Reviews

A bad movie? Not really. Knight Rider? Hell no. Not even close. Doing a sequel to a popular series is always a tricky thing but at least some element of the original has to remain intact to make it work. While Knight Rider seemed to be the possible starting point for a new series with new leads BUT with KITT firmly in place the series the potential was there for a new series to work.

2010 removes itself entirely from the original series. The payoff for 2010 would have been our heroes stumbling upon KITT's interface by integrating it (by chance, of course) into an old Trans Am, unearthing the lost legacy of Michael Knight's crusade for justice.

This a slow, poorly paced film that attempts to teach a message of tolerance by using a mutated ashen-skinned guy with unique abilities and a fetish for long hair. "Powder" tries a little too hard to go for that big emotional punch and misses the mark in a big way.

Pass this one buy. If this film was a rug you'd want to take it out and beat it.

No, this isn't the worst film I've ever seen but, ugh, what a dud. Base a film on a bloated novel written by an individual with a huge ego and the result will be painfully noticeable on film. Sure, Asimov had a huge ego but the man could write and translations of his work, well, WORKED.

Sloppy direction, awkward dialogue and uneven visuals that borrow heavily from a number of popular Science Fiction films make the entire film seem somewhat derivative.

Worth catching on cable if you're curious. Save your video rental money for a more satisfying Science Fiction movie experience.

Wow. It's bad. Not bad in a good - bad sort of way but just downright BAD. I recently had the chance to sit through all 97 minutes of this thing after a friend revealed that he had actually videotaped it on Beta over 20 years ago when it first aired.

So, we took a look and at first I broke out in laughter, then chuckled a little bit and then, well, I almost cried.

The old commercials were far more entertaining.

I'm sure when Mr. Lucas was delivered a draft of the script and then a rough cut of the special he did far more than cry. He probably yelled a string of profanities and then tossed something at the screen.

There are some odd sights over the course of the special and I was left wondering if Stan Winston and Rick Baker also took a crack at Mark Hammill's makeup job. I mean, as odd as this may sound, Mark Hamill looks more like Dorothy Hamill.

Still, the animated short introduces Boba Fett and is kind of fun.

Now that I have your attention...

I've seen both the uncut and MST versions of this film (which, incidentally, aired on SCI FI channel within a year of each other) so I feel I'm in a position to give a fair and balanced review of this little movie.

Is it as bad as everyone says it is? No, but many of the performances are of the ilk that invite rude comments from viewers at home and in movie theaters. To a certain degree, SOULTAKER deserves the amount of abuse it's been getting (write your own movie as a vehicle to star in and you've set yourself and your creation up as targets for negative attacks -- just ask Kevin Costner).

I think it's an overstatement to say that this film spawned a series of imitators or that it was the first of its kind (it's been done on THE OUTER LIMITS and THE TWILIGHT ZONE) but it was among the first of a series of films in the 1990's with a similar theme.

There are worst ways to spend your time (like sitting through HUDSON HAWK) so why not check it out? And that Vivian Schilling is a cutie...

Patrick Stewart is, of course, excellent as Scrooge but the overall production looks a bit flat. It's a made for T.V. movie that LOOKS like a made for T.V. movie: uninspired lighting, uninspired camera work and a number of uninspired performances by many of the supporting players. The 1984 version with George C. Scott is the better of the television versions shot for shot.

A good film that had the potential to be the definitive version of "A Christmas Carol" but which ultimately falls short of the mark.

**1/2 out of ****

Alastair Sim is brilliant as Scrooge in an adaption that's surprisingly faithful to the book. This is by far my favorite version.

This is one of the finest films ever made and despite it's availability on laser disc and DVD it still hasn't received the restoration it deserves. The film survives but flaws in the prints used for this title's transfer are all painfully noticeable, having been floating around as an abused film in the public domain for many years.

Unlike other versions of this classic that manage to capture the Victorian look and feel of the time period, the MGM version LOOKS like an MGM version produced in the 1930's. The acting, lighting, hair, costume design, production design, etc. are typical of MGM of the 1930's resulting in an all-too-polished, canned look (the Ghost of Christmas Past looks like the first cousin of Glenda the Good Witch of the North).

Far superior adaptions star Alastair Sim ("Scrooge" - 1951, considered by many to be the finest), George C. Scott ("A Christmas Carol" - 1984) and Patrick Stewart ("A Christmas Carol" - 1999).

A must have, of course, if you need to complete your "Christmas Carol" collection.

"Insurrection" would have best been left to the small screen. While "Deep Space Nine" and "Voyager" were outdoing themselves week after week during the 1998/1999 season, "Insurrection" came along seeming insignificant and out of touch, far removed from the Star Trek Universe since we had last seen the crew of the Enterprise. While all previous chapters of the film series contributed significantly to Star Trek as a whole (including Star Trek V), "Insurrection" will have no impact, existing only to carry on the film franchise within the two year window Paramount seems to prefer.

The effects, while fine for a weekly series, looked flat and uninspired. I wanted nothing more than to see the beautifully detailed Enterprise E model constructed for "First Contact", not the flat CG renderings that appeared throughout the film. The CG effects produced for "Voyager" and "DS9" hold their own and surpass what was produced for "Insurrection" (unfortunately when half your budget goes for salaries there's not a lot of money left for top notch effects work).

It's been almost a year since the release of "Insurrection" and Paramount still hasn't green-lighted another feature -- and that's OK. The film series needs a rest and maybe it's time for Rick Berman to step aside and let the folks on "Voyager" and "DS9" take the helm.

Great characters, intricate plots and an ensemble cast helped define the original "Mission: Impossible" during the 1960's but the elements that made the original series so strong are all but lost in this first big screen effort.

It all starts out promising enough when we join the IMF in the middle of a mission. Unfortunatley, once the team members are systematically eliminated one by one we leave "Mission: Impossible" behind and instead stumble into a high tech version of "The Fugitive" with Tom Cruise again playing himself as he so often has in so many of his films. This is a shame considering the strong supporting cast and the potential it had to be an intelligent and intriguing update of the original series. The original concept and characters are betrayed by the writers and director Brian DePalma.

Easy to follow and sit through but ultimately disappointing. Let's hope they get it right for the sequel.