trekfan2001 Reviews

Moonraker (1979)

Ridiculous but fun!

[6/10 · 14 June 2003]

Everyone always says that Moonraker is the worst bond and it's pathetic. Therefore I've never hired it and there's always been something else on TV when it was on. After getting the 007 DVD box set, I've been watching the Bond movies in order. Tonight was Moonraker, so I put the DVD in and expected the worst.

Everyone who knocks this one need to loosen up! Sure it's stupid and easily the most absurd Bond movie, but I still found it very entertaining. Bond is hardly a realistic show. Even the most realistic Bond movies are still 50% fantasy. Obviously Moonraker isn't the best Bond movie, but it's still a very entertaining way to spend 2 hours.

To put it simply, I probably wouldn't have purchased it seperately, but I'm certainly not annoyed about it being included in the 007 box set.

I rate this one at 6/10

The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)

Underrated Bond

[7/10 · 14 June 2003]

I've only seen this movie twice. The first was on commercial TV where it was cropped to 4:3 and filled with ad breaks. For some reason I wasn't really impressed by the film and thought it was too long. However, I recently watched it on DVD and was pleasantly suprised by it. In the proper 16:9 aspect ratio and without any commercials, the movie seemed to flow much better and I found it much more enjoyable.

While I don't think it's the best Bond, I think many people here underrate TMWTGG. Scaramanga would have to be one of the best and most interesting villans in all the Bond films. The locations (Hong Kong and Thailand) would have to be right up there with some of the most exotic ones and as usual, it has the good looking women.

*** May contain spoilers ***

However, my biggest problem with this film is J.W. Pepper. Both the boat and car chases were ruined a bit by having Pepper in them. He was over-used enough in Live And Let Die. Why did they have to bring him back for this one?

*** end spoilers ***

Anyway, a good bond film that is constantly underrated. I would give it 7/10

Live and Let Die (1973)

Pleasantly suprised

[8/10 · 14 June 2003]

*** May contain spoilers ***

After reading some of the comments here, I wasn't sure what to expect from Live And Let Die. I think the voodoo thing was a little over-done, but overall I rather enjoyed this movie. Solitare is definitely one of the more interesting Bond girls. As for the story, it was refreshing to see one where the villan wasn't interested in taking over the world.

My biggest problem with this movie (and MWTGG) is Sherrif J.W. Pepper. He really is over-done and over-used. Maybe it would have been funny if they had only used him up to the point where the speedboat crashes into his car. After that he just becomes annoying.

Anyway, a rather enjoyable Bond. 7/10

Diamonds Are Forever (1971)

One of the better Bonds

[8/10 · 14 June 2003]

Sure it isn't as serious as some of the other Bond films, but I found it very enjoyable. If you take Bond films so seriously that you can't enjoy Diamonds Are Forever, then maybe you should stop watching the Bond films and find a realistic espionage drama.

DAF features some of the best one liners in the series and it has some of the strangest characters. However, I think one of the main problems with DAF is the over-use of Blofeld in the Bond films. After three films in a row with him as the main villan, he was getting way beyond his use by date and the character was just becoming stale. I also think the special effects were very ordinary and easily the worst in any Bond film.

Anyway, I would rate it at 8/10. Highly enjoyable, but not the best Bond.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

Good story, bad actor.

[6/10 · 14 June 2003]

*** May contain spoilers ***

OHMSS has an above average 007 story, the action is good, there are plenty of girls, great locations and the usual one-liners. So what could be wrong with this movie? To put it simply, the acting is terrible in this film.

George Lazenby is a pathetic actor and why Broccoli and Saltzman hired him is beyond comprehension. IMHO Lazenby's biggest problem is that he tries too hard to be Sean Connery and it simply doesn't work. The one-liners sound ridiculous when he says them and the rest of the dialog just sounds like he's simply reading the lines. Fortunately this was his one and only effort at playing 007.

As for the rest of the cast. Telly Savalas is an ok Blofeld, Diana Rigg is a good bond woman, Gabriele Ferzetti does a good job as Draco and the rest of the cast (Bernard Lee, Desmond Llewelyn, Lois Maxwell) do their usual good job. However, I found the girls in Blofeld's "research centre" to be *extremely* annoying. If anything, I think they did as much to ruin this film as Lazenby.

I also think that the wedding from the novel should have been left out of the movie. I think a better way to do it would have been for Blofeld to kill her before he escapes from his hideout during the attack. That way we could have seen Bond fall in love with her and still have her killed. Maybe it then could have ended with Bond informing her father about her death. IMHO the ending as it was filmed simply didn't work. Lazenby did a poor job acting that scene and I think it was out of place in this style of movie.

Anyway, OHMSS is not too bad if you can ignore Lazenby's attempt at 007. I rate it 6/10

You Only Live Twice (1967)

The only good thing about this one is Connery.

[5/10 · 14 June 2003]

*** spoiler alert ***

You Only Live Twice is my least favourite Bond film. IMHO the story is just too cheesy. I actually think Moonraker has a better story than this one. I know logic is hardly a feature of Bond films, but this one is just ridiculous.

Come on, why would Blofeld bother launching manned space ships to capture another one in orbit! You not only have the massive problems and cost associated with manned space flight, but you then have to hold the prisoners when they get back.

It would be far simpler, cheaper and far more logical for Blofeld to simply fire missiles into orbit. It would have the exact same effect as capturing them (because both powers thought their space ships had been destroyed) with far less cost, effort, people, etc...

Basically, my problem with YOLT is that even if you assume a criminal organisation is capable of the things SPECTRE does in YOLT, there is no need for them to do it. A missile would do the job just as easily and with much less effort.

At least in Moonraker there is a reason to take people into orbit. The villan plans to make the surface of the Earth uninhabitable to humans with a nerve agent. Although it is a very weak reason and virtually impossible, I still think it makes more sense than YOLT.

Then there is the part where Bond "transforms" into a Japanese peasant. I mean, it's so obvious that he's not Japanese. This is yet another area where YOLT pushes it too far.

Good Bond films stretch the limits of plausibility but not too far. YOLT not only stretches the limits, it completely shatters them into absolute stupidity.

*** end spoilers ***

Basically I think Roald Dahl should have stuck to writing kids fantasies. This is where this movie belongs. However, the film is still entertaining if you ignore the complete stupidity of the story and it does have the best Bond ever. Therefore I'll rate it 5/10

Thunderball (1965)

Average Bond

[7/10 · 14 June 2003]

Thunderball is probably one of the average Bond films. It's not too bad, but it's nothing special. Basically, I think one of the major problems with this film is that it's too slow. Compared with "From Russia With Love" and "Goldfinger", this really feels like a couple of steps down.

*** spoiler alert ***

I think the biggest problem is the speed of the boat at the end. The external shots look ok, but the obviously projected images inside the boat make it look like it's travelling at warp speed! I nearly fell out of the chair laughing at this.

*** end spoilers ***

However, it's still a very entertaining movie and it's also the first Bond in 2.35:1. For widescreen addicts like me, this is certainly a huge plus.

I rate it 7/10

Goldfinger (1964)

Great classic Bond

[10/10 · 14 June 2003]

Goldfinger is probably the best known of all the Bond films. The scene with Shirley Eaton covered in gold paint is one of the all time classic moments in cinema.

However, does Goldfinger live up to all they hype? It most certainly does! This is the Bond movie where all the classic elements come together. The cool gadgets, slightly off-beat villans, over the top story, silly names and plenty of women.

*** spoiler alert ***

Of course, the most well known gadget in all the Bond films is in "Goldfinger". Obviously, I'm referring to the Aston Martin DB5 with machine guns, ejection seat, smoke screen, tracking system and many other cool and deadly items. ;)

The story for Goldfinger is also one of the more original Bond stories. Many Bond films fall back on the old formula of a meglomaniac who wants to destroy the world. In this one, the villan (Goldfinger) simply wants to destroy the gold reserve at Fort Knox to cripple the US economy and boost the value of his own gold.

*** end spoilers ***

Although "From Russia With Love" is my favourite Bond movie, I would still have to rate "Goldfinger" equally at 10/10

From Russia with Love (1963)

The best Bond

[10/10 · 14 June 2003]

From Russia With Love is my favourite Bond movie. This movie has great locations, good acting, action and suspense. However, FRWL's best feature is the story.

Unlike modern "by the numbers" Bond films, FRWL doesn't have the meglomaniac villans, ridiculous gadgets and over the top action to cover holes in the plot. While the modern Bond films are still very entertaining, I think they just fall short of the mark set by FRWL when it comes to the story.

Of course, FRWL also features Sean Connery, easily the best James Bond.

IMHO, this is a movie that everyone should watch at least once in their lives. Easily 10/10

Dr. No (1962)

One of the better Bond movies.

[7/10 · 14 June 2003]

Dr No is probably one of the better ones, but the best is still to come in future Bond films.

This movie is pretty slow, but that doesn't stop it from being enjoyable. It features the best actor to play Bond (Sean Connery), the usual beautiful women, an interesting villan, fantastic set design from Ken Adams, etc... However, the one liners aren't quite there, the girl really does nothing except provide scenery and the movie doesn't really build up much suspense.

One other problem I had with the movie was the soundtrack. I have the DVD, but unfortunately it seemed to vary considerably. The volume of the voices would often be very soft and then there would be a ridiculously loud explosion.

Anyway, this film is certainly a classic and it's well worth watching if you're a fan of the series.

7/10

Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)

The greatest Trek since Star Trek II

[10/10 · 11 February 2003]

*** May contain minor spoilers ***

I can't believe the number of negative comments there are towards this movie. It was easily the greatest trek since Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan. The villian is easily one of the best and despite the comments of some so called "fans", he is not a copy of Khan. The story is great and it does raise some interesting questions like all good Trek. How would you turn out if you had been raised differently and had different experiences? Is a clone of you really just a copy? Is what makes us unique a combination of our experiences and knowledge or simply a matter of genetics? The story is *extremely* well thought out and I think some of the nit pickers have been so worried about why Worf is there that you have missed the story of this movie. Others claim it is nothing more than violence to please the masses. Get real! Of course there is some violence, but this isn't the only aspect to the movie.

As for the nitpicking:

1. Why couldn't Worf have re-joined Starfleet? Do the producers need to join the dots. Can't these so called "fans" make their own conclusions. Remember, this movie is several years *after* the end of DS9.

2. In the episode "Journey's End", Wesley went off with the Traveler, but this doesn't mean that he couldn't turn up again. Why couldn't he have come back for the wedding? After all, it would be a big moment for two of his friends and former comrades.

3. As for all the other idiotic comments, I think these people are just looking for something to have a go at. After all, some trekkies seem to think that they will gain respect from other trekkies if they can prove their so called knowlege of the show by picking apart every single little hole they find, even if it's so insignificant that no one would notice it without them pointing it out. Then there are many so called problems I have seen mentioned on various forums and sites that I couldn't even spot in the movie, even though I thought I knew what I was looking for.

Also, some of these nitpickers conveniently overlook *major* plot holes and problems in the earlier trek films. Ever remember the famous "gaseous anomalies" error in ST6? What about Khan's knowledge of Chekov in ST2 even though Chekov wasn't in the episode with Khan? What about the completely different interior designs to the bird of prey in ST3 and 4 when they are supposed to be the same ship? Star Trek Nemesis has none of these sort of problems, yet for some reason the nit pickers are having a go at STN instead of the massive problems in earlier films.

*** spoilers end ***

Basically, this movie is the victim of bad timing (being released around the same time as DAD and LOTR) and some of the so called "fans" who are just looking for something to knock. Don't let all the negative comments put you off seing one of the greatest trek films ever.

Easily 10 out of 10.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

One of the greatest movies ever made

[10/10 · 18 September 2002]

2001 is an abstract movie that will divide the audience into two camps, those who understand it and those who don't. If you understand this movie then there is no question that it is one of the greatest movies ever made. If you don't understand it then you will hate it.

I have now seen this movie twice. The first time was when I was about 9 years old. I was used to the fast action and popcorn storylines of movies like Star Wars. The extremely slow pace of 2001 and it's lack of dialogue meant that I really didn't take much notice of what was going on and became bored with it pretty quickly. Since then, I became interested in Star Trek (which has a number of extremely thought provoking episodes (eg: TNG "The Measure of a Man")) and other sci-fi with more intelligent storylines.

This leads me to earlier this year when I had the opportunity to see 2001 again (this time on DVD in full widescreen). It had been so long since I originally saw the movie that I really didn't know what to expect. As the move progressed, I began to think about the themes and ideas behind it. To put it simply, I changed my ideas about this movie completely. It is a brilliant film and I don't think we'll ever see anything like it again. The key to enjoying this movie is how you interpret it. Don't expect to the story to be spoon-fed to you like most other movies. You have to think about this one.

*** some spoilers ahead ***

My interpretation of this movie is that it is a story of human evolution. The monoliths represent some something that affects humans (and our ancestors in the early stages of the films) and allows them to "take the next step". One interpretation is that it could be an alien influence, but there are a number of possibilities.

The movie can be broken up into a number of different sections. The first is "The Dawn of Man". In this section of the movie, one group of "ape men" discover a monolith. After this, they gain the knowledge and ability to use weapons and tools. This gives them an advantage over their rivals.

The movie then jumps into the future where an unidentified object has been discovered on the moon. Eventually we find out that this is another monolith. This acts as a catalyst and mankind begins to explore the solar system. ie: For the first time we are leaving the vicinity of our planet. The first stage of this is an expidition to Jupiter.

Upon reaching Jupiter another monolith is found. This is where the most abstract part of the movie occurs. I won't say anything about it, except this. How would anyone show something beyond our ability to understand? This is what I think this section represents. This is where mankind takes the next step and evolves further.

There is also the story of HAL during the voyage to Jupiter. Again, think about what HAL represents. Also think about why HAL seems to have more personality than the human crewmembers. It is much more than just a simple story of a psycho computer! ;-)

*** spoilers end ***

I would give this movie 100/10 if I could. This is science fiction at its best. BTW, if you can, watch the widescreen version on DVD. Many of the shots are lost in the conversion to 4:3 pan & scan.

Half-Life: Counter-Strike (2000 Video Game)

Latest versions have gone backwards

[7/10 · 31 July 2002]

I honestly think that the latest versions of Counter-Strike have gone backwards in gameplay and enjoyability. Now when you're hit you basically become a sitting duck and have no hope of escape. You are also limited to one or two jumps before slowing down to walking pace. In order to survive, you need to be deadly accurate with your shots. This means you need to practice for at least several hours per day to remain competetive on the internet. I used to be good at this game in the earlier beta releases, but then I lost interest as other games and mods came along. Recently I tried to get back into Counter-Strike, but after playing for several hours with only a couple of frags to my name I gave up. I find that you have to be 100% dedicated to CS in order to be even remotely competetive. Unfortunately I don't have the interest or the time to do this. This means my Counter-Strike gaming is limited to LAN's where my opponents don't practice 24/7.

7/10 - Ok, but nothing spectacular.

Minority Report (2002)

Great movie :-)

[10/10 · 31 July 2002]

Minority Report is one of the best movies to come out of Hollywood for a long time. It has an interesting plot with plenty of twists. The action is extremely well done and it also leaves you with questions as you leave the cinema. While the movie does have some minor problems, most criticisms you will see are from those who don't understand it properly.

*** Spoilers begin ***

Really, the only plot hole big enough to worry me was the bit where Anderton (Cruise) gains access to the precrime facility using his removed eyes. Surely they would have withdrawn his access rights to the facility. A better way to deal with this would have been for Anderton to somehow hack into the computers to gain entry or he could have been let in by someone on the inside that he knew (maybe the guy looking after the precogs).

As for the ending, yes I agree with most people here that it was too happy for the style of this movie. I think a good way to end it would have been to get rid of the voice over and finish it just after Burgess shoots himself. This would provide a semi-happy ending, but get rid of the happily ever after bit.

*** Spoilers end ***

Overall I still give it 10/10. While it does have some flaws, they are very minor and don't detract from the enjoyability of this movie. Minority Report deserves its place in the imdb top 250!

X-Men (2000)

What a pathetic movie.

[1/10 · 31 July 2002]

This movie tries to be an action movie and an intelligent movie but fails dismally on both counts. The so called intelligent parts to the paper thin plot were extremely weak and never really got past the "we shouldn't pick on those who are different to us" message. As for the action, it was drawn out, predictable, relied too much on special effects and lacked any sort of suspense. Also, for most action type movies to work we need to at least care a little bit about the "good" characters and hate the "bad guys". Quite frankly, I didn't care who won or lost thanks to the almost non-existent character development.

Well done X-Men, this is the first movie I have ever awarded a .....wait for it.... ----> 1/10 <---- on imdb. Avoid this movie at all costs!!!!

Star Wars: Jedi Knight II - Jedi Outcast (2002 Video Game)

Excellent, but not as good as Jedi Knight.

[8/10 · 13 July 2002]

While the gameplay of Jedi Knight II is far superior to Jedi Knight, I think the game is a bit of a dissapointment in other areas. For one thing, I much prefer the live action cutscenes in JK1 to the ones rendered with the game engine in JK2. The live action cutscenes really brought the story to life in JK1. Since the acting in JK2 is done by Quake 3 models, the cutscenes lack any sign of life. They look especially lifeless and flat where there are supposed to be emotional scenes, such as Jan and Kyle kissing.

I have played JK1 many times and I always watch the cutscenes fully. I even go back sometimes just to watch the cutscenes because they are done so well. When I play JK2 again, I'll probably just skip the cutscenes because I think they look very amateurish. It's almost as if the cutscenes are an afterthought to join the levels together, not as a part of the overall story as in Jedi Knight.

*Spoilers below*

Now we come to the story. While JK2's story is ok, it is no where near as good as JK1. In the beginning of the game we find out that Kyle has given up his force abilities. He and Jan now operate as mercenaries for the New Republic. After several levels fighting imperials, it appears as if Jan is killed by a Dark Jedi called Desann. Kyle then goes to Luke Skywalker to get his lightsaber and force abilities back so he can avenge Jan's death.

Now here is the really odd part about this story. It doesn't seem to bother Luke that Kyle wants to regain his force powers so he can get revenge. If I understand Star Wars correctly, revenge along with fear, hate, agression, etc... will lead to the Dark side! Don't you think Luke would try to object to this a bit more? The rest of it is pretty average "kill the bad guy and get the girl" type stuff.

*Spoilers end*

Overall, Raven have done an excellent job with the gameplay and level design, but the story is pretty average and I REALLY WANT PROPER CUTSCENES!!!

I gave it 8/10 though because the game is a lot of fun to play and the multiplayer is excellent. If it wasn't for the excellent gameplay, I would have only given it 5/10.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

Great Star Wars movie.

[7/10 · 23 May 2002]

I really think that there are many die hard fans of the original three who see the new Star Wars movies just to pick them apart and whine that "George Lucas has lost the plot", etc... As a Star Trek fan, I see the same thing happen with each new series of Star Trek that comes out, some fans just refuse to enjoy it. They simply whine and complain about any little problem they can find. Get over it! Stop looking at the problems and enjoy the many good points.

Yes, Episode I was rather ordinary and Jar Jar Binks is the worst ever character. However, I think Episode II is just as good as the original trilogy. The main problem (if you can call it a problem) is that you really need to see all other Star Wars episodes or at least Episode I for this to make sense. Apart from this, the dialog is no where near as bad as some people here would like you to believe, the same goes for the romance story. While both these aspects of the movie have their problems, they aren't exactly terrible either. As for the special effects, they look even better than Episode I. However, the most important part is the story. While it may seem a bit disjointed on its own, when you look at it from the overall Star Wars series of movies it makes a lot of sense and it is very good.

When you see this movie (and I highly recommend it), make sure you see it with an open mind and not as a fan of the original trilogy who just wants to pick it apart. It really is a great movie and well worth the entry price.

Deus Ex (2000 Video Game)

Best ever game

[10/10 · 8 May 2002]

Deus Ex is a masterpiece and is simply the best game ever. As it uses a modified version of the Unreal engine, the graphics and gameplay are excellent. However, it is the story and the immersive nature of the game that really seperates this title from all the others. Combining all the best elements from Sci-Fi, RPG and FPS games, Deus Ex has a very complex plot that also gives you a lot of freedom while completing mission objectives. As you play the game you will also find that your actions can have concequences later in the game.

Put simply, this game is the best and I would give it 1000 out of 10 if I could!

Soldier of Fortune (2000 Video Game)

An excellent, but extremely violent game.

[8/10 · 8 May 2002]

Soldier Of Fortune is pretty much a standard FPS game. It has a fairly linear story with several predictable characters. The player assumes the role of John Mullins, a mercenary who is hired to track down several stolen nuclear warheads from various locations around the planet. However, SOF's claim to fame is its high level of violence. While FPS games are known for being violent, this game takes it to an even bloodier level. The player can blow away or chop off different parts of an enemies body. Basically, keep this game away from the kids.

Although SOF uses the Quake 2 engine, you wouldn't know it by just playing the game. The graphics have been heavily modified with higher resolution textures and extra special effects. The player movement also seems a little bit different. As for the weapons, they are fairly realistic and look good. There are plenty of enemies to kill and the AI is reasonable.

8/10

Half-Life (1998 Video Game)

A true classic.

[10/10 · 8 May 2002]

Before 1998 typical FPS games consisted of the player simply blasting their way through endless numbers of monsters in hellish and alien landscapes with an extremely vague plot that seemed like a 5 year old's daydream. Half-Life revolutionised FPS gaming by providing not only a story, but an excellent story that was highly immersive.

On the gameplay and graphics side of things, Half-Life uses a heavily modified version of the Quake 2 engine. However, the monsters are not Quake 2's mindless zombies, they are soldiers that work in teams to flush you out of hiding spots. This means you have to think about how you play the game. Blindly running into a room shooting will get you killed very fast! :-)

Until Deus Ex came along, I called Half-Life the best game ever, so it is only fair to give it 10/10.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)

Lighten up everyone!

[7/10 · 2 May 2002]

What is it with all the negative reviews on this site? Big deal if the story is nothing special. This movie isn't supposed to be some sort of dramatic masterpiece! Just watch it for what it is, a fun action/adventure movie with a really sexy lead character! ;-)

8/10

Star Trek: Voyager (1995–2001)

Occasionally brilliant, but often predictable and standard trek.

[2 May 2002]

While Voyager does have a number of brilliant episodes, the majority are extremely predictable and very much bog standard trek. I sometimes wonder if the producers have a few story templates to use when they run out of ideas.

Example Template:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Voyager is flying along in space.

2. Voyager discovers planet/anomaly/ship.

3. There is some sort of problem with planet/anomaly/ship.

4. Voyager's crew solves the problem with the help of some extremely lame techno-babble and everyone is happy.

5. Voyager continues on it's merry way to the next predictable episode.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as the characters go, they are extremely under-developed. The only way to tell apart a season one episode from a season seven episode is Janeway's hair style and whether Kes or 7of9 is in it. Some characters also do complete backflips in their behaviour and ideas from episode to episode. In some episodes Janeway refuses to break the prime directive to even the smallest degree, but in other episodes she doesn't think twice about breaking it. A good example of this type of attitude change is the way she refused to share transporter technology with the Kazon, but later in the series she shares holodeck technology with the Hirogen. While the other characters don't have quite as many contradictions, they also aren't given the opportunity to develop contradictions because they are often just there to support Captain "Inconsistent" Janeway.

They also killed off some great story possibilities by making the ex-Maquis crew fit in so well. There was so much potential for some great stories filled with tension between the Starfleet and Maquis crew, but instead they turned Voyager into one big happy family after only a few episodes.

Basically I think Voyager is the weakest of the Star Trek series. It only has minimal character development, it is very predictable and has some of Star Trek's worst ever episodes (eg: the great Tom Paris turns into a giant catfish episode :-) ). However, Voyager is Star Trek and it has its moments of brilliance. Overall it is still a good series and is much better than a lot of the other rubbish that has been produced for TV.

6/10

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993–1999)

One of the greatest TV series ever.

[2 May 2002]

While I think all five Star Trek series are excellent, DS9 stands out just that little bit extra. The stories of Deep Space Nine are much more complex and you really have to watch most episodes in the correct order to fully appreciate the series. The characters are also more complex and the depth of the character development is incredible. This even includes many of the guest characters such as Garak, Dukat, Vedek/Kai Winn, Vedek Bariel, Weyoon, Damar and even Morn! With many of the characters, you never quite know which side they are on or what sort of secret agenda's they are hiding. In one episode you think a character is a "good guy", but then several episodes later, he/she can change.

In general, DS9 is darker and grittier than the other Star Trek series. While it does have the Star Trek idealism and optimism, the series deals with war, military occupations, terrorism and espionage. It also has slightly more sexual references (although it is mostly implied, not shown). Overall, DS9 is not quite as much of a "family show" as the others but I think this has given the production staff more creative freedom to explore certain themes that wouldn't be possible in the other Star Trek series. If you like the other Star Trek series, but you want a bit more depth and complexity, I highly recommend DS9.

BTW, the season 4 premiere ("The Way of the Warrior") is probably a good place to start watching the show if you can't be bothered watching the full seven seasons. This is where the show really kicks off. While the first three seasons are good, they don't quite have the story arcs and big events that the later seasons feature.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

What was George Lucas thinking!!!!!!

[3/10 · 24 February 2002]

He should watch Episode V: "The Empire Strikes Back" before thinking about future Star Wars movies. Even though I'm more of a Star Trek fan, I do know a good movie when I see one. I think Episode V is one of the best movies of all time. In contrast, Episode I has a very weak plot that relies on special effects and very annoying computer generated characters like Jar Jar Binks.

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)

If only Star Trek III didn't have an odd number!

[9/10 · 16 February 2002]

I am really sick of the way many people say that all odd numbered Star Trek movies are bad. I think Star Trek III is one of the better movies in the series and is only slightly behind Star Trek II and VI. The acting is as good as any Star Trek movie. The story is dramatic with some very interesting twists and the special effects are a big improvement over the first two movies. I think the only real negatives to ST3 are the problems involved with it being the middle of a trilogy (ST2, 3 & 4). You need to watch the other two movies (ST2 & 4) to fully understand and enjoy Star Trek III.

My score is: 8 out of 10