Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
We need Star Trek Into DEEPNESS, not darkness.
8 August 2013
We need Star Trek Into DEEPNESS, not darkness.

In the movie theatre I heard a complaint from an old school Trekkie that the second installment of the Star Trek reboot had too many "Little Archie and Veronica" moments.

This is true and it would be OK if that were just the icing on the cake. The real problem with the movie is that it runs like a typical SciFi action plot inserted under a Star Trek banner.

This movie is missing the hallmark epiphany moments Star Trek is famous for. Mainly, it is missing the philosophical "WOW" factors that don't just blow your mind but rather expands it, making you realise that everything you thought you knew is wrong and that everything you thought the Federation had figured out is also wrong. These expansions used to pave the way for the audience to mentally and emotionally take that next step to, "Boldly go where no man has gone before..."

This movie has no epiphany. Where is the deepness that Star Trek is synonymous with? This movie gives us what? A federation struggling with internal corruption and terrorism, a la the typical disgruntled ex employee, who in this case was cryogenics frozen for 300 years, as is the plot. Big deal. These are familiar themes we've all seen in movies before. Just trade the Federation for any corrupt financial, medical, educational, government and or religious institution. Trade the "John Harrison" character for any Bond villain and you have a movie that sounds like a bunch of other movies or what the news broadcasts. Boring.

To me the Federation meant a time in the future when Humanity had finally gotten its act together and to a certain extent had rooted out all this corruption and terrorism. Unless a Klingon or Romulan shows up, things are supposed to be refreshingly illuminating. Not something that degrades into ordinary, mainstream, average caveman fist fight showdowns.

How can we boldly go where no man has gone before in the future unless we have thrown off the shackles of the past? What a sad/shamey day it is when a Star Trek movie presents a not so optimistic future just as dark as today's headlines. I can read/watch the news/The Matrix if I want that. IS THERE NO ESCAPE?!!! IS THERE NO HOPE?!!!

Obviously, Gene Roddenberry's spirit could not find a way to keep the franchise on track. Will, (Vulcan fingers crossed) Trekkies and non-Trekkies alike know the difference between the wealth of deepness and the poverty of darkness?
366 out of 513 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Enough with the simulated snuff films!
2 March 2002
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** This movie reminded me of an episode of X-files. Y'know, the one where the incestuous family genetically degenerated into cavemen over generations?

They liked to bash people while listening to "Wonderful, Wonderful" by Johnny Mathis.

I watched it because I assumed that Coppola would produce a superior movie. I was wrong. The movies begins well but does not end well. Just in case you don't know, SLASHERS ARE OUT!!! THEY ARE USELESS JACKOFF SIMULATED SNUFF FILMS.

This film degenerated into a slasher flick.

I have read other reviews which state that it could have been as good as Wishmaster (a very good movie) but they failed to mention that the reason Wishmaster was so good had nothing to do with the horror content. It was good because of the redeeming storyline.

ATTENTION SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT!

In Wishmaster the protagonist defeats the Djinn and saves her sister.

This is where Jeepers Creepers failed. In a fit of laziness the writers decided that in order for a sequel to be in the making, they had to kill one of the siblings.

This is pure nonsense, a supernatural creature, unlike the serial killer we thought it was, can come back under the right conditions depending on the background of its legend.

Therefore you can see how lazy the writers were because they made it easy on themselves by using a supernatural creature (who has different limitations that a human antagonist) and yet wrote it as if it were human.

Question: why didn't the sister tell the police where the creature had taken her brother so they could have rescued him?

Even so, the story would have been more exciting if the creature had taken just one eye, the boy was rescued and the sequel was about retrieving the eye. "The peeper returns!" or something like that.

Then the boy could get his eye back and start turning into the creature himself. And from there you could work out the rest of the franchise until everyone is back to normal.

Guys, use your imagination! You've got money, financing, backing, distribution, and this is what you do with it?

I really liked the brother/sister team. The brother was especially endearing, he had a lot of heart but his curiosity got the best of him and I was very sad to see him die.

The absence of the parents was a chilling touch because when he did die you felt the loss of a son or a brother. The "missing" notations on the wall of the police station was good too because it allowed you to feel the loss of so many other missing people, whose parents/relatives could not imagine what became of them.

This too bothered me, why didn't the sister reveal the creatures lair and solve all these mysteries and murders at once?

Somebody could have been seriously heroic.

As for the psychic, she was useless and with no legend background of the creature we did not have info that would have allowed the characters to defeat or banish him from this world.

What the heck was he doing here anyway? What is he, a left over extra from Dungeons and Dragons, or maybe a renegade Gargoyle?

Movies are supposed to inform, uplift and educate, the fact that they are entertaining is just icing on the cake. As an industry, some new benchmarks need to be set as to where we are going to go because this...this just isn't working.

We have seen better, we KNOW better and as viewers who spend money we EXPECT better!

Give us better!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Crouching psycho, Hidden baggage
28 February 2002
A tremendous effort of breathtaking choreography and priceless (not to mention timeless) cinematography wasted on the story of a "Brady Brat" girl who ruins everyone's lives, including her own.

I have never, and I mean never, seen this type of characteristic in Chinese offspring, noble or not, in fiction or in life. What was Ang Lee thinking? It is embarrassing.

Am I wrong?

No one was a winner in this movie. I was especially saddened by the Death of Master Li who threw his patience before swine with this girl.

Everything he knew died with him. A great loss of wisdom!

This was a tragedy!

As I said, everyone lost.

The girl,

Her nomad boyfriend,

Her parents (who lost a child),

Her governess and tutor, (who goes insane after experiencing the worst human behaviour has to offer, betrayal and ingratitude)

Master Li for his vain efforts to improve on that little psycho, despite her extreme and unwarranted paranoia.

Master Li's lover, who lost a great friend and comrade.

Why is anyone calling this movie spiritual? The only thing it does is give you a slew and behavioural characteristics to avoid lest they lead to tragedy.

Who agrees with me?

I was disapointed. After "Eat, Drink, Man, Woman", a flawless story by the way, I figured Ang Lee could do no wrong.

I was wrong.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed