Change Your Image
Quiestar
Reviews
The X Files: Invocation (2000)
A good good tale; a plot reminiscent ofsomewhat in the lines of dead grow and Poe
If Edgar Allan Poe were alive at the turn of the 21st century and wrote for television, I imagine he just might've come up with this story. There's a pleasant curve ball thrown our way after having been trained for seven seasons to believe "The aliens did it!" But, did they? We learn a little bit more about Dogger's past without laborious exposition. A solid episode certainly not the best, but definitely far from being the worst.
#30
- - The strict 600 character minimum imposed by iMDB has once again proven to be an unnecessary obstacle, one which leads to reviews that are unnecessarily redundant, wordy and watered down. What could be succinct and pithy review is thus stretched thin to the point of tedium - -
American River (2021)
Yet another documentary school fail
A not at all ambitious and remarkably empty documentary designed for those who live vicariously through strangers who paddle relaxingly downriver and say stuff. We learn so very little about the Passaic River that would make it worthy of consideration. This lazy assemblage of largely pointless camera shotIs set to stock music is reminiscent of a first year documentary film school student project. Once again, PBS wastes taxpayer on a pointless and banal work that one might expect to see on a kiosk int a local, one room museum that survives on community tax revenue and the rare handful of pocket change donations
PBS once again insults the intelligence of viewers by poorly appropriating public tax dollars, grant trust fund money, and donations "from viewers like you." This most amateur attempts at documentary filmmaking is a boring, banal and irrelevant exercise with no merit aside from being a community piece to be presented at the next city council meeting.
Star Trek: The Next Generation: A Fistful of Datas (1992)
Ouch!
The one TNG episode you hope won't be the first seen by those unfamiliar with the Star Trek franchise. When this disaster-piece originally aired, I remember looking forward to commercial breaks.
Where do I begin? This cringeworthy episode, hastily cobbled together by the showrunner and allegedly directed by Patrick Stewart was born of ever tightening budget restraints and creative constipation. The ridiculous story reminded me of the worst of the unlikely Gilligan's Island plots.
Originally titled, "Let's Play Cowboy," (okay, not really) this improvised and highly improbable tale took advantage of the abundant goodwill of Star Trek's devoted fans and apologists. Those who followed the series were puzzled,; I remember openly pondering whether the cast and crew had were engaged in a contract dispute.
One of the many less memorable scenes finds Marina Sirtis (Ship's Counselor,Deanna Trois) doing her best to distance herself from the story (who would blame her?).
I would've much rather been treated to a repeat episode than to suffer through this painfully banal silliness. Star Trek: TNG would continue on for one more season and ultimately redeem itself; still yet, this episode will never go away. Reminding all involved that even the most talented actors couldn't save this most uninspired story.
Ted (2024)
Seven stars is a great rating!
An honest review of Seth McFarlane revival of Ted depends entirely on how IMDb user reviews are evaluated. Like many who truly want to know whether a film or television offering is worthy of my time - I check out what other thoughtful IMDb users have to say.
Like many, I disregard 10 star ratings outright. It's too hard to believe that viewers consider that which they find relevant and beautiful to be the model of perfection; it doesn't give much room for improvement. Likewise, I cannot imagine spending time and effort reviewing something that is so terribly awful that it deserves the "I would give it zero stars if I could" with '1 star.'
Ted: The Series is an example of a well above average television offering. Seth MacFarlane, freed from the restraints imposed by Family Guy, uses Ted, a cleverly animated teddy bear, to deliver his own flavor of unapologetic satirical humor. MacFarlane, as delivered through a lovable teddy bear, comes across as less controversial than does Ricky Gervais, the real life teddy bear who won't be silenced by the insecure and easily offended.
Season One: Episode One of Ted" introduces us to the post stardom saga of the unlikely 'teddy bear brought to life' story that MacFarlane brought to the big screen long ago. Macfarlane does well to anthropomorphize the animatronic Teddy Ruxpin toy, which saw late 1980s moms waiting outside in unbearable weather to make certain their children were among the special several million who would benefit from a well planned scarcity marketing campaign. Unlike the aforementioned toy, Ted is very much alive. Like most flash in the pan stars, his post celebrity life isn't what it used to be.
Ted is cleverly portrayed as the has been celebrity who finds himself part of a quintessential middle class 1990s household. His best friend, 16 year old John Bennett, is just another high school kid who, like many, seeks affirmation and relevance among his peers. It is appreciated that MacFarlane's 'Ted' will be compared to the comedian's character, Peter, in Family Guy. Both share the same dialect and similar delivery, yet Ted is better suited as a vehicle to soften MacFarlane's acerbic wit without diluting the necessary message that comedians like MacFarlane, Gervais, Chappelle and others deliver without apology.
Unlike MacFarlane's animated fare, Ted does well to create a recognizable 1990s household with 1990s characters, an important attribute for a story centered on a sentient stuffed teddy bear. MacFarlane is surrounded by characters who are familiar to both parents and older children of the era. Ted is a refreshingly unsafe comedy with roots in MacFarlane's love for the equally abrasive but beloved sitcom that defined the 1970s: "All in the Family."
Ted is a worthy accomplishment and deserving of an eight star rating!
Criss Angel Mindfreak (2005)
Master of Chicanery!
I give Chris " Criss Angel" Sarantakos credit for repurposing what those in the film and television industry called "practical effects." There's w denying that these so-called illusions are equally impressive as the practical effects, which are still used today (though far less since the advent of CGE). The greatest magic lies in the filming and editing, as many of these illusions require equipment that must stay out of the shot and mustn't cast any shadows or otherwise interfere with the effect.
Because "Criss Angel" isn't an illusionist in the purest sense of the craft, some stage and close quarter illusionists discount his acts based on his extensive use of "we're in on it" spectators and the aforementioned practical effects that were the bread and butter and magic used in the motion picture and television industry for decades prior to the advent of motion control cameras and digital rotoscoping and matte shots.
Credit is due to Angel for putting together such a costly production. Perhaps his best tricks are those he used to convince a producer to spend the time and money to put together these reimagined displays of Hollywood's poorly kept secrets. In truth, Angel is best described as a stuntman. As such, there are inherent risks in the business.
So what? It's all about the production process of hiring actors, and, on occasion, employing those with particular afflictions (see "human torso") to aid and abet in deceptive practices that make for great television!
That's partly true. The biggest weakness isn't in the construction and control of the elaborate effects, but rather in Angel's overbearing Marilyn Manson-esque alter ego.
Worth a watch if you're into that sort of neo-gothic schtick and don't mind watching "magic" that has little to do with the mastery of prestidigitation and mad stage skills, and everything to do with staged effects as seen through the eyes of willing accomplices that have a habit of overacting to a degree that you know you're being taken for a ride.
12 Angry Men (1957)
A Story for the Ages...
An honest study into the standards by which the most influential Enlightenment era thinker gave rise to the very first modern document that put the values on Individuals over the values of the Dark Ages crimes against those who did not curry favor with the divinely inspired theocratic monsters. Individuals under the pinnacle of the most celebrated of Enlightenment age documents (i.e., the Constitution of the United States, and requisite Bill of Rights) elevated the rights of the Individual.
There have been attempts to reinvent this script for the Baby Boomer generation and the handful of Generation X crowd whom we once associated with the "Johnny Can't Read" era of the failed film public executions system. To imagine they overcame these inherent weaknesses by simply growing older and being among the easiest manipulated. U was among the guilty who took advantage of these poorly educates and malleable people... until I felt a sense of tremendous guilt for doing as much.
I had to change my position; knowing that I would face the same ridicule as did those who provided the basis of the most amazing and successful document designed to give every individual the right to pursue every opportunity that could better their lives, and, by default, the lives of those around them.
I respect that by standing firm in my defense of the principles of innocent, until proven guilty; worthy and respectable, until proven to cause irreparable harm to others... I could go on, but I fear that the primary audience is heavily biased against the very principles that make this country great, as we continue to out aside ancient mythological biases so that we might create opportunity for all those capable and willing to seek as much.
That this film should be required and studied media for those in their first semester of high school, is likely to put at tremendous risk of yet another valuable resource that will most certainly be banned, based in its value as being representative of the truths as understood by the highly influential Enlightenment age thinkers who created the infinite resources upon which the Constitution of the United States and Bill of Rights so brilliantly summarized.
The Lodge (2019)
Dislodged...
I appreciate that some reviewers brought a perception of depth to The Lodge, as it had little of its own. Those who found meaning in the film, need to put it back - for the rest of us.
I don't care much for what passes for "must see" blockbusters. I simply cannot suspend disbelief as chiseled cosplay protagonist superheroes whiz around 3D rendered worlds breaking all known laws of physics, while tossing out obligatory one-liners as they beat the snot out of dozens of mixed martial artists turned stunt players;. Fortunately, The Lodge has none of that. Unfortunately, it doesn't have much of anything, save for drawn out establishing shots. My need for a dynamic and engaging character driven story wasn't met by any measure.
Making a good psychological thriller is a challenge. Such a film requires the audience to become the unwitting voyeur that inexorably drawn into the relationship of characters who you know are diving headlong into an emotional train wreck. When done well, the viewer feels uncomfortable at best, but oddly engaged. . This can only be achieved mainly, (often, entirely) through a compelling story and great actors who capable of pulling the viewer you out of their comfort zone. This is the "psychological" part of psychological thriller. This is what is absent in The Lodge.
As such, don't for a moment that you'll feel anything like you did when you watched the interplay between the young rookie FBI profiler, Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) and her "partner" in crime-solving, Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Sir Anthony Hopkins) in the still stirring psychological thriller, "The Silence of the Lambs." The Lodge is largely vacant (or did I mean vacuous?).
The Lodge starts out with a mother dropping of her kids with their father, whom I'll call... "Dad." The soon to be ex-wife, whom I'll call, "Mom," is told "It's over;" something that should've been obvious as the mother is indeed dropping the couple's kids off at Dad's house. Seems Dad has a new girl called "Grace." someone apparently Mom knew. Still yet, mom drives home, drinks wine, and shoots herself in the forehead (as mothers are wont to do). It's not much of a shock, because we never knew who Mom was, or much of anything else, for that matter. End credits roll (one can dream!)
The kids are sad at what passes for a funeral service for Mom. Dad, meanwhile, is unfazed, looking to hookup with his new girl, Grace. The kids aren't ready for Grace. We know this because they say so. The quite aloof older boy let's the viewer in on a secret. Grace was "rescued" at age 12 from a hyper-religious suicide cult. Actually, she was less rescued and more taken away, given that the rest of the cult members, including Grace's cult leading father, were found dead. That's all I'll tell you because that's all the movie tells the audience.
We learn this because the withdrawn boy tells us so, and, shortly thereafter, through an unusual scene in which aloof older kid brother and his younger sister sneak into Dad's study and quickly pull up said history on Dad's computer. It's clear this expository scene shows up for the sake of adding the unknown quantity element, that being Grace.
That we never learn much about what happened to Grace between age 12 until she's old enough to marry Dad, who we assume was the Grace's doctor, maybe? A caring investigative journalist? Okay, we really don't know why or how the two hooked up, just that they did - and from a movie like The Lodge, that's good enough.
We're now halfway through the film, and haven't yet arrived at the lodge. My thoughts, exactly. It is a remarkably slow movie not because it's what some consider a "slow burn," but rather because it's a 20-minute story stretched across 90 plus minutes courtesy of numerous lengthy camera shots that added nothing to the story.
The Lodge manages to use up its running time without introducing more than passing glimpse into anything more than a brief psychological background story. As I said from the beginning, whatever psychological thrills one might find in The Lodge are likely those they brought with them. If you enjoy long shots that I imagine were supposed to build tension, then you might find a horror element in The Lodge. Most likely, you'll find another movie. Can't say I blame you.
The Boondocks (2005)
From Brilliance to BS in under 56 episodes
My first viewing of Boondocks, so many years ago, left me wonderfully uncomfortable. It was dark humor; I accept that it's a double entendre. Who was I to root for? Who was the protagonist? By the end of Season One: Episode One of most episodic television shows we would discover who we were to consider the protagonist, be they the hero, or anti-hero. I thought it was Huey Freeman. I was wrong. But why?
As the show progressed,, I soon understood that Huey had no character arc. He was, and remained, the voice of reason and conscience in a reality in which both attributes allowed him to say, "See, I told you!" Huey was the hook and the heart that drew people in. He was the constant. So, who was the protagonist? Easy. Robert "Granddad" Freeman.
Robert believed he stood beside the progressive progenitors of social change that were embodied in his character. He believed that he survived to represent what which Rosa Parks and Martin Lither King, Jr., hoped to achieve. Still yet, he was anchored in a past that led him to "whoop" his kids as, sadly, that was considered a sure fire method of imposing one's will on another. Had he been the father he imagined he was, be wouldn't have had to assume the responsibility for children to that his own flesh and blood could not. This strength v. Subservience is reflected in his wards, Huey, the strong and righteous side, and Riley, the rebellious and pragmatic gangsta'.
We watched as Granddad made choices with the best of intentions that ultimately put him in difficult circumstances. I knew this character, just as most, who are honest with themselves, know this character. My grandfather, an incredible human being, would frequent remind us, "Your background always catches up to you." I truly believed I understood as much, recognizing that my grandparents and my parents were "good people." They were.
That good people can be mistreated and screwed over? That took time to understand. Without going down the intellectual rabbit hole, I learned to comprehend that Granddad's character was well represented by the extremes that separated Huey from Riley.
Then the series throws as two slippery curveballs. Uncle Ruckus, the hard working black man working menial jobs based on his race and disabilities, imagines himself a white man and sees the world from an oddly self-destructive point of view. Next we have Tom, the well paid DA, who might be construed by some, to be an "Uncle Ruckus" with an education and dignity. I considered Uncle Ruckus and Tom the Attorney to be two distinct sides of the same coin. Ruckus was aggressive in his denial, every bit as much as Tom was in denial.
I dare not try to condense all of these complex characters in a few paragraphs. Even the show's title, "The Boondocks," seems antithetical. What became four seasons in syndication, did incredibly well in portraying characters as real human beings, albeit in situations which were created to demonstrate character extremes. It wasn't always an easy watch, but what would become the first three seasons proved to be equally as complicated as are most societal interpersonal and cultural relationships.
That all good things come to an end was demonstrated in the lackluster fourth season. Everything that this incredible show brought to the table was discarded. Why? I suppose the powers that be no longer chose to provoke thought. It was as if the underlying messages of South Park suddenly were discarded in favor of the slapstick vaudevillian simple comedy of, "Family Guy."
Damned Shame: i would rate the bulk of the first three seasons a well-earned nine stars, a remarkably rare rating given my peculiar standards. Season 4 dropped my interest and care to such a degree, that I feel I am being generous in giving the entirety of all seasons seven stars.
The leaders in the movement, whom he believed he assisted in setting the stage for a better future.
Star Trek: The Next Generation: The Inner Light (1992)
Nine stars? Why?
I'm among those who have never given any film or television series or episode the coveted and once meaningful ten star review; as such, I don't read ten star (or one star) reviews. I wont bore those who don't understand the limitations imposed by such hyperbole with a long diatribe; in short, to grade a film, series, or episode within a series the stamp of absolute and unequivocal perfection is remarkably self limiting.
When I was a marketing and public relations executive, I was among the selected fee who gave no small number of presentations to our 5,000+ employees, board of directors and shareholders across the North American continent. Each and every member of the audience was given a simple task by both the CEO and the COO. The audience members were to grade our presentations and performances based on a ten point scale.
After each presentation, the leadership's administrative assistants would tally up these scores. Based on common practice, they were told to eliminate all of the ten star and one star reviews; such reviews weren't considered objectively honest, and thus, lacked relevance. That I was continually featured as a speaker, or occasionally, a trainer, had been based on my 8.6 average score. I respected that so many people appreciated what I did. More importantly, I appreciated that they left me room to aspire abd strive to be better; such honest appraisals were far more valuable in helping me grow as a speaker and communicator.
Those who are still reading this peculiar review, are likely waiting for why I consider the 125th episode, "The Inner Light," in such high regard. The story of Kamin (Jean-Luc) had elements of drama reminiscent of Shakespeare. The typical scene aboard the Enterprise in which the crew were fighting yet another mysterious energy source to awaken Picard, wasn't much unlike ever other episode.
This was a human story revealing what would've happened if Jean-Luc Picard had chosen a different path, far removed from the responsibility and discipline required of a starship captain; a career choice that is often encumbered by loneliness. Patrick Stewart was given the rare opportunity to face both internal conflict and the strange familiarity and love of life as a much simpler man. As Star Trek TNG fans, so many of us learned the true depth and breadth of Patrick Stewart's amazing skills as an incredibly diverse and remarkably talented actor.
Could it have been better? Most certainly. Yet, it remains one of the most engaging and most beloved episodes within the entire Star Trek universe, and rightfully so.
Edge of Tomorrow (2014)
These are the voyages...
A Star Trek: The Next Generation episode with far more computer programmed decorations. I suppose in 2014, discerning movie fans hadn't yet grown tired of movies overburdened with CGI and CGE. Even today, given $20 movie tickets, digital films with digitized characters and a handful of legitimate actors gross over $1 billion world wide.
Tom Cruise does a great job playing the same emotionless automaton he mastered some time ago. I suppose that's why he blends so well with the artifice that surrounds him.
My five star rating took as much into consideration, and that I stopped watching the film roughly half way through. I've seen the same predictable and formulaic story and fail to find the appeal of video game cut scenes edited together to make a film; one in which the human characters would be all but ignored without the preponderance of audiovisual gimmickry.
The teal tragedy? The IMDb summary IS the story, and, in and of itself, is the spoiler.
The Amityville Horror (2005)
It's worth the effort to find something better
The sensationalist book by Jay Anson became a pop-culture sensation based on the claims of a family stuck in a dreadful situation faced by many: they purchased a home they couldn't afford. I'm not at all sure I respect that they took advantage of the delusions of a schizophrenic sociopath who was haunted by far more frightening demons than those conjured for the sake of a story in a genre that included William Peter Blatty's, "The Exorcist," and Stephen King's, "The Shining.
As far as the novels and the movies; two of which were based on fiction novels which were themselves based on a handful of newspaper clippings and delightfully wicked imaginations and a well known publicity stunt; Stephen King's, "The Shining," is by far the best and most enduring novel and film (not so much the sequel). I suppose King could have found a story with similarities, but his reputation as a horror writer didn't demand such a MacGuffin.
"The Shining," never gets old. Stanley Kubrick, a director whose arguably harder to deal with than William Friedkin was an absolute perfectionist.
Jack Nicholson's character, Jack Torrance saw Nicholson at his best. Viewers could both relate to him, and ultimately fear and perhaps hate him.
We knew Jack Torrance. We knew his strengths and his vulnerabilities - as did the ghostly inhabitants of the Overlook Hotel. The scenes in the bar were priceless for providing an engaging and in depth look into Nicholson's departure into utter madness . Danny Lloyd as Danny Torrance captured the essence of youthful innocence impeccably. Along with Scatman Crothers and Shelley lDuvall, the actors seemed to be born to play these characters
In second place is William Peter Blatty's, "The Exorcist," which was far more linear story and wasn't much concerned with character development as it was the freaky demons so often associated with movies which exploit the rituals and beliefs of the Catholic Church. The Exorcist set the standard by which all other demonic possession horror movies are judged still today.
For the same of space, I'm going to forgo reviewing the original Amityville Horror film, as neither the older or newer version can compare to, "The Shining." The quirky dry humor that made Ryan Reynolds much more than just another pretty face with a chiseled body seemed to be the wrong choice for the role. I'd have rather seen a lesser known actor (and a far better script)
Perhaps comparing him to Jack Nicholson is unfair (still yet, Reynolds does have his moments - just not in this film). Reynolds as George Lutz didn't convey the same descent into madness we associate with Jack Torrance. Reynolds' Geirge Lutz went from being the familiar Ryan Reynolds to being an angry Ryan Reynolds. It was less a descent into madness, and more of a quick switch.
I give Reynolds same leeway, as the writing and the timing of the film never seemed to come together during its entirety. I felt like Ryan Reynolds was struggling to fit within a character that's out of his element. To see him go from happy go-lucky in one scene, then all smack-happy and ugly in the next, left me wondering if I had missed the transition. Melissa George was fair enough; still yet - the bad writing and awkward timing left her relationship with Reynolds a bit cold and unmoving. It really seemed they were desperately trying too create characters that hadn't been properly fleshed out. They're both easy to look at, but that wasn't enough. The kids were fine, I suppose... You get it. I was disappointed in what I felt was a low/no budget film made for television.
The best I can say is that it was less painful than watching Reynolds play the "Green Lantern," a movie I still haven't seen more than half way through. Oh, almost forgot. Was it scary? I certainly don't recall anything equivalent to "Here's Johnny!" The only truly frightening part occurred before Reynolds and George appeared on screen. The DeFeo murders were both frightening and tragic.
Evil Dead Rise (2023)
It's never a good idea to revive the Evil Dead!
Yes, I read the review (rant?) that created the inference that Evil Dead Rise seemed as if it had been somewhat sanitized in the style of a Disney film. That's a bit of a stretch. The carnage and associated gore isn't to the degree that would satisfy the bloodlust of director Robert Rodriguez; still yet, there are copious amounts of blood and other fluids along with enough gnarly bits that make it easy to discern why the film more than earned its "R" rating.
I think the most contentious issue is whether or not Evil Dead Rise is certifiably part of Sam Raimi's no/low budget Evil Dead cult classic franchise. The answer is a resounding, "No."
Evil Dead Rise uses the same antagonists who are spawned from a similar source, but without Bruce Campbell's, highly expressive "'Ash' Williams," noted for tossing out more zany one-liners than Deadite body parts, it doesn't hold up. Campbell made it seem downright cool to dismember Deadites.
The reimagined Evil Dead: Rise (and its predecessor) took away the chill thrill of the kill. What remains is a supernatural zombie situation with one or more protagonists (no spoilers, here) who take the whole slaughter fest far too seriously.
It's typical five-star horror fare. The demonically possessed look all scary and act accordingly, and it's always fun to guess who will live and who will endure the agony of having to be fitted with creepy contact lenses and endure the hours it takes to paint on the necessary layers of makeup.
.
Man of Steel (2013)
Awesome video game... er, movie!
I understand the deeper meaning behind the actors and writers demands, yet wonder if they're too late. Perhaps they have hastened what seems to be a an inevitable self-fulfilling prophecy. Actors are becoming less relevant.
What many consider to be the most engaging scenes in the Man of Steel, typically don't use actors for anything more than props. Perhaps the opening credits should feature the names of the talented digital artists working alongside teams of software developers who create the bulk of the film's content. I imagine the most difficult part is incorporating living, breathing actors into the mix.
I felt that Man of Steel should've come with a controller, or, at least, a tactile keyboard. The actual live action filmed scenes in the latest Superman origins story were not much different than expository cutscenes in tier one video games.
Henry Cavill looked like a proper Superman, Amy Adams served as an effective Lois Lane. Costner, Crowe, Lane, Fishburne - they all did well to fill in the gaps between the indulgent abundance of raw computer processing power made available to the stars of the film: the artists who juggled trillions of ones and zeroes to create immersive digital effects. That is what The Man of Steel and other superhero movies have become - and, for no good reason. Sadly, no matter how quite impeccably designed and detailed the effects are, there still exists that numbing uncanny valley effect that never can quite manage to suspend disbelief. I'm reminded of the self-described desktop publishers and graphic designers of the 1990s who created documents with dozens of typefaces - because they could.
The best special effects are those that don't call attention to themselves. After years of destroying larger and larger swaths of simulated real estate (including planets) to outdo that which has come before, I note how such little thought is given to how humanity would legitimately react should these near world-ending calamities ever occur.
I wasn't sure how I felt about the strike until I watched, "The Man of Steel." Sure. I support not just the stars and writers whose names I recognize; it's the truly gifted original storytellers that challenge actors to push the limits of their craft who I consider the best of the best.
GAME OVER.
Avatar: The Way of Water (2022)
Drowning in the the Uncanny Valley.
It's not a terribly adventurous story; at times I feel as if I've been forced to watch an insufferable gameplay video. Let's let the story stand on its own: if you believe it to be epic, I'm pleased for you; if you believe it to be forced, I understand.
This isn't your typical review. I truly enjoy a compelling story. On more than one occasion, I can overlook less compelling stories, solely based on the incredible commitment of the cast.
This film lost me in the "too much, too soon," category. I respect the untold millions that went into the attempt to recreate water. Why concentrate on the primary ecological environment in which the story was set? Truth is, the water is a character in this film. If we're at the bleeding edge of recreating water as an integral part of any story, we have a long ways to go.
It's said that the physics of water were duplicated using the physical laws of fluid dynamics combined with the molecular qualities of water molecules interesting with one another. I'd venture to guess that an attempt was made to introduce a level of randomness to accentuate that which cannot be predicted.
Let's cut to the chase: I felt as if I were watching an animated film that, while potentially groundbreaking, did little to recreate water this avid boater and diver has ever seen. I think I would've preferred a modified Unreal Engine 5 model of water physics, as the greatest single issue of the entire film was the obvious uncanny valley water effects. I suppose if one hasn't spent a lifetime immersed in the real deal, then the animated water effects will suffice.
Yes. It's petty. But it's a major player in the film, and, as such, it makes the entire film seem as if it should've been presented as animated faire.
If you liked the original, then you'd likely appreciate the story. If, like me, you find yourself put off by attempts to create supposedly live-action stories that are heavily dosed with digital characters and environments, you'll likely find your hands reaching for a PS5 controller or tactile keyboard.
I understand why "Hollywood," a catch-all term for human actors and salient writers are on strike. In decades to come, the combination of lowered expectations and half-acre buildings of image processing equipment will all but make the actor unnecessary. The writers? Again, in a decade or so, the same formulaic scripts that appeal most to the widest range of viewers, will be easily created by the artifice of advanced digital scriptwriters.
There is only one positive side: that being the archival collections of real movies, based on beautifully broken scripts (those that replace logic with the singular emotion of the writer(s); and real, very human actors, those whose reactions might include an incongruous raising of an untimely raising of an eyebrow or other perfectly unpredictable line delivery, physical quirks and other, oh so human traits, will never fully be captured by a digital duplicate.
I have no argument with those who love this "progress," but, it is, and always will be, animation to me, and to those of us who instinctively recognize the impossible to emulate reality of legitimate human behaviors and interactions.
Like many who study the topic, the "better" the digital replacements become - is but three-dimensional animation that fails to evoke the sensation of legitimacy, believability, and empathy. These are the darkest of years in the history of the cinematographic arts.
iZombie (2015)
Brain food for those who like a good yarn!
It's perfectly fine that iZombie doesn't much dwell too much on any subplots and character arcs which would only serve to diminish the great comedic and talented Rose McIver.
Olivia "Liv" Moore, never has to confront a "code," as did Dexter. This noticeably missing element of a continuing struggle with a paternal (or maternal) code of "ethics," as it were, isn't at all troubling. In iZombie, such a dramatic gimmick would ruin the fun and spontaneity. I prefer Liv Moore to be free to - well... live more (it was too easy)! The more room she has be her quirky self, the better. She's got this! Thanks (striking?) writers, for not dragging us down with over-the-top soap operatic subplots.
The ensemble cast provides just the right amount of, "play," to give McIver room to react and shine.
If iZombie stays on track; and keeps it delightfully insane, I will happily give the show eight stars.
This is a series with legs (and brains... so many brains). I imagine it will long be a cult classic - Here's to hoping the actors have negotiated a strong royalty clause.
Extraction 2 (2023)
Gotta' Love Armchair Movie Critics
If you haven't yet seen Extraction II (2), then humor with a game. It's largely a few yes or no answers to questions based on presuppositions based on what kind of movie you think you will be watching.
Does anyone imagine it is going to be a comedy? A horror flick? Yet another Marvel or DC comic book hero/anti-hero movie? A story of time travel and yet another reason to pretend the grandfather paradox isn't an issue?
Anyone think that Extraction II will be a deep character study with subplots, devious motives, edge-of your-seat psychological tension? A period piece loosely based on fact? How about an epic blockbuster based on an equally epic novel on the level of Godfather or Godfather II? Is it an animated family film? Perhaps anime?
Rhetorical questions all, as we all know it's an action flick; there's are few other genres we know as well as we do the action movie. We can go so far as to assume a movie called Extraction, will likely be a movie about an, what's the word? I just had it... Oh, yes! An extraction! As such, we know how it will roll, especially with Chris Hemsworth in the leading role. He'll play the action-movie character with emotional baggage, mad skills at delivering death and destruction with just enough compassion and honor to be considered the "good guy." Isn't that how action flicks work?
If we wanted to pretend to be deep, we could say that the alluded to extraction isn't only related to the physical act of forcibly retrieving others from a life threatening situation; but the
psychological extraction of a man from the burden he's carried. In the end, both the physical and psychological extractions are inexorably intertwined. Perhaps it is. Let's hear what you get out of it save for that we all anticipated.
We can be fairly certain that this will be a high-octane adventure film with Hemsworth traveling from one country to at least two or three others - either chasing, or being chased, by an army of goons. As the thinking types who understand the strengths and weaknesses of the genre, we know that act one won't be filled with emotional depth and irrelevant character relationships, detailed backstories and exposition. Action movies don't begin like that; think of James Bond films, "Raiders of the Lost Ark," they all began and ended with action. Look. No spoilers here!
Based on the concept of the franchise (Fast and Furious, John Wick, et al), we kinda already know whether our hero will die or live for another day, for another movie, and for more reviews that no professional actor, producer, or filmmaker will ever read. Our reviews are far less relevant than those written by paid professionals (and even they rarely have an impact on the worldwide gross profits). Sequels are big business and money in the bank. Does anyone doubt that they've nearly finished writing the script for Extraction 3? I don't know if it's true - but I bet Chris Hemsworth does!
Given the above, one could easily assume that Tyler (Hemsworth) will be shown as being capable of testosterone infused strength as he dispatches multiple well-armed thugs (sometimes two or three, simultaneously. Tyler will somehow repel all but a few minor cuts, scrapes, and the occasional bullet strike from the continuous barrage of bullets fired from automatic weapons that can keep firing without being reloaded. He will limp away injured, tired, and a bit bruised and bloodied, but will never lose a tooth and will always heal rapidly enough to do it all over again.
We also recognize that even the most experienced and motivated mercenaries, armed to the teeth, will lose their mental faculties to draw up the most basic strategic plans that actually work. Likewise, they'll lose their ability to shoot straight once they set their eyes upon the legendary Tyler.
Cars will flip, things will go "boom!" Some fights will break out in places where fight's rarely, if ever, break out (e.g., planes, trains, and automobiles). Action movies make we mere mortals seem indefatigable, infinitely strong, and capable of outthinking our opponents even after being hit with blunt instruments, taking a bullet to the shoulder or leg, having our head pummeled multiple times; these are all mere flesh wounds, as it as calling to mete out justice with a vengeance. It's why action movies have been celebrated as one of the premier genres since the first film reels were loaded onto projectors above a full house of cinema goers a century ago (give or take a few years).
None of these are spoilers. They're general knowledge. As for the sequel, it's everything one would expect it to be, and it's a fast-paced roller-coaster ride of adrenaline fueled action. The fisticuffs and fight scenes are well-filmed. There's plenty of intrigue when it's required, and even a few well-written and relatable character arcs. If you understand that an action movie is going to have action, and a lot of it - and that's what you're in the mood for - enjoy the heck out of Extraction II.
If you're looking for moody dystopian melodrama, a bit less action, enemies with evil lairs and heroes who can only fight when they don their masks and put on their tights... stick to comic book movies - everything in the comic universe is much more realistic, I'm sure.
I figure most who know how the action movie genre works will already know before the opening credits roll, that they'll be rating the movie 6 - 8 stars.
That linear storyline works, the stunts and fight scenes are well choreographed, the director of photography and crew demonstrate they know how to light and compose powerful action scenes and shoot establishing shots and B roll sequences. The editing is smooth and tight, as it must be. The screenplay did well to cram in just enough backstory and character arcs to provide the necessary foreshadowing and the ultimate outcome. The rest? It's all action. Extraction is almost literally, Extra-action. Chris Hemsworth found himself in a role as the actor/action hero (antihero?) that seems as if had been tailor made just for him. Imagine that.
Enjoy the film.
I'm sure I'll stick around for Extraction 3. To save time, I'll pre-rate the (likely) upcoming sequel 6.5 stars.
El recluso (2018)
Not my cheese.
Completely unbelievable. Unbelievably incomplete. Small hot girl works as a prison social worker, human rights officer employed in a Mexican prison? R-i-i-ight. Mexican stereotypes aplenty (all of whom speak flawless English). Exposition and fighting, there's the plot. Oh, and the "prisoner" has a lawyer. If it were any worse... wait, it cannot be any worse. It's like a cutaway from "Family Guy," but not nearly as funny. What else can I say? Horrible writing (maybe the writer's strike is a good thing). There's no acting, the directors stayed home during filming, and the set designer could've at least watched a Mexican documentary. It's a cage match movie for American Luddites. Netflix has a grim future.
The Munsters (2022)
R. Zombie film irreparably damaged by his Achilles' Heel
I REALLY wanted to like this film. The Munsters weren't as refined and humorously macabre as were the Addam's Family, yet they were more popular based on what I call the 'Gilligan's Island factor.
Rob Zombie is an above average musician and remains an unknown quantity as a movie director, given his devotion to his talentless wife. I would've thought the cinematic version would've been best served by a recognized, respected and experienced professional director, like Tim Burton. Along with music provided by the equally talented composer, Danny Elfman, The Munsters movie could've done well to add to the legacy of the television series. Of course, Burton, not being overtly influenced by Sheri Moon's offscreen talents, would've likely cast the role of Lily (and many of the others), with professional actors, given his ability to use his award-winning works as a guarantee that the film would've grossed far more than the higher budget he would've demanded.
That the project was given to Rob Zombie made the movie a guaranteed flop from the start. Zombie's Achilles' Heel is his grade-school infatuation with groupie turned wife, Sheri Moon. I'm sure Moon is talented in many things, none of which are related to professional acting. Moon makes all of Rob's movies, (save one), well... kinda suck. 'Devil's Rejects' worked for two reasons: Sheri Moon adds the same unique kind of scary to any role she plays, and given that the other actors in the film kept their distance, they diminished her equally frightening ability to irreparably damage the careers of the established character actors whom found themselves in the unenviable position of working alongside Rob's beguiling and cursed prize.
This cinematic treatment of the once highly rated Munsters was effectively destroyed by Sheri Moon's remarkable ability to play- Sheri Moon. The costume doesn't make the actor. The late Yvonne De Carlo would've been rightfully embarrassed, even humiliated, to see her memorable role so disrespectfully portrayed.
Some attractive people find work in film, based not so much on their lack of acting skills, but based on talents that they share behind the scenes. If one wonders why any monied producer would finance a Rob Zombie film... be certain that it's likely based on Sheri Moon's "negotiating skills."
2 stars is as low as I normally go, however, 1 star is warranted for viewers who can make it past 30-minutes.
The Batman (2022)
You've gotta' really love Batman to sit through this
Yet another take on The Batman story (as if anyone wanted one). Visuals were good. Umm... yep, they looked pretty good, and the same for three hours - but good, I'm sure. The change up between the dark underbelly of Gotham City mixed with the unique contrast of the ...dark underbelly of Gotham City was as monotonous as ensemble character actor, Robert Pattinson's monotone delivery. It often appeared that he was too tired to bother reacting to... not much. The surround sound was well edited (theres a positive!)
The movie director and writers (Matt Reeves and Peter Craig) were obviously forgot that film isn't an exercise in narcissistic, melodrama and overt self-gratification. The preachy and obvious from the beginning "message" didn't require three hours to get across. I guess audiences adore Batman (or Robert Pattinson)., no batter how depressingly boring the script.
His monotone delivery worked better than melatonin, as I found myself nodding off, or finding something more exciting to do (like my laundry). Zoë Kravitz's forced performance neither added nor took away from the largely vacuous self-indulgence of writers Matt Reeves and Peter Craig (I swear they had a contest to see who could write the longest scenes). Matt Reeves blew it with this Ishtar-like "epic" i.e., "laboriously long," snooze fest. I felt as if I were watching the minute hand on a clock subtly move from one minute to the next for over three hours. Maybe that should be the sequel! Or a concerto that repetitively played a C-chord nonstop for 3-hours. Of course some will love it. It's their version of the abstract art painting of a blue dot on white canvass that means so much more than being, well - a blue dit on white canvas.
The bottom line? Slap a DC or Marvel superhero (in this case, a stupor hero) in a film, and fans will rush in as if it were The Godfather; the first two released Star Wars movies; the LOTR trilogy, Pulp Fiction,.... None of that here!
My mother and I watched the Lord of the Rings trilogy in one-sitting - a rarity for her, in my home theater. Typically, 90 to 120-minutes max is all she can handle. This film would've been switched to a curling match, had she had the alternative. Fortunately, she wasn't around to be bothered by the drawn out self-indulgent film. Wrong writers, a wrong director, and an editor who forgot the craft, can really mess up a film!,
Read this review again and again for three hours. Count the spelling, punctuation and grammar errors I tossed in for your amusement. If you can handle that - then this film is bound to be your all-time favorite film. Ever.
Mi Encuentro con El Mal (2022)
Tiresome and irresponsible pandering...
My Encounters With Evil is supposed to be scary. The setup is as follows: three formerly possessed women, in Mexico City, tell their tales of demonic possession (either of themselves or of a parent, sibling, etc. At least one of these subjects is writing a book on the matter, so we cannot be certain of her motivations.
Scary? Not in the sense that you witness anything as it happens. These are all stories, with cutaways in which the director and actors, apparently fond of creative and artistic license as they are wont to be; reenact (and overact) these remembered and certainly not embellishes recollections with the unbridled vigor, drama and incongruity of a B-movie. Sure, you might gasp at the one, maybe twi, well-timed jump scares, or be mesmerized by a prop candle designed to continually burn with a bigger and brighter flame (some digital video cameras fare terribly without copious amounts of light). Then there's a dog that barks, as dogs rend to do), and later, his eyes turned monochromatic red. Later, in one of the cutaway re-enactments, one possessed presents herself with eyes that appear to be solid white. We also get the added bonus of a lady walk ing out an a street doing her interpretation of Tourette's syndrome. If spooky monochromatic eye tropes and two curse words repeated twice get ya,' you're in for a treat!
The numerous issues with this series seem almost intentional. There's zero evidence of demonic possession, save for those whose motive it is to sell books.
Tell me true. If it were a thing, that being demonic possession, and you were suddenly being mentally shredded by no less than one of the most evil Mesopotamian demons... and then got better; would you risk a revisit by flaunting your victory over an 8,000 year-old eternal demon? Remember, he knows where you live. He knows your children, your parents, and those closer to you yet - your pet Labradoodles. I'd venture you'd agree to call it a tie, and never speak of the total mind and body assault (of every kind) for the rest of your natural life.
As for the rest if this drudgery of a series, it's filled the anachronisms and numerous critical elements which were never addressed (for good reason, as the ten or fifteen who believe this happened, would feel even more foolish). I'd love to see a more elevated story; one free of tropes, outright nonsense, and without the inclusion of the not quite yet 150 year-old cheesy Ouija Board toy.
Travelers (2016)
High-fidelity science fiction
Forgot about the reviews from those who consider The Rock as a legitimate actor, and the reviews from the faux intellectuals who pretend they've read a book once. Travelers reaches beyond the pyrotechnics, cutting edge liquid metal cyborgs from the future and guilty pleasures of the Terminator franchise.
This is the closerst to literary science fiction that screenplay writers dare go. Travelers deals with the unfortunate realities and challenges that time traveling humans, assigned to right certain wrongs of the past, must face. These aren't mindless cyborgs or posable action figures; they are future humans who are willing to sacrifice their lived by assuming the identities and complicated lives of those who were seconds from death in the present day. They have to become both mission-driven warriors, and, even more challenging, they have to become those whose bodies they own. A father, a husband, a mental patient, a high school student whose history with his family and perverse former football coach was far less than ideal, one becomes a heroin addict based on future historical records that was based on parents covering for their son's addiction. Some are "normal," some are not (kind of like reality).
It's a thinking person's science fiction. There's no Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, the ubiquitous Bruce Willis, Nicholas Cage, WWE or MMA jumping into any film project that helps them maintain an income to which they've grown accustomed despite the years that they've traded in their hard work as actors so that they might enjoy the much simpler life of a celebrity.
Ride through the first three or four episodes to grow accustomed to thinking and legitimate visual and artistic sci-fi literature.
I recall when Joseph Conrad's literary masterpiece, "Heart of Darkness" was reimagined by Francis Ford Coppola as "Apocalyptic Now." It opened to horrible reviews based on the premise that it was based on Conrad's abstract human character "Kurtz" more than it was a cinematic version of children's favorite DC or Marvel comic books.
This is definitely not a show for those raised on young adult Hollywood CGI impossible action flicks. Bring your brain to the game, or watch the tiger guy play with his perversions and kitties or any any other nonsense designed to appease the limited attention spans this isn't for the Minecraft, Transformer, and "Spidey-sense" sector of the lost generations. Do not watch unless you are willing to become a player in a journey in which you are part of the equation.
If you just cannot get enough of Batman, then it's not for you.
Queen of the South (2016)
Almost great story. Plenty of "shoot 'em up" action
Alice Braga is undeniably a great actress. She became the very human,"Teresita," I almost felt obligated to protect. Okay, not really. There's nothing at all romantic about any drug cartel.
The first three seasons had a less exaggerated storyline and was a great, nail biter of a ride.
Season four has issues: Theresa Mendoza is a highly recognized and contentious leader who isn't exactly loved by her competitors. She knows that she would best serve her crew by being anywhere else but close to them. She should be signing paychecks and thank you cards, hiring a press agent and PR firm to help her boost her community appeal. A well-timed $10-million Theresa Mendoza Pediatric Oncology Research Endowment fund that would result in the construction a brick and mortar children's hospital wing bearing her name would be a good start.
Add a 1-million dollar donation to sponsor an art museum's annual mixer and auction (with all proceeds going to the hospital Endowment fund, would put her in an entirely different class of people. It's critical to have supportive friends if Theresa intends to "go legit"
Of course, Theresa's business leadership means she's sending her "troops" on unpredictable by nature risky missions. Such is the unfortunate but necessary responsibility of a leader whose career isn't exactly listed among the Top Ten Least Risky Career Choices. Understandably, Theresa, being a bright and strategically minded leader, knows that one of her most critical goals is to mitigate such risk, and separate herself from felons who carry guns - especially in high-risk missions that require her crew's full attention to planning out scenarios that take into account unanticipated situations. That's what Pote & Co. Do! They're experienced combat street warriors that have survived and evaded prison for decades.
When Theresita irresponsibly chooses to tag along, she changes the focus of the mission. Now, her guys have to focus too much of their time protecting her, putting their lives in much more precarious positions than was ever necessary to accomplish the mission (which is hard enough). . She's the leader. Theresa needs to give up her selfish indulgences, and stay at least two alibis away. Preferably doing responsible leader stuff.. They got this, Mother Theresa - your job is to schmooze clients, don't shoot them!
I get it. It's a loosely based fictional portrayal of a real character, and why pay the big dollars to hire the powerful and commanding actor Alice Braga, who is, in addition, not at all hard on the eyes. Well?..
it's a waste of money to haver sit in her trailer/dressing room. She's the titular Queen of the South. She HAS to be on screen, in danger, during the action scenes. I get it! Let's chalk it up to the "Leaders join the away team, Red Shirts die" Star Trek trope that it is, a dash of creative license, of you will, now let's and move on. No points lost for following the rules.
Season four's biggest and most annoying issue, is situating the show in a re-imagined New Orleans The Gotham City concept nearly derailed the show. What's with the judge being seen hanging with people who could bounce him into a First Degree-Murder/RICO indictment that would see him lost in a federal ADX Supermax prison umtil people forget he ever existed? Was Judge Lafayette's character written as dark comedy relief? He is the Ragin' Cajun version of DC Comics "Gentleman of Crime," Oswald Cobblepot, along with his evil henchmen. Not my favorite written or played character. No judge would acknowledge Theresa Mendoza's existence, if his intention was extortion. He's a judge, meaning he was a lawyer. There would be countable layers of plausible deniability between the Judge and his victims, unless you're Judge Oswald Cobblepott
8.5 for seaons 1 - 3.
6.5 for season 4.
? for season 5. I needed a break!
Shookum Hills (2021)
Watch the film, save electricity!
The film is so dark, it's like watching a big screen during a power outage. The only possible way to make out what might be happening, is to turn on CC (subtitles). They're plenty bright enough to read. If that's your goal, read a book. It's much less expensive and far more rewarding.
IMDb says my review is too short. So here's an snippet from a great scene. Some characters.may, or may nit be in a dark cavern. You can can just vaguely make out the potential outline of human bodies. Whether they're the actors, or crew members - your guess is as good as mine. Then the scene grows darker yet. Might as well listen to an audiobook while watching a chalkboard! Great stuff, I'm sure.
Godless (2017)
Story's engaging. Video production values? Meh...
TECHIE ALERT!
I just completed the first episode.
Godless is gifted with a compelling story and well rounded characters. The cinematography, however, is unimpressive. It's not necessarily the equipment (though the best DV "films" are shot on ARRI cameras; RED cams are certainly less costly, but, in my experience, they seem to struggle in low light situations.
Shot composition in Godless is at times confounding and confusing. I don't understand the reason why shaky handheld shots are chosen for some scenes, and a tripod seems the go-to for static shots. If dolly tracks, et al, and the grips necessary to set up the rigging are beyond the budget (which I doubt), a decent Steadicam or similar rig and a single experienced operator could've been had for a song.
Whether the less than stellar production quality has to do with a limited budget or a relatively inexperienced director and director of photography - it's distracting and troublesome, nonetheless. The director of photography apparently chose not to establish a singular "look" for the series; instead, choosing to mixing and match vivid color shots with desaturated (bleached film look) shots - oftentimes in the same sequence; a major faux pas, and... "Ouch!!
Traditionally, the production team, most notably, the director and the director of photography, research the western and period genre carefully; watching and taken notes from Sergio Leone's classic westerns, and maybe newer offerings, like QT's "Hateful Eight,"and "Django Unchained;" and the Coen Brothers classic "No Country for Old Men;" among others. Once a look is decided upon, it's seared in their minds and used continuously throughout the filming/editing process.
The preceding is likely the biggest difference between a video and a film-based production. The latter requires that the film be "made" long before shooting starts. A film-based movie/TV production requires a unique skill set, given that every "take" costs far more than nearly infinite takes possible with a digital video camera. Each shot on film has to be carefully planned, whereas, comparably cheap high speed SSD drives give the director leeway to shoot as many takes as time allows, often leading to improvised shots, many of which tend to deviate from the carefully developed look and style of the production. Not everything can be fixed in post.
I am not a, "Film is better than video" snob. Though I learned my skills based on film-based productions, I understand the cost benefit and current dynamic range of video and prefer using the medium. There are a number of top-notch video cinematographers, most of whom ironically began their careers using film and editing on a Steenbeck.
The lighting in Godless is often equally problematic. The frequent use of bright white key lights that reflect off of actors in darker indoor/outdoor scenes are unusually distracting, given that there were no such lights available during the period and, even if there were - it simply doesn't work! Adding last-minute lights might have been a necessary evil to compensate for to the low-light limitations of the RED... but, are Rosco's that costly?
Admittedly, roughly half of the shots (most frequently, the static shots) are well framed, properly lit and have cinematic appeal. Wondering if there were two independent crews? Consistency throughout, a lofty goal for this team, would've made this a much better viewing experience, especially on a relatively common-use 60" UHD OLED screen.
Perhaps Godless will give the production teamm a tremendous opportunity to learn on the job. I hope this happens over the course of the upcoming episodes...
Until then...
Story: 8
Acting chops: 8
Sound/Music editing 8
(Video) Cinematography: 3
Editing: 6
*Any spelling or grammar errors are intentional and included for your amusement.
Star Trek Beyond (2016)
The working title was "Star Trek: Beyond Salvation"
Okay, not rrally. Or, was it?
I saw this as a re-release in a movie theater, surprised by how many open seats their were for a Saturday Night showing.
Banking on the Star Trek name has become a franchise in its own right. Trekkies, Trekkers and any other similarly labeled Trek-ian fans will hate this movie to such a degree they'll re-examine why they ever cared for the franchise in the first place. That's a shame, as several of the episodic TV series and a handful of films did well to respect Gene Roddenberry's concept of making the characters relatable to the world as it is with an added dose of optimism and hope for the future.
The same story has been done before - and remade before. "Star Trek: Beyond Comprehension," gave the appearance that none of the legion of writers had ever once watched Star Trek. If they had seen any of the prevailing collective of Star Trek television series, Gene Roddenberry's conceptualization was obviously far beyond their capability to comprehend.
The well-known canonized abilities and vulnerabilities of the U. S. S. Enterprise were ignored and abused to such a degree that even the ship did a lousy job of playing its recognized role. The disrespect and the total lack of knowledge for the finest crew under the by the legendary leadership of Captain James T. Kirk; whose legacy would inspire Star Fleet cadets for centuries to come was so irreparably damaged. Chris Pine's portrayal of Kirk wasn't worthy of a legacy longer than the first 15-minutes of the film. He played the tole as if he were a cross between an 18 year-old Vin Diesel an The Rock Even Scotty couldn't have pulled off many of his amazing last-minute feats of engineering prowess to save this knockoff non-canonical "pimp-your-ride" version of NCC-1701. (James Doohan's Scotty would've likely bolted to an escape pod, instead of trying to patch together this embarrassment (both of the ship and the film).
Most reviews will talk of the blatant rip-off of the Khan-like antics (at a much less engaging and silly over-the-top manner. I suggest that you also read their short reviews to see what they thought the story added to the fairly recent addition to the franchise (hint: nothing).
.Chris Pine's adrenaline pumped "Kiddie Kirk" remind me of an imaginative 12 year-old prepubescent boy playing an imaginary Kirk who stood on top of his toilet lid and flushed the handle, imagining all the while he was "being transported" out the bathroom window and into his back yard "planet." to take on the family dog after having watched a rerun of one of the less memorable episodes from the original series (which ran immediately following after-school cartoons). It's a shame, unlike Star Trek: Beyond Redemption, Star Trek TOS managed to put forth a great many well thought out stories - in spite of the obscenely low budget, the studio's lack of support - made obvious by the high-school play style scenery;.and late 1940s effects.
Okay, give credit where credit's due for the classic Enterprise model and the creative transporter scenes both awesome for the era. There were future legends who worked in TOS underpaid effects team. They went above and beyond to make their weekly stipend work to create the a believable space environment, believable planets (from the POV of the Enterprise), and, c'mon, the ship model was a work of both function and art. Every visible part had a reason for its existence. Needless to say, the tricorder and communicator props became the models by which industrial designers would use for real life flip-phones, iPods and iPhones nearly 30 years later.
No budget could've saved the film, "Star Trek: Beyond Dignity." A telltale sign that a movie is going to be bad is when there are more writers (both credited and uncredited) than there are main characters. I read somewhere that so many writers were necessaey to keep up with the changes in the script mid-production. Though no one said (out loud) "We were changing and making up the script all the way to the last scenes - but check out the effects!" (and forget giving me writing credit, just give me my check and a bottle of Saurian brandy, I would not be at all surprised should the above be used as a sourced pull quote that never existed. Or m, did it?
For CGI fans, the original 1977 Star Wars: "A New Hope featured far better, realistic and relevant) effects than did Star Trek: Beyond Any Hope." It was as if $100-million thrown out ad the models and effects houses were intended to distract viewers from the non-experience of the story. Some computer animated scenes were so obvious and over-the-top, I I wondered if I had accidentally stumbled into the wrong theater, and was being (mis)treated to the anime version of Star Trek: Beyond Credibility."
I've been far more impressed by fireworks displays while sitting on the beach than the flood of CGI scenes which nearly left me submerged in uncanny valley.
If you want the jist of the story, I suggest you read the shortest reviews, as, like most who left the theater, they likely believed they were bilked out of $20 watching an unbearably long and disjointed trailer. I kid you not, the most commonly heard comment after "Well. That sucked!" was, "What the hell was that all about?" and variations on the same theme.
Given that the entire film was filmed on location in Uncanny Valley, don't blame me if you watch this ten, and enjoy ten, maybe fifteen minutes of it (between naps), and wonder why you wasted your valuable time. I have gone above and Beyond to ensure that you have been warned!
- All typos are for your amusement and included free of charge.