Change Your Image
mozart827
Reviews
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)
The Best Trek Film
Initially, I agreed with many sentiments that ST:TMP was overly long, ponderous, and dull. However, the more I see of Star Trek (the five series, the nine films), as well as the more sci-fi I read, I've come to feel that this film is by far the best of all of them. It truly captures the Trek mantra: "to seek out new life forms". It is majestic and gives a good sense of our place in the universe. Not the center, but a small part. Anyone who thinks that TMP is too slow really expects that all science-fiction is Star Wars with lasers blasting and WWII-style dogfights. Although that type of science-fiction has its place and can be very enjoyable, if well done, an important part of science-fiction is to instill a sense of wonder about the universe. Yes, character development is important, but without the "sci-fi" setting, it might as well be a plain-vanilla story.
Planet of the Apes (2001)
Half-good, half-bad
(Some spoilers in this review...)
Even without comparing this film to the original, I was rather disappointed. The first half, the effects, costuming, score, and some of the characters were all very good. The story was interesting and somewhat original and suspenseful up until the midpoint of the film.
However, in the second half the film degenerated into a rather derivative, uninspired, Hollywood-ized, feel-good ending. It appears as if THE MATRIX (and XENA) has set a new standard for fight scenes (i.e., unbelievable aerial moves, violence that results in nary a scratch, etc.), which is getting rather tiresome. I'm also disappointed in the obligatory mass-combat scene (granted it is necessary in some films: GLADIATOR, THE PATRIOT, etc., but not in EVERY film).
POTA also continues my dislike of children in most science-fiction films. The main human child character in this film was uninteresting and your typical film child character (rebellious and obnoxious) and he gave a stereotypical non-suspense scene during the climatic battle. I was also disappointed at the lack of atmosphere that one would expect from a Tim Burton film.
SPOILER: Normally I can figure out any sort of time-loop, paradox thingy that a story has. However, the "surprise-ending" in this version of POTA does not seem possible at all, at least not as a consequence of Leo's actions.
Because this is a remake, it begs to be compared to the original POTA. Because Burton's version is not set on Earth, it lacks the emotional punch that the 1968 version did and still does.
One thing I appreciated was Burton's inclusion of two classic lines from the original version, but with a nice twist.
A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)
Good, but ultimately disappointing
*********** SPOILERS ahead!!*************
First, the good parts- effects were excellent, acting was all-around very good, the characters interesting, and the first "act" where David was with the human family.
Now, the disappointments- what came after David was abandoned. From the trailers I was expecting and hoping for a exploration of how David might attempt to integrate with Robot (Mecha) society after being rejected by Human (Orga) society. I felt that the Pinocchio analogy was carried WAY too far and it would have been much more interesting if Spielberg had created a more fully-developed underground Mecha society. Perhaps David might have bonded with the Nanny robot, as was implied in the trailers.
Gigolo Joe had forecast that Mechas would eventually replace Orgas and I think the film's final acts would have been much stronger if we traveled to the future in which that had happened. It was interesting to see the ice-Earth, but the aliens were not all-that-necessary. At least that part could have been shortened, with greater attention attention paid to his problems with being parts of and rejected by both societies.
The story was a bit a reminiscent of the recent OUTER LIMITS episode, FAMILY VALUES.
Shrek (2001)
Funniest movie all year!
The funniest movie since THE FULL MONTY!
I've not laughed so hard in ages! The script was great and all of the spoofs and parodies wonderful. I LOVED the dragon! Great stuff!
Moulin Rouge! (2001)
A wonderful trip!
Moulin Rouge was Gilbert & Sullivan meet MTV meets Terry Gilliam. I found this movie to be much funnier than I expected and visually stunning. I would like to respond to two previous reviews: Marya-3: I am 30 and would not consider myself to be "very young". (I remember when MTV actually played music and not the garbage it does today.) And so I think that the music used in the film was from my generation. Furthermore, to Burkemt29, so what if the gun took a trajectory that was not likely or that the the music wasn't correct for the period? It wasn't supposed to be an accurate portrayal of the Parisian Bohemian underground, IMHO, it was a surreal trip, a musical that was visually "Spectacular Spectacular" and a treat in the vast morass of cinematic nonsense that has been saturating our movie houses.
I think that movie-goers need to adjust their thinking to accommodate the type of picture that one is seeing. Allow yourself a little suspension of disbelief and don't try to nit-pick every detail that seems slightly out of place. If you want complete accuracy in a story, rent a documentary or read a book.
Cube (1997)
Very good overall
I found this film to very intriguing and would agree with most of the previous comments. ***SPOILERS: I would especially agree with the comments that the ending was rather weak and unsatisfying. The "bloodbath" was unnecessary and served little point to me. END SPOILERS**** I would, however, disagree that it should be remade with a larger budget. The minimalist feel in both the sets and little-known actors I think very much adds to the film and directs your attention to the characters and their development. The watcher would be distracted by flashy effects and big-name actors.
Enemy at the Gates (2001)
Very good with a few flaws
Overall I thought this was a very good film with excellent performances all around (I really like Ed Harris, one of the most underrated actors, IMHO). My two main complaints are the totally gratuitous sex scene and the wolf hunt at the start of the film (I'm not too happy about people killing wolves).
Farscape: Premiere (1999)
Love this show!!!
I think that FARSCAPE is the best scifi since Babylon 5 and is one of the best sci-fi television series of all time (ranking up there with Dr. Who, Blake's 7, Red Dwarf, MST3K and the aforementioned B5). I find the characters and races of Farscape are much more interesting and imaginative than the typical "humans-with-birthmarks" that are found in many series. The effects are quite good and the stories engaging. Despite missing the bulk of season 2 and some of season 1, I find the character development very well done.
Babylon 5 (1993)
One of the best
This one of my two all-time favorite science-fiction TV series and one of my favorite series of any genre. With the exception of the rather weak middle of season five, this epic tale was extraordinary! The writing was some of the best I've ever experienced. The speeches on freedom and destiny and the dialogues on responsibility, honor, duty, and God were often very profound and provokative. This series doesn't insult one's intelligence nor hide behind mountains of technobabble. The characters are definitely some of the most three-dimensional, with the most depth, of practically any series.
I also enjoy the fact that religion in B5 is treated with respect and as an integral part of each race's culture. It seems that religion is either ignored or treated as a sign of societal inferiority in many other sci-fi series.
My one complaint about the series is that the two major conflicts were resolved a bit too quickly in my opinion. Which, evidently was due to the fact that the future of Babylon 5 was in doubt pretty much every year it was on the air. I believe I have read that the original idea from JMS was that both conflicts would be extended longer than what eventually ended up occurring. That, IMHO, would have made an excellent series even better.
Snatch (2000)
Good film
Weird, funny, and enjoyable, this was much better than LOCK, STOCK, AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS. The characters were a riot and the acting good to excellent from all of the cast.
I recommend this film.
The Family Man (2000)
Very good
I really enjoyed this film. Some of the high points for me were as follows. One, I was pleased to watch a film with a such a strong, stable family (the one that was created during Jack's "Glimpse"). The acting was very good and characters were people about whom one cared. I would have to disagree with a previous review that says the movie celebrates capitalism. By the end of the movie, Jack comes to realize that there is more to life than money and living the high-life. Second, a movie does NOT have to be exclusively a drama or a comedy. It can very well be both and THE FAMILY MAN succeeds in this combination.
Minor spoilers here: Also, I think it's interesting that the whole "Glimpse" could be interpreted either as a supernatural event/slip into an alternate dimension or a dream. There are plenty of hints that suggest that Jack merely dreamt the entire time as a father.
All-in-all, this was a very good film.
Aftershock: Earthquake in New York (1999)
Boring and dumb
I was VERY disappointed in this film. No, that's not quite true. I didn't have great expectations for this TV movie, but it did not even live up to those meager hopes for a decent disaster flick. The characters, for the most part, were uninteresting and whiny and unsympathetic. The special-effects are not exceptionally good-- no better than most films today. And the story was lacking in excitement and depth.
In addition, the lack of destruction was 1) rather unbelievable, and 2) annoyingly sparse. After an earthquake in a city that is mostly unprepared for such an event, one would think there would be a great deal more devastation. Like ASTEROID, GODZILLA, VOLCANO, and to a lesser extent, DANTE'S PEAK and ARMAGEDDON, AFTERSHOCK has relatively little in the way of physical damage. Now, far be it for me to want total devastation and loss of life, but really, can't we get a little more than a few toppled and cracked old buildings? I realize that special effects are expensive, but to me, the directors and script-writers of these films don't seem to want to make any effort to make a truly "disastrous" film.
(One last point, NY City seems to get picked on a great deal in disaster films: AFTERSHOCK, DEEP IMPACT, ARMAGEDDON, GODZILLA, FAIL SAFE, INDEPENDENCE DAY, and others such as DIE HARD 3, and THE SIEGE.)
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
Just one or two comments
I don't think I need to go into all things that I liked and disliked about the film, merely because pretty much everyone else has mentioned them a zillion times before. However, I would like to voice my opinion on one aspect of this film: the special effects.
Unlike most reviews, I found the effects a bit over-rated. To me, CGI is becoming much too common in movies these days. The effect of this is that movies tend to become sanitized and exhibit a 'sameness' and less of a sense of realism. One reason why I like the original trilogy much more is that the ships and aliens feel more real to me. The computer generated aliens of TMP are just too outrageous for my tastes and lack a sense of biological realism. With a couple of exceptions, spacecraft and other vehicles in most movies these days seem too shiny, too nice, and look like they've been computer generated. Models still look better to me. So, all-in-all, the SFX were very good, simply over used and over-rated.
Doctor Who (1996)
I loved it!!!
I was SOOOO excited for this telefilm and (for the most part) I was not disappointed. I pretty much enjoyed everything about it with a handful of exceptions (which I'll get to later). Paul McGann is excellent in his brief stint as the Doctor and the new TARDIS interior is amazing. Overall, all the acting was good to excellent and the story good. There were a few annoyances however: the change from "chameleon circuit" to "cloaking device", the half-human revelation (as a biologist, I find that hard to swallow, despite the frequency of hybridization in the 'natural world'-- but it does explain things like the Doctor's traditional difficult regenerations), and a few weaknesses in the plot and continuity from the series. I for one do not mind the (infamous) kiss. In any case, I was very glad for one last televised chapter to be added to the Doctor's saga.
Dune (2000)
Good, but a bit disappointing
As an avid fan of the Dune series, I was very much looking forward to this attempt at a screen version of the first Dune novel. I came away with rather mixed feelings about Harrison's interpretation.
1) Cinematography/Set design/Costumes/Special effects: these were FAR better than David Lynch's version. The costumes (at all levels: military, court, local) seemed to be much more appropriate to the story's setting and the effects were superior, especially the giant worms. I really enjoyed being able to get a better feel for the different local communities on Arrakis.
2) Overall story line: again, Harrison's version was in general better than Lynch's, although there were some plot elements in the book that were missing (that's inevitable) or glossed over (like the suspicion growing over Jessica before the Harkonnens' attack). However, the Bene Gesserit seemed to play a much smaller role in this film than in other versions. I found the lack of key lines to be distracting. I also felt that the lack of the 'thought voice-overs' (but not the narrative ones) that were frequent in the Lynch version, detracted significantly from Harrison's film.
3) Plot details: Lynch's version was largely better. For example, the 'pain box' scene was not well done and seemed rather pointless. The training episode with Gurney was also modified unnecessarily. This points to my feeling that you never really got the sense that Paul was exceptional in any way until well into the story. His being different was clearer in the book and Lynch's version.
4) Casting/Acting/Characterizations: In essentially every case, the acting was better in the 1984/Lynch version. Alec Newman was not convincing as Paul (although his stature was more realistic). And William Hurt was not at the top of his game. Lynch was able to assemble a far better cast. However, the exceptions were Ian McNiece (the Baron), Laura Burton (Alia) and Saskia Reeves (Jessica), who all did very good jobs. I did find that McNiece's Baron and Burton's Alia were better interpretations than those found in the 1984 film. Harrison's characterizations were a bit better for the major roles, but Lynch was far better in the minor ones (Yueh, Gurney, Duncan). Emotions seemed to be lacking in many of the Atredies.
5) Intangibles: both of these film adaptations have something to offer: Lynch's superior actors, closer ties to plot details, and the voice-overs; Harrison's greater faithfulness to general plot points, the far better effects, sets, and costuming, a greater examination of the culture and land, and better characterizations for some of the characters. However, both have somewhat missed the mark. It would be great if someone could combine the best of both worlds. I'd certainly not pass up the opportunity to watch that.
The Full Monty (1997)
One of my Favorites!!
I think this is one of the best comedies of all time. After repeated viewings, one never grows tired of it. The characters are all sympathetic and interesting and the story quite engaging. It is a very memorable film and well deserving of all of the accolades it was given.
Casino (1995)
AWFUL!!!!
I absolutely hated this film. It was a complete waste of time, money, and celluloid. The only reason I endured the interminable hours spent on screen by the unpleasant, boring, borish, and nasty characters and the very bad story was I was keeping my friend out of his house so his wife could set up a surprise birthday party. (Actually, there was one redeming quality to it-- the look at the inner workings of a casino was interesting, but the Discovery Channel version was better, without the incessant profanity.)
Red Planet (2000)
Okay, but not great
Well, the more I think about this film, the less enthusiastic I am about it. My initial reaction was that it was an enjoyable, reasonably scientifically accurate (at least compared to some previous films), piece of escapism. However, as other have pointed out, there are some serious scientific flaws. On the other hand, it is much better than most of the recent sci-fi fare to which we've been subjected. For example, the absolutely atrocious BATTLEFIELD EARTH, MISSION TO MARS (good first half, bad second half), and the poor SUPERNOVA. In any case, I wouldn't say it's a waste of time or money (especially if you can indulge in a bit of suspended disbelief)
The Big Kahuna (1999)
Very fine film
I really enjoyed this thought-provoking and intelligent film. The performances by Kevin Spacey and Danny Devito were excellent and the characters very intriguing. Obviously, this isn't a piece of brain-candy, but if you're looking for a thoughtful discussion of a wide variety of topics from an interesting point-of-view (i.e., three salesmen), then this is definitely a worthwhile way to spend a couple hours.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
I LOVE THIS FILM!!!
This is by far my all-time-favorite movie. Even today, the effects are stunning (much better than most CGI stuff today), the story mind-boggling, the music wonderful. A film like this could probably not have been made today with so little dialogue and such extended, beautiful scenes of space-travel. It's an essentially perfect film.
Battlefield Earth (2000)
Really, really awful
Well, without a doubt this was the WORST movie I've seen this year and possibly one of the worst ever. The acting was atrocious, the script non-existent, the special effects unexceptional, the sound excessively loud, the story dumb, and the characters ranged from uninteresting to downright idiotic. Recently, I had thought that John Travolta had been improving as an actor. However, this piece of garbage set him down a notch or two in my book. What's worse, I hear there might be a SEQUEL!!!!!!!
Starship Troopers (1997)
Average, but not great
I am only going to comment about the second time I saw this movie. With a second viewing (following a re-reading of the book which is one of my three all-time favorites), I was majorly disappointed in this film. I won't go into the more common complaints of the film (like, why no powered armor?). But there are a few points I would like to make. Why did they combine the characters of DuBois and Razceck(sp?) from the book? Why is Rico such an obnoxious and unlikable jerk? The movie could have been a lot better if it was done in a first-person narrative like the book and not make Rico out to be so annoying. The captain of the ROGER YOUNG was an idiot and Carl was a totally different character. I do like the addition of female MIs and the new types of bugs. However, Denise Richards' constant smiling annoyed the heck outta me. Casper Van Dien's performance left much to be desired. I did find the effects great, however, and all-in-all the story wasn't too off the mark and it was a lot more coherent than some other recent sci-fi films (i.e., the atrocious BATTLEFIELD EARTH).