesty instead of borrowing it from a friend, I honestly would've taken it back for a refund or an exchange for something good.

Creator Eric Idle had carped about WB leaving this sequel to languish in the vaults "until I should pass away". Trust me, they should have. It's the one time I think "studio wisdom" actually should've been applied. And what REALLY steams me is that I was one of the most vocal lobbyists to get WB to finally release it on DVD. I was mildly worried when one of the two previews on the DVD's official website featured former SNLer Jimmy Fallon.

It was nothing compared to the disappointment that was to follow.

Instead of treating rabid fans of "The Prefab Four" to new footage of those wacky Liverpudlians & what anarchic mischief they've been up to since The Rutles' demise in 1970, we are fed unused footage from the 1978 -- & highly superior -- "The Rutles: All You Need is Cash", & even most of that was seen in the special features of that DVD. NO new appearances from Neil Innes (Ron Nasty), John Halsey (Barry Wom), or Rikki Fataar (Stig O'Hara) were presented to go along with this inferior rehash of a brilliant mockumentary, which obviously inspired the likes of "This Is Spinal Tap", "Bad News", & "Dill Scallion", all funny & all definitely owing a debt of gratitude to Idle's vision.

Shortly after "The Beatles Anthology" was released, Neil Innes & Co. returned to the studio to record "The Rutles Archaeology". Innes contacted Idle to invite him to reprise his role as Dirk McQuickly for the video of "Shangri-La", but Idle turned him down, saying that it'd been done before & he had no time to retread old ground. He should either have stuck to that statement or taken Innes up on the offer. The second Rutles' album was MUCH truer to the original (in some instances, even funnier!) than Idle's movie. Had Idle reprised his role, maybe he would've remembered what made it so funny to begin with.

The new interviews (featuring the likes of Tom Hanks, Robin Williams, Bonnie Raitt, Salman Rushdie[?!]) again feature nothing new or humorous. And the whole "trousers" thing? It was (is) funny for the brief mentions in the original, but it feels like it's being beaten to death in the sequel.

I wish I'd been that fortunate, either before or after sitting through this. Having survived "Rutles 2", I'll never complain about having to go to the dentist's office again.

Star Trek: Where No Man Has Gone Before (1966) Season 1, Episode 3

"Star Trek" at Its Best!

[10/10 · 19 January 2005]

A lot of people rank "The City on the Edge of Forever" as their favourite "Star Trek" episode. While this is certainly a deserving episode (despite everything that was excised from author Harlan Ellison's original script), for my money, the distillation of Trek is the 2nd pilot episode, "Where No Man Has Gone Before".

At no other time in the series do you see these characters, who became beloved sci-fi icons in just three short years, as raw & stripped down as in this episode. Yet it's not a traditional pilot by today's standards; there are no painful, mind-numbing "origin" scenes, no backstory explained, or need for either. It's as though the viewer has just signed aboard the Enterprise & is experiencing things from a cadet's perspective.

Although the obvious friendship between Bill Shatner's somewhat fastidious "Captain James 'R' Kirk" (a gaffe that has haunted Trek writers for decades!) & Gary Lockwood's rather libidinous helmsman & longtime friend from Starfleet Academy, "Gary Mitchell", is what fuels this episode, it's the insight we're given into these characters that we would come to know so well that makes this the most fascinating of the show's original 79-episode run. Jim Kirk is obviously beleaguered by the fact that his dear friend is, through no fault of his own, mutating into Homo-Superior & dangerously toying with the ship & its crew. Mr Spock, ever the logical one, is so coldly logical in this outing that one has to wonder how Kirk ever warmed up to him. The anguish that Kirk feels when the realisation finally sinks in that he may have no other choice but to kill his old friend was only ever equalled -- & just barely at that -- by Shatner's performance in the aforementioned episode, "City on the Edge of Forever", when he must let his love, Edith Keeler, die right in front of him in order to put the Universe back to rights.

Even the "throwaway" moments -- Lt Sulu as the ship's astrophysicist instead of helmsman, Dr Piper in lieu of Leonard "Bones" McCoy, future "Room 222" star Lloyd Haynes as the ship's communications officer, the warm knowing smile that Shatner gives to Jimmy Doohan's "Scotty" when told "engineering, ready as always!" -- give this episode a feeling of being well-worn. The crew know one another & work well together. The newbie on board, "Dr Elizabeth Dehner", played by the devastating beauty Sally Kellerman, shines through as she fights to have her new position validated by a crew that is already familiar & well-oiled.

While Trek provided many entertaining moments, few have come close to this seminal version. The series' first pilot (initially rejected by NBC brass), "The Cage" tried a bit too hard to make you feel that this crew had a history. Original cast members Shatner, Nimoy, Doohan, & Takei give as excellent a performance in this pilot as they did in the rest of the series, & the "ancillary" Lockwood, Kellerman, Haynes, Pauls Carr & Fixx only enhance the mood.

If you're looking to discover what Trek is all about, go no further than "Where No Man Has Gone Before".

Star Trek: Generations (1994)

The Trek Movie That Should NEVER Have Been! Spoilers

[4 November 2004]

When it was first announced that "Generations" was being made with cast members of both TOS & TNG, I was excited. Despite the highly-publicised fact that Captain Kirk was gonna bite the dust in this one, I had high hopes, recalling how the death of Spock was handled in "The Wrath of Khan". Not to mention, with the TNG series finale', "All Good Things...", being soooooooo good, a TNG big-screen outing that combines the casts of both series HAS to be even MORE spectacular!!!

However, what we were treated to was a murky, discombobulated outing that essentially wasted the talents & screen presences of Jimmy Doohan, Walter Koenig, Jonathan Frakes, Mirina Sirtis, Gates McFadden & Michael Dorn. The scenes that featured William Shatner, Patrick Stewart, Brent Spiner, LeVar Burton, & Malcolm McDowell were spotty at best, though Patrick Stewart was given ample time to emote.

The three cast members of TOS (Shatner, Doohan, & Koenig) all did fine jobs (as always!) with what they had to work with, but it's obvious that the roles the latter two wound up with were written for Leonard Nimoy & DeForest Kelley. Chekov as a medic & Scotty as a science officer? Not that they couldn't do it in a pinch, but the dialogue could've at least been re-written to suit the characters. However, it speaks volumes that Nimoy & Kelley turned down the parts once they'd read the script.

The lighting on this film is one of the most frustrating aspects of watching it, from a technical standpoint. Everything appears in ambient lighting, which is something that was rarely done on either TOS or TNG. When Will Riker walks out of Picard's ready room, he walks onto the bridge in almost pitch blackness. HUH?!

Also, what's with each crew member changing uniforms every time they come back from an away mission? START with the new uniforms & let it stand at that!

The biggest complaint I have about this movie is the fact that co-writer Brannon Braga admitted from the get-go that he was not a classic Trek fan & had always wanted to kill off Captain Kirk if the two casts ever met on screen. As I stated earlier, the death of Spock in Trek II was handled tastefully &, as Kirk stated in his eulogy, "his sacrifice (was not) a vain or empty one". Spock's death actually SERVED a purpose. Braga simply wanted to kill Kirk, & it shows in the lack of depth with which it was handled. Classic Trek fan or not, if it hadn't been for Shatner & Co., Braga wouldn't have enjoyed the lucrative coattail-riding career he's had for almost 20 years. He needs to be a lot more respectful of his elders.

The shoddy plotpoints that lead up to Kirk's first "death" in the 23rd century are hackneyed & poorly written. For Starfleet to assign a young, bumbling officer as the captain of their flagship is not only ludicrous, but also ill-conceived. I guess he was trying to make some type of political statement about the military as a large, unthinking collective, but he wound up insulting a, if you'll pardon the bad pun, generation of fans who grew up watching a Star Trek series where Starfleet was adept at assigning officers who could handle crises without looking over their shoulder or having to call home every time. I know this was designed to make Kirk look good & still vital despite his retirement, but it only served to make Starfleet & their newly-chosen crew look like nothing more than a bunch of buffoons & publicity hounds.

The attempts at trying to tie in loose ends from TNG (Lursa & B'Etor) was a hindrance that could've been done without. They had no logical place in this movie; it was a contrivance that Dr Soran just so happened to contact two Klingon sisters (or maybe they contacted him -- who knows, who cares?) who had it in for Picard & could help him with his plight if he helped them with theirs.

The emotion chip scenes with Data, while being far better utilised in ensuing TNG films, were forced, & I don't know if Brent Spiner is to blame for that or the writers. TNG always had a healthy dose of humour in it, but throughout the film, I kept waiting to hear a muted trumpet blaring "waa-waa-WAAAAAAA!" after every one of Data's lines once he'd installed the emotion chip. And the one word of profanity spoken in the movie was spoken by Spiner in a lame attempt by the writers to garner cheap laughs from an already insulted audience.

Bringing in Guinan as a bridge to explain what the Nexus was & what it did was overkill. While it's generally a welcome thing to see Guinan, her scenes were a bit too pat & explanatory (not to mention they were forcibly reiterated when Picard finally confronted Dr Soran face-to-face) & again, a character's presence was wasted by being reduced to, what Ridley Scott termed, "Irving The Explainer". Let's have a little mystery here folks! "Who's this madman destroying stars? Why's he doing it? Guinan, care to espouse for me? Thank you!" As I said, a bit too pat & FAR too pandering a mentality for a Trek film.

Another thing (& this has always irritated me about TNG) that really bothered me about the whole "Picard-going-to-rescue-Kirk-from-the-Nexus-&-save-the-universe-one-last-time" nonsense is that Picard has always been portrayed as a little bit TOO perfect. Kirk, like any other human being, made occasional mistakes, & his foibles made him all the more identifiable with the audience. Not so with Picard; he was always depicted as right, regardless of the situation. Granted, here, Picard had foreknowledge of the Nexus & how it affected those within it while Kirk didn't, but to suggest that Picard would be less susceptible to the wiles of the Nexus than Kirk is ridiculous. Braga really goes out of his way to say "MY captain's better than YOUR captain!" with this one.

(BTW -- I know Ron Moore co-wrote this script with Braga, but the points I bring up are the ones where Braga had his hands in a bit too heavily.)

And, finally, we have the death of Kirk.

Spock died saving the Enterprise from the obsessions of a madman. Kirk died saving a solar system from the obsessions of a madman.

The difference? How it was handled.

Spock's death was poignant to the point of tears. The only reason Kirk's death caused tears is because it was so senseless. Whether it's the original ending where Kirk, after saving the solar system, is shot in the back by Dr Soran, or the theatrical ending where Kirk, after saving the solar system, FALLS OFF A BRIDGE (!!), the death is pointless. "Hey, Jean-Luc... look! I've saved the universe one last time, like we agreed. Now I'm gonna go off & die somewhere."

Puh-LEASE!!

Kirk doesn't even get a decent burial for cryin' out loud! At least Gary Mitchell gave Kirk a tombstone!! Picard dumps his body under a pile of rocks & places his battered Starfleet insignia atop it, then calls his ship to pick him up. How friggin' TOUCHING. I'm all choked up just thinking about it.

TNG was able to redeem itself, very much like the cast of TOS did, in their subsequent films. I regard "Generations" as I do "Star Trek: The Motion Picture"; it was a gawd-AWFUL movie, but it laid the groundwork for some really fine films to get made.

And that's REALLY the only reason this movie should still exist.

Phantom 2040 (1994–1996)

An Interesting Spin on an Old Friend

[18 October 2004]

Given that "Phantom" creator Lee Falk was never that wild about this show, "Phantom 2040" adhered as close to Falk's formula (hero mantle is passed down from father to son for over 500 years) as possible. Also, the futuristic updating helped garner viewers who were oblivious to the fact that The Phantom is widely viewed in the U.S. as an archaic hero, at least to those only peripherally familiar with the character.

Sci-Fi writers Judith & Garfield Reeves-Stevens managed to update the legend of The Phantom, throwing in a rather interesting twist; the mantle of "The Ghost Who Walks" was not able to be passed on from the 23rd Phantom to his heir, as he was presumably killed in an accident 16 years prior, making Kit Walker, Jnr. only 2 years old at the time, therefore completely unaware of his father's activities.

18 year-old Kit Walker, Jnr. has been sheltered by his Aunt Heloise (the 23rd Phantom's sister) from the Walker Family Legacy in hopes that the first Walker male in almost 500 years will have the chance at a normal life. When the 23rd Phantom's former comrade-in-arms, Guran, appears from Africa to ensure that Kit knows his family's history, the sparks begin to fly.

The young Kit at first dismisses his responsibility, then acquiesces when he realises the import of The Phantom's work at stamping out piracy, greed, & cruelty, this time in the form of the E-Ville corporation, Maximum, Inc.

The story lines were, for the most part, serialised, an oddity for an animated series, but "Phantom 2040" is much more than an average animated series. This could easily have been a live-action series & it's encouraging to see writers take creative risks like they did here. The series never talks down to its audience, & the writers hired for this project serve to prove that: Marc Scott Zicree & veteran Sci-Fi author Harlan Ellsion top the list of this well-written show.

While this series only lasted 2 seasons, it did have a beginning, middle, & ending, although I suspect the Reeves-Stevenses were hoping to go into a 3rd season, which would've been welcomed with open arms if the writing had stayed as consistent & interesting as it did throughout its 2-year run.

While other series received more acclaim than "Phantom 2040" (the most blatant ripoff being WB's "Batman Beyond"), few were as stylish, ("Aeon Flux" creator Peter Chung did the character design) & even fewer were as tightly plotted. Even though this series never got the accolades it deserves / deserved, at least it got made, it was well-made, & proves that the audience can watch a serious Sc-Fi animated series without being pandered to.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)

This Should've Been Better Than It Is...

[22 September 2004]

I really wanted to like "Sky Captain...". REALLY, I did. It should've been a bull's eye. It's got everything that a sci-fi geek of my generation could want: an incredible Fleischer Brothers / Fritz Lang-like scope of all things "Futuristic", replete with giant, flying robots, ray guns, a "bad" good girl (or would Ms Jolie be more along the lines of a good "bad" girl?), gadgets that would make Major Boothroyd at Q-Branch drool & palpitate, exotic locales, dog-fights in the air, underwater battles with mechanical Leviathanic watchdogs, & an E-Ville Genius bent on destroying the world with his mad vision of "Utopia".

What it does NOT have, surprisingly, is heart & soul.

The movie, while chock-full o' eye candy, falls very flat, thanks mostly in part to the rather lackluster performances of Jude Law & Gwyneth Paltrow, two of my favourite actors. Everyone who knows me could see why I was drooling to get to the theater. Even Giovanni Ribisi seems to coast through this film, which is almost as criminal as Law's & Paltrow's subdued presences. The only "A-Lister" to bring some dynamism to the table (as well as make Jude Law actually act for a bit) is Angelina Jolie as the one-eyed British Sky Captain (read: "female Nick Fury") Francesca "Franky" Cook.

Writer / director Kerry Conlan has an uncanny affinity for picking *just* the right images to evoke the nostalgia of 1930s' & 1940s' sci-fi, culling from the old Republic cliffhangers, Doc Savage & The Shadow pulps, & the aforementioned Fleischer Brothers' "Superman" cartoons, but the movie comes off as style over substance. The understated performances of the leads, minus Angelina Jolie (more on her character later) were completely out of place in this wanna-be-bigger-than-life epic. If the film's scope is going to be broad, then so do the characters, & that just didn't happen for me. I just didn't really care that much about Joe Sullivan, aka Sky Captain, or Polly Perkins, Ace Girl Reporter, or any of the supposed history of either of their characters. In fact, the whole time I was watching it, I was thinking, "this would be cool for a 'Doc Savage' movie", or "those helicarriers & amphibious suits would look great in a new 'Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.' film". Nothing that was presented felt like I was watching an old grab-you-by-the-shirt-collar cliffhanger, or even a *new* one, for that matter, ala "Indiana Jones". It was not a nostalgic return to those thrilling days of yesteryear; it was more like someone playing at being nostalgic & falling juuuuuuuuuuuust this short of the mark.

As I've mentioned twice now, Angelina Jolie's performance as Franky Cook was the one shining character amongst a cast of actors sprayed down liberally with DullCote. The interaction between Jolie & Law, as well as the implied history between them, gave a much-needed spark to this film, & in my humble opinion, she should've been in the movie a lot more. Leave it to Lara Croft to spice things up a bit.

Don't get me wrong, folks; I don't think "Sky Captain..." is a *bad* movie. I'll more than likely at least rent it if not outright buy it when it comes out on DVD (if for no other reason than the "Making Of..." features, of which there are bound to be plenty). And, to be fair, there were moments during the film that took me back to my childhood when my Dad first introduced me to "King of the Rocketmen" & "Radar Men from the Moon". If there's a sequel, I'll probably check it out as well. One can always hope.

As I said, I don't think "Sky Captain..." is a bad movie. I just think it could've -- & should've -- been more than it is.

Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead (1990)

This is Where the Genius Began!

[24 March 2003]

Tom Stoppard's beautifully twisted sense of humour, which led "Shakespeare in Love" to several Oscars, including "Best Movie", is in top form in this play-turned-movie, which essentially put him on the map.

Gary Oldman & Tim Roth are appropriately vapid & confused as their lives take on a surrealistic quality behind the scenes of "Hamlet". When the play's action resumes, all seems to be right with the world, yet when the primary characters exit to continue the rest of the play, all reason flies out the window.

The rest of the "minor" characters are convincing enough, & whenever onscreen, Richard Dreyfuss keeps things moving along at breakneck pace (no pun intended).

This movie is not quite as audience friendly as "Shakespeare in Love", but anyone with a reasonable sense of intelligence & humour (as well as a working knowledge of "Hamlet") should be able to follow along fairly easily.

Daredevil (2003)

As Close as It Can Get to the Comic Book -- UPDATED: Even BETTER Now!!

[8/10 · 14 February 2003]

There are always liberties that must be taken with comic-to-film characters, & "DAREDEVIL" is no exception. However, director/writer Mark Steven Johnson handles these necessary evils with great aplomb & sensitivity, not only with regard to the characters, but also to the fans.

Certain aspects of the film I could've done without, or at least would've preferred a bit more in depth explanation if that route was truly the best way to go. Overall, the characters were portrayed as faithfully as they could be without becoming, pardon the pun, a comic book.

All of the actors turned in solid performances, & treated their roles with the respect that's due characters who've been around almost 40 years. If this freshman outing is any indication, the "DAREDEVIL" franchise is in better hands than the "BATMAN" franchise ever was, & stands to rival "SPIDER-MAN" & "X-MEN" for true fan loyalty. All in all, an excellent comic-to-film project.

UPDATE -- Review of "DAREDEVIL: THE DIRECTOR'S CUT" DVD

Wow.

Where did THIS movie come from?

When I saw DD in February 2003, I thought it was handled as well as could be expected, given the fact that this character, while much beloved in the hearts of Marvel fans, is essentially a second-stringer in popularity (compared to Spider-Man, X-Men, The Hulk & The Punisher). While I wasn't forgiving of some things that were in the film (the fact that Matt & Foggy are DEFENSE attorneys, yet this dialogue wasn't caught in & excised from either version: "My client is not on trial here. Neither is her testimony." Well... yeah, she / it IS on trial if you're doing your job right!!), I still feel Mark Steven Johnson did a competent job in writing & directing this movie.

Then, I saw the director's cut.

With very few exceptions (the trial scene is the same, DD still lets a criminal die when he could've / WOULD've saved him, the PLAYGROUND scene...), this cut is basically an entirely different movie &, in my humble opinion -- having been a die-hard DD fan for almost as long as the character's been around -- this is more along the lines of the movie that DD fans wanted.

This original version is far more character-driven & delves into the "peripheral" characters a lot more than the theatrical release. It was a shock to see how much Foggy Nelson & Ben Urich (wonderfully played by Jon Favreau & the inimitable Joe Pantoliano, respectively) were cut out of the theartical version.

I understand 20th Century Fox's concerns about the movie as MSJ wrote, shot & cut it; as with all things corporate, they were shooting for the lowest common denominator, but DD is not a character that lends himself to that mentality. No offence to Spider-Man, X-Men, or The Punisher, but they're more universal characters, more easily accessed by people across the LCD demographic. The DD renaissance, ushered in by Frank Miller in the 1980s, saved the comic book from cancellation & gave him a newfound popularity, but the character still never achieved the mainstream success of his fellows. Hence the reason that MSJ's original version is much truer to the character than what was initially released to the general public.

If you didn't really like this movie the first time around, rent the Director's Cut DVD & give it a second chance.

If you liked it the first time around, BUY the Director's Cut DVD & use the theatrical version DVD for a cool-looking coaster!

In Like Flint (1967)

Good, But Not AS Good...

[27 August 2002]

Derek Flint's second outing falls juuuuuust a bit shy of recapturing the fun-filled spirit of this short-lived series' first film, 1965's "OUR MAN FLINT".

Being more in the style of the "BATMAN" TV series (which 20th Century Fox produced at that time as well), this film accentuates more of the absolutely outlandish camp, as opposed to the more subtle (okay, not REAL subtle, but...) tongue-in-cheek, nudge-nudge, wink-wink of the original "Flint" film (at one point, the audience is invited to "follow the bouncing Russian Star" & sing along with the Russian National Anthem as our hero, disguised as Fidel Castro, hijacks a plane FROM Cuba TO the Virgin Islands to foil the villains' E-ville plot... oh, yeah, & rescue his bevy of Flint-ettes).

For the record, even if this film had fallen WAY shy of the first film in everything overall, it'd still be better than the thankfully-aborted TV pilot, "Our Man Flint: Dead on Target". Sorry, but no one else but James Coburn can bring the character of Derek Flint to life. Even so, it seems that Coburn's interest in the character had begun to wane a tad by this time; after all, 2 years had gone by since "OMF", the world's political view had begun to change radically, & the Summer of Love was in full swing, baby... yeeeeaaaaaaahhhh!!

"IN LIKE FLINT" still has some of the first film's charm, but quite a few of the plot points are VERY dated & insulting, especially when viewed in the cold light of today's often harsh, overly-PC environment. The filmmakers' attitude toward women being able to quite easily take over the world are not as readily accepted as in "The Avengers" episode, "How To Succeed... at Murder". In fact, most of the time, the general mentality -- even that of the suave & cool, ultra-hip, super-modern Derek Flint -- is downright primordial, even in light of, or despite, the '60s Women's Rights Movements.

Even though it ain't great, it still ain't too bad, all things considered. I've seen much worse go around for years & if this is to be considered possibly James Coburn's only celluloid crime, he's waaaaaaaaay ahead of the game. Not a terrible feather to have in one's acting cap... or DVD collection.

Our Man Flint (1966)

"There's Only ONE MAN Who Can Do The Job..."

[27 August 2002]

Flint. Derek Flint. He's the embodiment of every guy's idea of what being a Secret Agent should be like. Austin Powers, the cinematic "offspring" of Derek Flint, was described much as Flint could be summed up; "men want to BE him & women want to be WITH him!"

Not as overtly campy as Mike Myers' homage to this short-lived franchise (the 2nd film, "In Like Flint", was released theatrically in 1967 & "Our Man Flint: Dead on Target", a rather lacklustre TV pilot without the role's progenitor, failed to keep the series' momentum going), it still manages to good-naturedly & good-heartedly spoof the 007 films, as well as the "U.N.C.L.E." series, which is kinda hard to do when you think about it -- U.N.C.L.E. basically WAS a spoof of 007!

Of all the likely candidates who could've been tapped to play this role, James Coburn is, much like his celluloid alter-ego, the only man who can do the job. His performance is knowingly campy & deadly serious at exactly the right times, & one always has the feeling that it was all he could do to keep from winking at the camera at various points in the movie. It's obvious everyone involved had a blast making this film!

You'll have a blast watching it, too!

Hudson Hawk (1991)

One of the BEST "Worst" Movies of All Time!

[29 December 2001]

There have been many movies to achieve "cult" status throughout the history of motion pictures. Unfortunately, the much-maligned "HUDSON HAWK" has not yet achieved that much-lauded position, & Hollywood is all the poorer for it. Therefore, it's not surprising that, in this age of the pre-fab, "blockbuster", multi-million dollar, P.O.S. era, such a charming & disarming film as "Hudson Hawk" goes relatively unnoticed, though when it IS "noticed", it generally gets dragged through an undeserved load of "critic" crap.

Starring Bruce Willis (the now-modern-day "King of the Blockbusters"), Danny Aiello, Andie MacDowell, Richard E. Grant & Sandra Bernhard, this film has all the ear-markings of a hit, yet it never *quite* made it, mostly due to an unfair slant against Mr Willis at this point in his career. He'd done his debut LP, vehemently gone to great lengths to distance himself from his hit TV series "Moonlighting", & proven himself as "star material" in what was to be the first of the "Die Hard" series of movies. Unfortunately, this was at a time when Willis was still, for the most part, unproven as a box-office draw, & the movie was too innovative & ahead of its time to be truly appreciated by anyone who wasn't a (pardon the pun) die-hard Willis fan.

Willis plays a just-out-of-jail catburglar who's wrangled unwillingly once more into a life of crime for reasons that are, at the beginning of our story, beyond his comprehension. The plot, convoluted at first, unfolds with the best pacing & storytelling of any Hitchcock thriller, 'though more humourously, & the viewers are brought along at the same breakneck, confused pace as our befuddled hero, & forced to figure out the "whodunnit-&-why" for themselves... again, at the same time as our hero. It seems several films have, in the interim, nicked this philosophy without giving credit where it's due.

"Hudson Hawk" laughs openly & freely at itself, as well as pays homage to some of the great, as well as "cheesy", films it spoofs. One only has to see James Coburn's character of "George Kaplan" (the same name as the Hitchcock "red herring" from "North By Northwest"), then later hear the "incidental" tones of "Hail to the Chief", written by "Flint" composer Jerry Goldsmith, to appreciate that this movie, like the "Flint" films, is strictly played for laughs. For some reason, the "Austin Powers" films have garnered the same recognition that "Hawk" (*and* "Flint") unsuccessfully sought, once again proving that this film was indeed ahead of its time.

I don't know if it's because Willis wasn't yet the "mega-star" that he is now, or if the world just wasn't ready, at that time, for Champions of the Absurd, but if you've slighted "Hudson Hawk" in the past, go into it again with an open mind. Hell, for that matter, go into it with an open container -- it might put you in a better frame of mind to accept the sheer escapism that this wonderful film represents, instead of trying to read "the Bible" into it.

I mean, come ON, folks -- it's ONLY a movie.

And a damned good one, at that!

Invincible (2001 TV Movie)

Zane Strikes Again!!

[19 December 2001]

This charming telemovie (co-pro'ed by Mel Gibson & Jet Li!) features all the stereotypical trappings of a "Good v. Evil" movie, replete with characters you know virtually nothing about, Eastern philosophy & mysticism, & a healthy dose of (admittedly stunning) martial artistry & SPFX, yet for some reason, it works in spite of itself.

That reason is BILLY ZANE.

Zane portrays "Os", a "Shadowman" who renounces his Immortal life of Darkness & Evil when he is shown The Way. He gathers together the four Chosen Ones (there WERE five, but Os killed the fifth immediately before his redemption), all rough-n-tough misfits in one way or another, to train them to battle the evil "Slate", Os' former Shadowman boss & running buddy. Slate's desire is to gain possession of an ancient tablet, which will allow him to (dare I say it?) rule the world!! The main point of conflict comes in when the two former friends must face-off against one another in mortal combat.

As I stated earlier, despite the fact that this film is filled with cliches & either over-the-top or forced performances, Zane's gentle portrayal of Os somehow makes everything gel rather nicely, holding any absurdities together like a well-woven garment. I honestly don't think this guy's capable of turning in a bad performance, regardless of the material he's given.

Not necessarily a "must-see" movie, but an entertaining popcorn-muncher for a cold night in.

Human Target (1992)

Let's Hear It For The "Underdogs"

[19 December 2001]

This series had so much going against it from its outset that it's a true wonder it ever saw the (brief) light of day. A relatively unknown comic book character, a much-maligned "rock star" lead, & two proven yet not wildly popular producers do NOT a hit series make.

An obscure DC Comics character (created in the mid-'60s by writer LEN WEIN) wouldn't exactly seem to be the best fodder for a proposed TV series, but DANNY BILSON & PAUL DeMEO (the wunderkind behind the "Trancers" series of movies, "The Rocketeer", "The Flash", "The Sentinel", "Viper") were able to add an intriguing new spin on what was once a "filler story" character. As with all good writers, they fleshed out the character of Christopher Chance (nicely portrayed by veteran rocker / actor RICK SPRINGFIELD), giving this former cardboard cut-out a history, a purpose, & above all, angst & neuroses.

Chris Chance is a Viet Nam veteran, formerly an officer in Special Ops (presumedly an assassin) who turned his back on killing & violence after a nervous breakdown left him in a V.A. hospital. He decided to use his rather specialised skills to help people who are in a jam by assuming their identities until the bad guys got rousted, hence the title of the character & the series.

Chance assmbled a highly-skilled, diverse team of operatives to help him in his work: Libby (SIGNY COLEMAN), a former CIA analyst, Philo (KIRK BALTZ), a top-shelf Hollywood FX makeup artist, & Jeff (SaMi CHESTER), a trained pilot & buddy of Chance's from their stint in 'Nam.

Although the '92 summer series only lasted seven episodes, it was well-done, using what was at the time state-of-the-art FX, & utilising some of more brilliant, if unknown to the general public, writers in the comic & TV field (comic book veteran HOWIE CHAYKIN immediately springs to mind). Springfield was able to convey a wonderful sense of depth & melancholy that was apropos for the character (while he was the correct age to portray Chris Chance, his boyish looks had the unfortunate tendency to undermine the seriousness of his character), the supporting team did equally fine jobs (most notably Chester), & the guests who were brought in (SCOTT PAULIN, DAVID CLENNON, RICHARD BELZER, HARRY GUARDINO, R. LEE ERMEY, & KEVIN McCARTHY) only served to thicken an already rich broth.

I don't know if any further episodes were made or commissioned, but it would've been fascinating to see how many diverse directions this series & its characters could've taken, given the... chance.