JaAmPoWeR Reviews

Transformers: Energon (2004)

The weakest link of the Unicron Trilogy. That being said... said...

[6/10 · 6 May 2024]

Energon/Superlink certainly has its issues. While watching the show I noticed that many of the episodes were quite repetitive with a "we've got to stop the Decepticons from stealing the Energon" plot that comes with plenty of powerlinking/superlinking, and then Optimus/Convoy would link with his four drones, Wingsaber, or Omega Supreme and defeat the Decepticons. While the show has 51 (52 if you count the special episode), I feel as if there was only enough story for 35-40 episodes. This leads to the show's pacing feeling off, Energon is either slow and repetitive or moving at a brisk pace.

Many viewers have also noted that there is some character regression. For a start, Optimus doesn't seem bothered by the revelation at the end of Armada/Micron Legend that he had a desire for conflict and battle, hence why he gave up the Matrix at the end of that show. In Energon, he's pretty much back to normal and I'm fairly certain that he has the Matrix again (I looked up and Optimus reclaimed the Matrix between shows). Starscream also returns having been brought back to life, however he remembers nothing of what he did in Armada/Micron Legend (he's also called Nightscream in the Superlink version) and is Megatron/Galvatron's loyal servant throughout the show. While Energon/Superlink does bring back the human kids from Armada/Micron Legend (Rad, Carlos, and Alexis), they're given very little to do overall. This is a shame since there could have been a character arc for Starscream like Scorponok's character arc, but nothing ever comes of it. Energon even backpedals on its own character development, Demolishor starts off the show working for the Autobots, then joins back up with the Decepticons. However, Demolishor still feels some loyalty to the Autobots since he has worked with them since the end of Armada. During a battle, Demolishor dies saving Megatron. However, Megatron can save his Spark and makes a new body for him, the only thing is that he doesn't remember anything of the time that he spent with the Autobots or humans, nor does his personal struggle ever come up again. There are other odd character choices such as Shockblast, being an underling of Megatron who openly brags that he will one day control the Decepticons, being killed off to only be replaced by his identical brother Sixshot who is the same character. This I particularly found odd since Transformers shows are known for recoloring characters and giving them a new name, the Autobots get new color schemes ¾ through the show; Demolishor, Tidal Wave, and Cyclonus get new bodies (the latter two even being renamed to Mirage and Snowcat); and Megatron get a powered-up form and becomes Galvatron. All of this begs the question as to why the writers didn't just have Shockblast go through the same process and be renamed Sixshot? Considering that this show aired almost immediately after Armada/Micron Legend ended, it wouldn't surprise me if there was some behind-the-scenes rush to get this show out on time and this was the result, this feels like a heavily compromised show.

The first thing anyone will notice when they watch Energon/Superlink is the animation. I get what the animators were going for with the 3D CGI Transformers trying to look as if they seamlessly blend in with the 2D animation. Nevertheless, the animation of the Transformers comes off stiff and is worse than Beast Wars and Beast Machines animation which was a decade old when this show aired. The animation is so stiff that sometimes 2D animation is used to convey the Transformers emoting or doing something that the 3D animation wouldn't be able to do, and these brief moments actually look pretty good. It's kind of sad, while having the animation be 2D wouldn't solve the writing issues or the show's pacing, it probably would have made the show more watchable.

All this being said, I didn't hate Energon/ Superlink. It defiantly ranks as one of the weakest Transformers shows, but I wouldn't say that it's without merit. For a start, I would like to say that I watched the Japanese Superlink version. This is important because Superlink has finished animation, dialogue that makes sense and doesn't muddle the plots and character motives, and the Energon version removed an episode (Return! Our Scorponok) which is crucial to the rivalry between Ironhide and Scorponok. I also found Kicker and Ironhide (Roadbuster in Superlink) to be far more likable in the Japanese version due to their voices being less grating. Kicker is still overly shouty. However, I was able to appreciate the pairing of Kicker, being a rebellious teen, and Ironhide, being a devoted and loyal soldier, and both characters changed by the show's end.

When the show follows up on plot elements from Armada/Micron Legend, it's neat and felt like what a proper sequel should do, build off its predecessor. Seeing the kids from Armada grown-up and having supporting roles was nice, especially as someone who didn't mind Rad, Carlos, and Alexis. Hot Shot continuing his character arc from Armada, he now acts more mature and even like an older brother to Ironhide. We even see Demolishor dealing with the era of peace that started at the end of Armada, which ends when Megatron's resurrection. It was also neat seeing the Transformers God Primus. Granted, he's presented as a glowing ball in this show, but this was the first depiction of Primus in any Transformers TV show. Energon/Superlink even shows new depictions of old characters reimagined since this was the 20th anniversary of the original Transformers show. Characters such as Rodimus, Downshift (Wheeljack in Superlink), Shockblast (Lazerwave in Superlink), Scorponok (Mega Zarak in Superlink) and the Terrorcons representing G1 Ravage, Lazerbeak, Insecticons, and Dinobots not only get updates on their designs, but made for decent reinterpretations of G1 characters. I also thought the redesigns for Optimus and Megatron/Galvatron were successful homages to their G1 versions. Granted, none of these reinterpretations come close to Armada Starscream's character arc, but I appreciated this show reintroducing old characters and doing something new with them. I especially liked Shockblast being a homicidal maniac, and Scorponok who turned out to be a noble character who was made to restore the planets that Unicron devoured. However, Scorponok is brainwashed by Megatron and it's not until his last moments that he regains his memories.

The main aspect that I liked about Energon/Superlink was the scale and ambition of its story. While the story starts on Earth, it eventually evolves into a Star Trek-esq show where the Autobots and Decepticons go to new planets and battle for Energon, then both factions travel to a newly created Universe for the Autobots defeat Unicron, and then the Autobots reclaim Cybertron at the show's end. As flawed as the execution was, I liked seeing a story as grand and as ambitious as this. I don't think it's until recent years with shows like Cyberverse and the Netflix trilogy that we got a Transformers show that takes place on a galactic scale. I also liked the dichotomy between the Autobots and Decepticon characters. The Autobot characters seem to mostly get along with each other. Meanwhile, the Decepticons all claim to be loyal to Megatron/Galvatron, yet I think every Decepticon character barring Starscream (ironically) and Tidal Wave/Mirage was glad that Galvatron died, and the Decepticons were always fighting in amongst themselves.

Superlink is still a very flawed show, and Energon is a terribly rushed translation. That said, if you can sit through the show's animation, odd character choices, and sluggish pacing you might find that there are some ideas in Energon/Superlink that make it worth watching at least once. If nothing else, there's no other show or movie where a giant Optimus Prime combined with Omega Supreme has a one-on-one brawl with Unicron, so Superlink/Energon has that going for it.

Alien (1979)

A blend of science-fiction and horror that came out at the right time, but it's not the classic many claim it as.

[5/10 · 25 April 2024]

Coming out after the success of renowned horror films such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Exorcist, and Halloween, as well as Star Wars which gave the science-fiction genre a new jolt of energy, Alien could not have come out at any better time. That being said, and while I don't think it's a bad film, I never considered it to be the classics that many have called it over the years. It's not just me, I've met many people who honestly thought the first Alien film was either "just fine" at best or "boring" at worst. I even marathoned all the Alien films with my friend at the time Chris, and we both thought that Alien was "just alright", and I remember after watching the sequel Aliens, I turned to Chris and said, "that was much better than the first one" and he simply replied with "yes." I'll even say this, we both ended up enjoying Alien 3 more than the first film despite all the problems that film has, it managed to keep us engaged more than the first film ever did (and just to clarify we saw the longer Assembly cut of that film).

For me, Alien's biggest problem was its characters, which really falls upon its script and screenplay. Now I don't mean to belittle Dan O'Bannon and Ronald Shusett, they have written other works that I hold in high regard such as the original Total Recall from 1990, however the writers have even admitted that they wrote the characters backstories, but they essentially wrote the characters as gender-less and would let the actors "fill in" the gaps in terms of the characters personality and traits. This I think was a detriment since the characters ended up feeling like blank slates in the final film and, although they were played by great actors, I mostly didn't care for the characters barring Parker and Brett whose actors (Yaphet Kotto and Harry Dean Stanton) both did a good job as coming off as working-class engineers. The rest of the characters came off as either bland and one-note or rather unlikable really. Kane (played by John Hurt) and Lambert (Veronica Cartwright), despite putting in decent performances were rather uninteresting and due to the script, felt like they could have been played by anyone. Honestly, I found the two characters, Ripley and Dallas, that I consider the leads of the film to be somewhat unlikable. It seems like Ripley showed little or no care about if Kane survived or not and was more concerned with following regulations over the lives of the rest of the crew. In Alien's Director's Cut, Lambert slaps Ripley just before Dallas and Ash attempts to remove the facehugger from Kane, and honestly, I found that scene rather cathartic. Then Ripley confronts Ash over letting the members of the away mission onto the ship and comes off again as rather unlikable. At this point we have no reason to suspect that Ash is an android or even working for the company, and while it was against regulations Ash was doing the morally right thing so again Ripley just comes off as cold. This contempt for Ash even occurs later where Ash asks if there's anything else he can do and Ripley replies "Just what you've been doing, Ash: nothing". In hindsight we know Ash is the antagonist, but at this point he just seems like he's trying to help. Heck, Ash even helped make the sensor that was supposed to track the Alien down. For as much as people praise Ripley for being one of the greatest female leads in film, I really credit that to the writing in Aliens and even Alien 3. As for Dallas, he came off as rather bitter towards his crew even before the ship lands on LV 426.

Now Ridley Scott is one of those directors who has directed a few good films (Duelists, Bladerunner, and the Martain come to mind), but I find most of his films to be good-looking mediocrity. Scott's films tend to look good with lots of attention to detail with sets, costumes, and lighting but I usually don't connect with the characters in his films. In Bladerunner for example, I find Roy Batty far more interesting and charismatic than Deckard, and Harrison Ford has even said that Scott is not a good actor's director which is probably why I don't think some of the performances, such as Sigourney Weaver as Ripley, land the way I think it's supposed to. Also, Ridley Scott has an uncredited role in writing the screenplay which when Ridley Scott does any of his own writing for a film, I usually don't consider that a good sign.

The pacing of Alien is off, a lot of scenes tend to overstay their welcome. I don't know how to describe it other than the film tends to drag and linger on for 10-20 percent longer than it should. I find this funny because some deleted scenes add context which makes the film make more sense. One example is when the Alien picks up Brett from off the ground, the Director's Cut continues shows Ripley and Parker watching helplessly. However, the theatrical cut chopped this bit out so when Parker talks about how huge the Alien is audiences were probably left wondering "how do you know that?" Another scene where the film doesn't set up something all that well and left me confused was Ripley's random nosebleed while confronting Ash. First time I saw the film I remember thinking "was their brief confrontation in Mother's control room really that intense." It wasn't until, again looking something up on the internet, that I now know that there was a scene cut out where Ripley and Parker were almost killed by the Alien who managed to trap them in an airlock. The nosebleed was Ripley still dealing with the effects of the depressurization of the airlock. However, if the earlier scene was cut, why not do reshoots to prevent these goofs from appearing in the final film? Also, the film sometimes fails to adequately show what's going on to the point where I, and others, are left confused. The example that comes to mind is the section of the film where Ripley sets up the self-destruct, loses Jones the cat, tries to deactivate the self-destruct, gets Jones back, then escapes. This is an even more confusing sequence of events if you watch the director's cut where she finds the remains of Brett and Dallas cocooned, then she tries to deactivate the self-destruct. One would think that after encountering her former crewmates in such an awful state, she would want to ensure that the Nostromo and the Alien are destroyed. This is because this film does a poor job of conveying what was going on. I had to look up what happened and apparently the Alien was blocking Ripley from getting to the shuttle and she was trying to delay the self-destruct long enough to ensure the Alien wasn't in her way. Now if you think that I'm nitpicking r wasn't paying attention all that well, when I looked up "Why did Ripley have a nosebleed" and "why did Ripley try to deactivate the self-destruct" other people have been asking these questions for a while so clearly, it's not my fault as a viewer if these other people as just as confused.

All in all, it may seem like I hate Alien, but I find it worth a watch. The sets of the Nostromo, LV 426, and the Derelict still hold up and I would argue that aesthetically, this is still the best-looking Alien film. Jerry Goldsmith's music manages a great balance of eerie and haunting while also majestic. Most of the cast, despite their weak material to work with, do a pretty good job. However, I think the script needed to be beefed up and the film needed a better editor to decide what should be trimmed or kept in.

Batman: Arkham Origins (2013 Video Game)

10 Years Later

[8/10 · 3 December 2023]

I remember when Arkham Origins came out, it got a very middling to "meh" reception by fans of the first two games. It was until Arkham Knight came out and the somewhat divisive reaction to that game, and the underwhelming Gotham Knights that people really started looking at Arkham Origins with a newfound appreciation. I think a lot of it was that Wb Games Montreal were the ones who produced this game instead of Rocksteady Games who made Asylum, City, and Knight. Because of this, and a somewhat tight deadline of 2013, as well as the fact that many knew Origins was just a holdover until Rocksteady would release Arkham Knight in 2015, the Origins got a cold shoulder. Half of the map is basically that of Arkham City (heck, leaked alpha build essentially show that WB Montreal were just using Arkham City's maps with little to no changes), and the gameplay and setting got little to no changes from City. Essentially, this game felt more like an expansion to city rather than a full-priced game to some.

While I don't think this game is as strong as Asylum or City, I think Origins hold up well and is mostly on par with it's predecessors. The game has its frustrations, especially the PC version. For a start, the combat is just not as fun as the first two games. Hitting enemies does not feel as impactful and I blame the rather weak sound effects used. While it may not sound like much, this does affect my feelings towards the gameplay. Rather than feeling like a vengeful predator of the night, I feel like I'm just hitting raw meat, this in turn makes the combat feel less satisfying and fun. Also, I feel as if there are more combo-chain breaks and less time to react to enemies. Traversing the city can also be a bit of a slog, while the game features the batplane and grapple accelerator, going from place to place can still get pretty boring, especially with this bridge that you have to use which connects both halves of the map, and you have to traverse the city without the batplane because Enigma set-up jammers which prevents you from simply calling the batplane until they're all destroyed. Also the PC version... oof. Playing this game on PC is a joke with the number of bugs, glitches, and issues. I did beat the game, or the main story at least, but when I did a sidequest which led to the "My Alibi" nightclub, I ended up in an endless black void which hardlocked that game file. There are fan made patches which fix 90% of these issues, I recommend the community patch on Nexus Mods, but issues still remain such as gliding not working properly, enemies not being able to be taken out so some missions or sidequests need to be restarted to progress, and on higher resolutions the game's frame rate turns the experience into an interactive slideshow.

Now what I like about Origins, and why I think this game has received a more appreciation, is the story of a younger version of Batman. Praise has to be given to Roger Craig Smith who had some pretty big shoes to fill considering he played a younger version of what many consider to be the definitive Batman in the late Kevin Conroy. But, not only does Roger Craig Smith succeed in convincing playing a younger version of this Batman, but I think he holds his own and I wouldn't mind if he returned to voice the character again. I especially like Batman's dynamic with Alfred, which was never really empathized in the earlier games (to my memory, it's been a while since I've played some of these games). Alfred is skeptical of master Bruce's efforts to prevent crime in Gotham, but by the end respects what Batman is trying to do. Those who have played this game will likely recall the scene where Batman tells Alfred before he leaves his motivation and why he'll face the assassins, essentially to make criminals always think twice and always be afraid of the night, a well-written scene that perfectly encapsulates Batman's character even this early in his career. Honestly my words don't do it justice, watch the scene for yourself. There's even a similar character arc between Batman and Lt Gordon where Gordon sees Batman as just another vigilante, but form an alliance with him. I also liked the sidequest with Barbara Gordon and her aid in destroying weapons caches throughout the city, a nice bit of forshadowing to her eventual character, it's a shame that Robin/Dick Grayson wasn't featured other than in the multiplayer. In general, I liked this game character development of seeing how the characters of Asylum and City and how they ended up as they did, and this game even sets up character growth for Arkham Knight as well.

I also appreciated seeing characters like Black Mask, Copperhead, Deathstroke, as well as younger versions of the Penguin, Riddler (Enigma), Bane, and the Joker. I know that having the Joker was a point of contention since he died at the end of city and fans probably wanted a break from the clown prince of crime. That said, I liked Troy Baker as the Joker, akin to Roger Craig Smith he's believable as a younger version of Mark Hamill's Joker while standing out on his own, he's even returned to voice the character in multiple other projects. I also enjoyed seeing the start of the Joker's perverse love for the Dark Knight, as well as seeing and playing a section from his perspective in a lucid, dream-like sequence. I also enjoyed Origin's depiction of Bane and I'll even go as far as to say that outside of the comics, this is my favorite version of the character. Bane, as presented in this game, is a militia leader who is able to not only deduce the Batman and Bruce Wayne are one and the same, but he also destroys the Batcave and kill Alfred (Batman manages to revive him). Bane is also quite intimidating as he becomes stronger as the game progresses, he even somewhat overshadows the Joker as the game's main antagonist towards the end. I also liked that the venom drug is what causes his grotesque deformation seen in the earlier games, as well as his memory loss so he recall the events of this game.

Speaking of the enemies, I and many others enjoyed the boss fights that really succeed in testing the player's skills and strategy. The main highlights being Deathstroke, in which the players needs to memorize his patterns and have sharp reflexes dodge and attack him. Deadshot is a vast improvement where you need to avoid being seen and take out his minions, you also have to prevent the hostage from being killed. I even liked the Bane boss at the end where you have to avoid being seen and hide in the vents until a window to attack opens up. The Electrocutioner boss is especially challenging, this fight will really test the players abilities in timing, precision, and patience.

The rest of the gameplay is very similar to City, a few gadgets are different but function identically to their City counterpart (ie glue grenade=freeze grenade). One thing I'm mixed is is, after beating the Electrocutioner , you get his gloves When powered up, you can one-hit enemies and temporary knock them out. I'm mixed because it makes the tankier enemies much easier, and when there are whole crowds to defeat, it makes those situations more manageable. However, fighting regular enemies become a cakewalk. The one enemy difference I though in concept was the martial artist ones where Batman can fight enemies closer in still to him, but really you just need to counter one of their attacks to start a chain. The bane-like enemies what use venom were neat since you have to rip out the venom tubes to disable them.

The presentation is quite good, I like the Christmas setting, albeit in Batman Returns or episodes of the animated Series, or even some comics, I love look of Gotham in snow or around Christmas, for some reason it gives the city an even more unsettling feel when the city should appear at its most jovial. I also like the visual nods that foreshadow later events (schematics of the Batmobile in the batcave, hidden Riddler trophy, Batman's bulkier and less refined suit, and seeing Gotham pre Arkham City is neat if you're familiar with that game). As mentioned before, the voice cast is solid with Smith and Baker making a solid Batman and Joker with Martin Jarvis also getting more time to shine as Alfred. One thing I will say about the music by Christopher Drake, while not bad and sets he mood very well, is not particularly memorable, I much prefer is soundtracks to Under The Red Hood and The Dark Knight Returns films.

It's a shame that this game isn't respected by Warner Bros themselves, I guess they figure Origins is the unloved stepchild due to it being produced by Rockstedy, and it's initial mixed reception. This game was not featured in the Return to Arkham set, to fans disapproval. Also, while I never played the multiplayer, apparently those servers now are shut down permanently , which is a shame o those who enjoy that sort of thing. Also, while I appreciate the community patch, the version on PC (or at least the Steam version) needs to officially patched so unaware players can play the game hassle free. Origins has its fans and I would consider myself to be one o them, it's not as good as its predecessors, and it could have used some polish, but it's a game well worth playing and revisiting even 10 years later.

Sonic Adventure (1998 Video Game)

A mixed bag that I Love.

[8/10 · 23 November 2023]

Sonic Adventure came out 25 years ago and was considered to be Sonic's successful transition into 3D gaming after Sonic 3D Blast and Sonic R underwhelmed gamers, and Sonic Xtreme was never finished. However, over the years Sonic Adventure's reputation has become mired, mainly due to Sonic 06 and other 3D Sonic games underwhelming many gamers and Sonic Adventure's flaws becoming more obvious as time has gone on. While Sonic fans can appreciate the game or bringing Sonic 3D, and reinventing the characters for a new generation, most common gamers see Sonic Adventure as an unpolished and overly ambitious game which would eventually lead to the disastrous Sonic 06. In fact, on YouTube this game is almost as derided and made fun of as much as the infamous Sonic 06. For those who only like the 2D sonic games, Adventure is seen as the Sonic game where everything started to go all wrong. It also doesn't help that he most available version of Sonic Adventure is the god-awful DX port which not only looks worse, but introduces new bugs not present in the original Dreamcast version.

To be fair, there are quite a few aspects that I don't care for in Sonic Adventure. While they are meme-worthy, the cut-scenes have aged very poorly and the voice acting is not the greatest. While the cut-scenes succeed in telling the story, as the voice actor are not necessary bad since Ryan Drummond was a pretty good voice for Sonic, and Deem Bristow was an excellent Robotnik/Eggman. That said, the janky movement and constant pauses between the speeches makes the cut-scenes a drag to sit through. Also, the various campaigns are very hit and miss, and the fact the you have to play through all six character to unlock the final story makes some game-play feel more like a grind if anything. Big's fishing wouldn't be so bad if it was an optional mini-game instead of a mandatory requirement to complete the game. I never really liked Amy's game-play since her combat always felt clunky and her levels, as few as they are, overstay the welcome and drag on. Also, some other aspects of the game are just plain terrible like Sky Chase and the various Bosses which are sometimes required to play multiple times depending on whose story intersects with who such as Chaos 4 who Sonic, Tails, and Knuckles all have to fight. Lastly, I never like the idea of searching for upgrades required to progress in the game, I would prefer to already to have these abilities from the start with a hint or in-game tutorial.

That said, I don't mind playing as Tails, Knuckles, or Gamma. Tails flight controls very well and his stages are repurposed Sonic stages. However, Tails works better in explorations focused levels, Sonic 06 of all games actually found a good way to use Tails in that you would temporary control him to get to a switch so Sonic can proceed forward. Thankfully Knuckles, due to his abilities and story is all about exploration and I like getting to explore areas that Sonic or Tails would just dart past. I actually liked Gamma's game-play of shooting and racking up combos to extend your life.

The main draw of Sonic Adventure is finally being able to control Sonic in 3D and his game-play, despite a few issues, is fantastic. I'll admit that the camera can be a pain sometimes (even the game knows this with the mister Know-it-all telling you to be patient with the camera and there is ability to switch to auto camera), and sometimes Sonic would cling to one side of the road or the ceiling of a tunnel. Those issues aside, Sonic is responsive to control and feels properly weighted in rolling down hills or jumping, not to mention that when the game lets you go full speed, along with some great spectacle in the stages, its easy to see why this game was so impressive 25 years ago and it's still a blast today. Also, the spin dash is at its best in this game allowing you to jump and cover large distances in a few seconds.

Emerald Coast is a fun entry level, Windy Valley is fine albeit too many scripted segments of automated running. Casinopolis is probably my least favorite stage for Sonic because the pinball gets old very quickly and the stage itself drags. Ice Cap is fine, the first half is platforming, and not particularity fast platforming, the second half of the level which is the snowboarding section is far more fun. Twinkle park is fine with its cart segment and the actual castle segment is typical platforming. Speed Highway is fantastic with large stretches allowing you to maintain your momentum. Red Mountain is also great, especially if you use the spin dash and ring dash to skip sections. Sky Deck is fine, but I'll admit that it;s easy to miscalculate your jump and lose a life. Lost World is great but the puzzles with the switches, mirror-lights, and walk-able walls might drag the stage for some. That said, the part the homages Indiana Jones with the boulder is a lot of fun. Final Egg is a solid swansong level for Sonic with speed sections, obstacles to avoid, secret areas, and tougher enemies which only makes sense considering it's Eggman's base.

The final story with Super Sonic is fun with "Open your Heart" playing while you fight Chaos in the destroyed city. The story itself is pretty decent with elements of the previous Sonic games (Chaos Emerald and Master Emerald) given more backstory, mixed with elements taken from popular actions films (the aforementioned Indiana Jones for example). Despite a lot of filler game-play, jank, and sluggish cut-scenes, I enjoy Sonic Adventure and I think it has become an underappreciated game. Despite it's issues, I still mostly enjoyed the game and I'm not even nostalgic for the game since I've only played it within the last year. If anything, I wouldn't mind seeing a remake or remaster that fixes he jank, improves the cut-scenes, gives options like not replaying certain bosses or segments if they were already done in another story, or maybe have it so you aren't required to play all characters to unlock the final story. While that's just a pipe dream at this point, there are mods like Better SADX which improves the Steam version of Sonic Adventure which brings it much closer to the Dreamcast version and can add mods and fixes to your hearts content. While still not perfect, Sonic Adventure with modding is great fun on PC, although I would also recommend playing with a controller since that's how he game was originally meant to be played and playing on keyboard is not as responsive so button sensitivity as a controller.

Not a perfect game by any means, but Sonic's transition to 3D wasn't so rough after all.

Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972)

A schlocky-fun Dracula film. Don't take it so seriously.

[7/10 · 15 November 2023]

First things first, it Dracula AD 1972 a great classic lost to time... not really. The film, aside from moving the date forward 100 years, basically recycles elements from the previous films, mainly Taste the Blood of Dracula such as using ritual sacrifice to bring Dracula from the dead and Dracula converting others into vampires. Also, the film doesn't really do much with the premise of Dracula in the modern times. If Dracula, according to the novel which at this point these films have little in common with, was transplanted to modern times, he would want to interact with the society of today. There are also dumb elements like the fact the Dracula's assistant is named Alucard (literally Dracula in reverse), and a bunch of teens agree to go to an abandoned church and dress-up for what they think is a fake ritual sacrifice, on for their friends to start disappearing one-by-one. While Dracula is either drinking the teens dry or turning others into vampires, Alucard actually manages to convince his friends that those friends that have disappeared are fine despite the last time some of these characters were seen, they looked absolutly terrified but Alucard convinces everyone that "it was all part of the act". I also find Alucard's death to be really funny. As much as I liked Dracula: Prince of Darkness, the whole idea of killing a vampire with running water was always really stupid and Alucard dying from accidentally tripping into a bathtub is hysterical.

That said, I find Dracula AD 1972 to be an effortlessly entertaining film in the Hammer Dracula series mainly due to Christopher Lee and the return of Peter Cushing's Van Helsing together for the first time since 1958's (Horror of) Dracula. The film's willingness to embrace the eccentricities of the era it was made, while it made the film at the time come off as a desperate trend-chasing attempt at bringing in new audiences back then, is what makes this film charming to watch today. The title is an obvious indicator that the film knows that it's a time capsule of a very specific era and as someone born years later, I like seeing what it was like back then, or at least what movie producers thought the world was like.

I enjoyed some new elements such as the detective aspect with the Inspector Murry character, and I found Stephanie Beacham to be very likable as Van Helsing's granddaughter. Christopher Neame is fun in a scenery-chewing way as Johnny Alucard, and Caroline Munro appears as Dracula's first victim. That said, seeing Christopher Lee as Dracula is always great with his great presence and deep baritone voice, and Peter Cushing is my favorite Van Helsing and here he plays both grandfather and grandson 100 years apart. I also liked the idea of making Van Helsing a grandfather, it makes the stakes more personal and I liked the dynamic between Van Helsing and Jessica.

I know that many Hammer enthusiasts find Dracula AD 1972 to be one of the worst of the series, when the Dracula films "jumped the shark" by bringing the series to the modern days (or the 1970s) and when the Dracula films lost their gothic mood and atmosphere. That said, I found Taste the Blood of Dracula to be rather dull and Scars of Dracula, while better, did feel like a retread of Dracula 1958 and Dracula: Prince of Darkness. While this film does retread old ground, I just find the film to be more entertaining than the previous two Dracula films. Also, the film doesn't have the same gothic tone as its predecessors because the film was trying to take Dracula into a different direction and tone. I personally liked the film mostly taking place at modern day London during the night, not to mention that movies where a killer stalks a modern city at night is something I always find compelling (Terminator, The Batman, Cobra).

So while Dracula AD 1972 is a far from perfect film with a pretty dumb script (written by DR Who writer Don Houghton), the films direction, cast, and semi-self awareness keep it very entertaining. If anything, the next film The Satanic Rites of Dracula gets even more ridiculous, but tries to play it straight and kind-of falls flat for me. We are way past the point of feeling ashamed for liking dumb schlock and this film is a guiltless pleasure for me. Also, the groovy soundtrack by Michael Vickers and the band Stonehenge also deserves some love.

Halloween II (1981)

The Killing Continues.

[7/10 · 1 November 2023]

Picking up immediately after Halloween, Halloween II successfully manages to feel like an extension of the first film as well as giving a more heightened sense of danger. Now I personally think the first film is a bit stronger, and there are some moments in the film where tension only exists due to the character's stupidity or convince, but I do consider this to be a worth follow-up. While Carpenter didn't direct Halloween II, most of the cast and crew returned and Carpenter is credited as a writer and still has credit for the music. This helps keep the film's synergy with the first, it's not like some sequels that I can think of that feel like a completely different film to its predecessor, Halloween II really feels like and extension of the first which is helped when watched back to back.

Rick Rosenthal's direction is good in that he manages to stay true to the tone and style if Carpenter's film, and Dean Cundy's cinematography is as good as ever with the uses of teal and orange still being used effectively at night, and the dim lighting and camera angels of the (admittedly very empty) hospital successfully manage to give a place that should feel safe into feeling like a haunted house. I will say that aside from the opening theme, which sounds more sinister, I'm not a fan of the synthesized version of the score. The music, which was made with a piano and other such instruments, essentially being converted into synth music now has high pitch twangs which kind of gets grating after a while. While I'm usually a fan of both 1980s synth music and John Carpenter's music, I don't think converting the original score to synth worked.

I also found some of the writing to be contrived with the characters acting irritatingly stupid. Examples would be the nurse Janet not knowing how to work a radio so she wouldn't know that Mr. Garrett can be killed without the hospital staff knowing, and Karen and Budd using the therapy pool for sex so they can be killed off come to mind. While it's not as much as an issue now, but the Michael and Laurie twist of them being brother and sister can feel contrived for newcomers. Carpenter had to come up with some reason as to why Michael would keep pursuing Laurie, apparently having Michael have some desire to murder the rest his family and make Laurie his sister was thought up while Carpenter was up late and drunk (which I find kind of funny). I've also heard the more liberal use of blood, gore and nudity was due to Halloween II trying to compete with other contemporary horror films ironically inspired by Halloween such as Friday the 13th. It's a shame since the first Halloween is still a tense film due to the pace, direction, and clever use of the audience knowing what the character's don't. Halloween II mostly feels like a direct follow-up in every way barring the more explicit scenes. That said, if you watch both films back-to-back as one long movie, It could be argued that it would make sense for the situation to escalate and Michael would be more vicious as the night goes on.

All in all, I don't have much else to say. Donald Plesance and Jamie Lee Curtis are still on fine form. I used to dislike the characters from the hospital, but they've grown on me, Lance Guest (Last Starfighter and Jaws the Revenge) is quite likable as a paramedic who is smitten with Laurie. I will also say, and I know this is obvious, but Michael and Loomis should clearly be dead at the film's end. I also liked how his film has similar scenes to the first film, but Halloween II has its own take on these scenes. Such examples are Michael chasing Laurie through the hospital instead of the neighborhood, and another shot of Michael's face peering through the darkness while stalking Laurie.

All in all, a solid sequel, and a worthy follow-up to the original.

Halloween (1978)

A slice of life movie, except this one happens to have a serial killer in it.

[8/10 · 1 November 2023]

Halloween from 1978 was a surprise hit that made John Carpenter a household name in the horror industry and launched Jamie Lee Curtis' career, and introduced veteran actor Donald Pleasence a new audience who would remember him for starring in cult horror films, other John Carpenter projects, and many Halloween sequels. While I've always enjoyed the film, what struck me about it after seeing it again was that if you took out most of the Michael Myers scenes (the opening, escape, scenes of him stalking, and killing), this film would feel like one of those slice of life comedies similar to something like Carwash or American Graffiti.

While the writing and acting for Laurie, Annie, and Lynda isn't perfect, with Annie sometimes saying her dialogue phonetically and Lynda acting like a stereotypical airhead blonde, the characters are still likable and believable enough to be teens. I also found some scenes to be quite funny with Annie getting stuck in a window while her clothes are being washed and Lynda and Bob joking about ripping each other's clothes off before sex. These scenes also add to the slice of life comedy vibe I got from this film.

That being said, while I'm not really someone who gets scared while watching horror films, I think Halloween manages to create a good atmosphere thanks to Carpenter's score as well as Dean Cundy's cinematography. Now I think Carpenter's iconic score manages to speak for itself, but Cundy's use of orange and teal colors at night manages to make an average neighborhood at night look eerie. Not to mention the use of lighting to illuminate Michael manages to create iconic images such as Michael's face peering through the darkness while next to Laurie. Also, the film itself just looks really good in general. I watched this on a 2007 dvd and I don't really have any major urge to get a blu ray (although I'm sure the film probably looks great on blu ray).

Another aspect that really helps sell how dangerous Michael Myers is would be Donald Plesance as Sam Loomis. Plesance, being the great actor that he was manages to play Loomis with great conviction as he knows how dangerous Michael is and is certain that he will return to Haddonfield. There's a reason why the scene where Loomis talks about his experience with Michael at his childhood home and says that " he had the blackest eyes... the devil's eyes." I particularly like how Pleasance says that line, but it doesn't like some sort of speech that was rehearsed, Loomis looks like he's thinking about all those years he spent with Michael and Pleasance sells it. That said, I'm often surprised that he played Loomis with a certain degree of nervousness and humor in these earlier films which makes the character come off as more fleshed out then later appearances which he's just constantly talking about how is an evil that must be stopped.

I also like how restrained Halloween is in comparison to not only other horror films, but even this films sequels. While there is some blood and nudity, but nothing that explicit. The tension comes from knowing that these kids and being stalked and are in imminent danger, but they are none the wiser, and the aforementioned music and cinematography helps as well.

Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998)

Great Halloween Movie, lousy title.

[8/10 · 1 November 2023]

Halloween H20 was meant to be a celebration of 20 years of Halloween films, and the return of Jamie Lee Curtis to the series since Halloween II in 1981. The film was also supposed to lead to more sequels since Halloween Resurrection was planned ahead of this film's release. However, due to Resurrection's reception many consider H20 to be the true finale of the series.

I'll cut to it and say that H20 is up there as one of my favorite entrees in the series. Granted, there are aspects that I don't care for. That said, what H20 does well more than makes up for its shortcomings. As far as shortcomings go, I'll admit that the overabundance of jump scares in the first half is pretty annoying. Also, the whole thing where LL Cool J as the Hill Crest security guard who's also an aspiring erotic fiction writer also felt out of place. LL Cool J himself was fine and he even got a couple chuckles out of me, but the erotic fiction subplot was eye roll inducing. Next, Michael's mask in this film is pretty weak. I do prefer this look over the mask he had in parts 4,5, and 6, but the crazy hair and the fact that his eyes are mostly visible are aspects I didn't care for. Apparently, this film had a mask issue with the director wanting his own look for Michael while filming started with a different mask, so some scenes were re-shot, and one mask was stolen, this even led to a really bad shot where Michael has an obvious CGI mask. Thankfully Michael is mostly covered in shadows so it's not too much of a problem, but I wonder how hard it would have been to just remake the 1978 William Shatner mask. Lastly, the title itself is just stupid. I guess it was a late 1990s and early 200s thing for films to have acronyms like LXG for League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

Now for this film's strengths, I have to say that I really liked Jamie Lee Curtis' performance here. Curtis was good in the original films, but she had grown as an actress since then and this script have her character more to work with since she's dealing with the trauma from the 1978 Halloween, as well as the friction between her and her son due to her protective nature. The rest of the cast is quite good, Adam Arkin, LL Cool J, and even Janet Leigh play members of the Hill Crest staff. Josh Hartnett and Michelle Williams are likable as Molly and Laurie's son John. Nancy Stephans briefly returns as nurse Marion and Joseph Gordon Levitt also has a funny role at the film's start.

Praise also has to be given to Steven Miner as the director. Miner managed to keep me on the edge of my seat, and I thought he was a good choice for director since he directed Friday the 13th Parts 2 and 3D. I also found the cinematography by Daryn Okada to be somewhat underappreciated. I liked Okada's use of darkness and having the character silhouetted against a lit background. I also liked how, similar to the 1978 film and even Halloween II, the good use of camera angles and lighting makes what should be a safe and cozy environment feel dangerous. At night the school felt unsafe since you didn't know where Michael could come from. Not to mention that this film has a decent share of iconic shots, the most famous one being Laurie and Michael's first encounter where they see each other through the door's window which is the one time I thought having Michael's eyes be visible has good since it showed the intensity of a vicious killer.

Now what really makes this film great is the final confrontation between Michael and Laurie. Granted, it feels more like a horror-action film at the end, but I thought it was a tense and fun way to end the film. I especially liked how Laurie herself had to finish Michael herself to make sure he was really dead. I also liked how Michael, while pinned, seems to get a moment of realization and tries to reach out for Laurie as if he actually had some sort of affection for her, or it could all be a trap for Laurie to let her guard down. Granted the next movie does essentially ruin this film's ending with the body swap, and that moment of realization was the paramedic in shock and trying to tell Laurie not to kill him, but I do consider this to be the last Halloween film of this chronology.

I also liked the little references to other horror films. Janet Leigh, Jamie Lee Curtis's real-life mother, is shown with the original car she used in Psycho from 1960. Joseph Gordon Levitt is briefly seen with a hockey mask remembering Jason's mask from Friday the 13th 3D which Miner directed. Lastly, Molly and Sarah and seen watching Scream 2 in their dorm. These were the references I noticed, there might be more I failed to pick up on.

Despite some shortcomings, I enjoy Halloween H20 and I think Halloween, Halloween II, and H20 make for a pretty good trio of movies. I think this was a fitting end for the films, at least the ones starring Jamie Lee Curtis, and honestly Resurrection wouldn't be as bad if not for that film to undo this film's ending.

Chô robot seimeitai Transformer: Micron densetsu (2003– )

Won't change your mind if you hated Armada. That said, the presentation is overall better.

[9/10 · 13 January 2023]

If you know anything about Transformers: Armada, you likely know anout the somewhat infamous reputation it has with its rushed animation and dub due to the show airing six months ahead of its Japanese counterpart. Now Micron Legend isn't a drastic improvement over Armada in terms of story, characters, or even animation. While the scripts are more cohesive and the animation is overall better, if you were someone who hated the idea of the Minicons (Microns), couldn't stand the human kids, or couldn't get past the first quarter of the show for being too repetitve and boring then Micron Legend still isn't for you. I'll even say that while there weren't as many egregious animation errors as Armada, Micron Legend's animation still can look very cheap at times.

I will say as someone who grew up with the Armada dub, it took some time to get used to the voices of Micron Legend. Say what you will about the translation, but Garry Chalk, David Kaye, Michael Dobson, Brent Miller, and the rest of the Armada cast were fine in their roles, the somewhat stilted voice acting was a result of the lackluster voice direction. I also kinda miss the Armada theme showing up every now and again in the show. While I like the show's music, and I really like the two openings Micron Legend has, the Armada theme makes the show just a bit cooler during certain sequences. While thos goes without saying, many of the character names are different in Micron Legend (i.e. Hotshot is called Hot Rod, Red Alert is Ratchet, Optimus Prime is known as Convoy, etc.)

In all if I had to recommend which version of Armada someone should watch it would be the Micron Legend version. While I'll admit that I have a soft spot for the American dub inspite of its issues, I know that for many people the Armada version just has too many issues with its presentation. That said, I would like to see a remaster of Armada despite the fact that it'll likely never happen. A version of the show with the improved animation from the Micron Legend version and with the dialoge re-edited. There was a channel on YouTube called Queenbell Studios that was making an improved version of some of Armada's key episodes, but unfortunately those stopped a couple of years ago. As for now, If you're not fussed about some of the slight differences from the Armada version, or if you don't mind reading subtitles, Micron Legend is the better way to watch this show.

The Transformers (1984–1987)

Despite its age, G1 Transformers is still a compelling animated show of the 1980s.

[8/10 · 13 January 2023]

Now don't get me wrong, I enjoy the original Transformers show. However, the way this show is remembered by its fans will make you think that this is one of the best animated shows of all time or even still the best Transformers show. The show had plenty of problems with the animation, with inconsistent scaling, proportions, lots of incorrect coloring throughout the show (season 3's intro even has a miscolored character at the end), and backgrounds sometimes changing between day and night all in a single scene. A much rarer mistake that occasionally crops up is voices being swapped for characters, I remember this mistake with Optimus and Megatron in the first episode as well as this mistake occurring with Rodimus and Springer in season 3. There is also the fact that the show's continuity is all over the place with an example being that the Constructicons were built on Earth, then in a later episode they were shows on pre-war Cybertron with Omega Supreme, and in season 3 it is show that the Constructicons built Megatron in an even earlier time period. This is because the show's scripts and animation were rushed to meet a fast deadline, so the script's continuity and the animation quality suffered. Also, as much flack as later shows got for human characters, G1 had plenty of human characters with Spike, Sparkplug, Chip, Carly, and Daniel occasionally taking the center stage in many episodes. I especially find Ironic is that later shows in the franchise such as Armada, Energon, Cybertron, Animated, and Prime were criticized all the issues previously mentioned, yet G1 generally gets a pass. There is also the fact that this show was designed to sell toys. This doesn't bother me since the show actually managed to write mostly entertaining stories as well as likeable and engaging characters.

The thing is that I'm generally someone who is willing to older shows a pass, or at least a certain amount of leeway because of the change in standards. Many cartoons back in the day were rushed, and these mistakes are present. However, I still enjoy this show, despite its many issues. As I said earlier, the writing for the characters is really quite good with everyone having a unique and fun personality, which is impressive considering how many characters this show has. The voice acting has actually aged pretty well with many of these voice actors still considered to be the definitive version of these characters, I mean there's still a reason that Peter Cullen and Frank Welker have continued to Play Prime and Megatron for as long as they have along with Corey Burton Chris Latta, Casey Kasem, and Dan Gilvezan putting is memorable performances has Spike/Shockwave, Starscream, Cliffjumper, and Bumblebee respectively.

For me, the show's best season was its first were the Autobots and Decepticons attempting to find energy to revitalize their home world Cybertron. I found that the stories to be at their best and the smaller cast, compared to how large it will get in later seasons, made for a more focused narrative. Season 2 isn't bad by any means; it expanded the cast of characters as well as having more variety to the stories other than fighting for energy. I also kind of liked the format of making an anothology-esq episode everyone once and a while for a new character. Some of these I liked such as "The Secret of Omega Supreme" which focused on Omega's rivalry with the Constructicons, "The Golden Lagoon" about Beachcomber, and "Microbots" which focused on Perceptor. However, episodes such as "Prime Target", "Auto-bop", "Child's Play", and "Kremzeek!" leave a lot to be desired.

Transformers: The Movie came out after season 2 and brought a whole new cast of characters with Rodimus Prime and Galvatron taking over from Optimus and Megatron. Despite the animation and scripts not being as good, I don't mind season 3 as much as most people. I appreciated the larger scope of the show with fewer Earth-bound episodes and more episodes taking place in space. I also liked Hot Rod/Rodimus struggling with being the new Autobot leader, a character arc that I oddly find very relatable now that I'm older. All that being said, there are aspects that drag season 3 for me. The animation looks dire at points and the episodes are 50/50 in quality, this is the season of the show that brought us "Carnage In C-Minor" after all. That said, I thought The Return of Optimus Prime was a good way to end the season as well as the show. However season 4, which is only a 3-parter called "The Rebirth," was a rushed conclusion which attempted to wrap up several elements of the show, introduced the Headmaster gimmick, and allude to future stories which never happened. A pretty lame and unsatisfying way to end the show.

Oddly enough if I had to compare the G1 Transformers show to anything it would be the original Star Trek show from the 1960s. Both had inconsistent continuity, and both shows started off great but got progressively weaker as they went on. However, like the original Star Trek I do recommend The Transformers. It may not be for everyone with the issues I previously mentioned, but I still find G1 to be a fun show and I can see why it appealed to so many during the 1980s. Also, if it weren't for the success of G1, Transformers would definitely not be around today to bring us the arguably better shows we have now.

Dune (1984)

Flawed, but far from the disaster is has been made out to be.

[7/10 · 21 November 2022]

I won't deny that the 1984 adaptation of Dune, directed by David Lynch is a flawed film. It turns out that several cuts were made so the films could make more showings in theaters, hence why the film feels disjointed with the first half actually being well paced, but the second half feeling as if someone pressed the fast forward button. While there are extended cuts, even those versions have issues with some rather lazy editing with the same clip of the ship landing on Arrakis and the film lacking any sense of flow the theatrical cut had. There are other aspects I personally don't care for. While I appreciate Lynch as a director, I feel that some of the elements he added such as making the Baron character overly grotesque and really most of the Harkonnen stuff comes off as just weird for the sake of it. Not to mention that the voice-overs can get pretty annoying with the film sometimes both showing and telling at the same time, it mostly comes off as redundant.

All that being said, I do like this film, and I feel as if this version of Dune gets an unjust reputation for being one of the worst book-to-screen adaptations of all time, I've even seen this film compared to Battlefield Earth which astounds me to say the least. I will say that as an adaptation of Frank Herbert's novel, it doesn't quite get the themes and the misses out on a lot of the aspects of the characters and world. However, as viewed as a film onto itself with many elements of Herbert's novels, Dune is a pretty cool movie.

For a start, the casting is excellent with Kyle Machlachan making for a very likable Paul Atredies. Jurgen Prochnow, Anne Francis, and Jose Ferrer were all pretty good and a pre-Star Trek Patrick Stewart even makes an appearance as Gurney. Brad Dourif also has a brief role as Pieter and is creepy as I expected, and I even recognized Richard Jourdan from Logan's Run who played Duncan. For me, the Harkonnen's impressed me the least in terms of casting, not that they were bad acting per-se, but I didn't like the over-the-top direction they were given with the Kenneth McMillian chewing up the scenery as the Baron. The actor who played Rabban was fine. However, Sting is probably the most interesting casting choice as Feyd since he was very popular at the time but barely gets and screentime.

The production design is excellent with many different planets and cultures shown. I instantly knew what planet was what through the different styles of architecture, clothing, and props used throughout the film. Another highlight is the music mainly composed by the band TOTO with additional work by Brian Eno. The music on its own is a favorite of mine and works wonders with the film. Dune at its best is a visual and audio treat with Lynch's strange visuals and the score perfectly complimenting each other. That said, one aspect of the visuals the visuals which even back in 1984 which received a lot of criticism were the effects. For my money, I think most of the effects have aged well when in comes to the miniatures with the ships and the worms, I'll even say the creature effects for the navigator look pretty good. However, some of the backgrounds look pretty weak with the Freman riding the worms. That said, I would say the effects are on par or are even better than Return of the Jedi.

Another criticism that I've never really understood was how people found this film confusing. While Dune has an intricate plot, if you pay attention to the film everything is explained. Granted, the exposition can get pretty dry, and the voice-overs rarely help. That said, if I could understand this film when I first saw it as a middle-schooler, I don't get why this film gets the reputations as being one of the most incomprehensible films of all time.

In all, I think Dune is a pretty decent film that tends to get written off as either some failed weird experiment or as a pretty poor adaptation of the source material. In spite of its issues, I don't think David Lynch should be ashamed of this film, even if he didn't get to do the final cut. However, there is an audience if Dune fans with the recent film, as well as David Lynch fans who would be interested in a new cut closer to what Lynch wanted and not the slap-dash extended cut released on TV years ago. Many great character scenes were removed such as Paul's fight with Jamis, as well as lots of neat worldbuilding and more of the Freman culture. While I didn't like every creative decision Lynch made, I can always appreciate different directions when it comes to adapting a story and now that there are multiple takes of Dune, I think we can accept this version as a flawed, but noble attempt to bring the story to the screen and not as the only definitive version viewers would have hoped for in 1984. It should also be said that Frank Herbert himself was happy with the final film, so clearly it must have done something right.

As an aside, while I can watch and appreciate the theatrical cut of this film, I think fan edits are the best way to watch this film so if you want to watch the 1984 Dune for the first time. I actually recommend fan edits that streamline the story and add back in the deleted scenes so you can see David Lynch's Dune at its best.

Star Trek: Generations (1994)

The Next Generation's first feature film. Flawed, but it's far from the disaster some have made it out to be.

[7/10 · 17 July 2022]

When it comes to The Next Generation cast, many generally say that First Contact is the one and only film that is worth watching. That being said, I haven't really been agreeing with the general consensus of what Star Trek films and Tv shows are good and bad. For me, Generations is a good movie that could have been great had it came out a couple of years later. Unfortunately, the film was rushed into production right after the TNG finale "All Good Things" and the issues with the film stem from this lack of polish. I'll be the first to admit that some of the story elements in this film are not as well thought-out as they should be. Plot points such as The Nexus are problematic with Guinan telling Picard that he can go anywhere in time, yet he chooses to leave right when Soran is about to succeed in his plan to destroy the Veridian star. I also thought that Data's subplot was crowbarred into the film and, while it has a few good scenes, could have been cut out and should have been an episode in season 7 instead. I even noticed odd continuity hiccups such as Riker ordering a full spread of torpedoes, while one is shown.

All of this being said, I still enjoy Generations and prefer it to the rather slapdash The Final Frontier, the boring and predictable murder-mystery of The Undiscovered Country, and this film is easily better than the slow and thinly plotted Star Trek: The Motion Picture. For me, what really works in this film is Picard's character arc of realizing that he is the last of his lineage and regretting the life he could have had (not having a family and such), only to change his mind after his interactions with Kirk to realize he has had a fulfilling file. Oddly enough, most criticism of this film stem from the treatment of both Kirk and Picard. I'll get to Kirk, but I've always found Picard character in this film to be the most in line with the TV show. The one aspect people always bring up is how TV show Picard didn't want anything to do with children while Generations Picard does. Not many realize that between the first episode where Picard says to Riker that he doesn't want to interact with children to this film, seven years have passed and episodes like Family, where Picard sees his brother and Rene, as well as Disaster, in which Picard instructs some children to survive a ship-wide catastrophe, Picard became more open and friendly to children. There where even episodes like the Inner Light where Picard was put into projection of a false life where he had children and grandchildren, these events helped change the character from Encounter at Farpoint to what he is at All Good Things where he's finally open up to his friends to the point where he was willing to play poker with them. With the death of his family, Picard realizes that no-one will carry on the Picard name since he is too old to have children. However, Picard's character arc is fulfilled thanks to his interactions with Kirk.

As for Kirk, as someone who is more of a fan of the Original Series, I have no problem with how Kirk was handled in this film. Kirk died twice, one while saving the Enterprise B and was sucked into the Nexus. Then Kirk dies saving an entire planet and another crew of the Enterprise D, and he didn't even know or meet the Enterprise D crew and it's possible no-one even realized Kirk died saving the Veridian system. To me, this shows Kirk's selflessness in a good light, however everyone is hung-up on the way he dies with the bridge collapsing. Again, this doesn't bother me personally and considering his originally filmed death was him getting shot in the back, I'm glad we got this ending instead. For me, a worse death of a beloved character was Han Solo's death in Episode VII where he gets stabbed and thrown over a ledge like gutter trash and his death had little to no effect on the rest of the movie. I will even say that Kirk's last words of "it was fun. Oh my" were nice since we see that Kirk had a fulfilling life, and these last words help Picard in realizing that having a fulfilling life is more important than his commitment to carrying on the Picard family. Honestly, I think that having the team-up of Kirk and Picard be centerfold in the marketing did the film a disservice because people were expecting Kirk to be with Picard and the TNG crew more while this is really a TNG film front and center with Kirk in the beginning and the end.

There are other issues the people seem to have that I don't mind. One complaint I've heard is the reuse of stock footage with the Klingon Bird of Prey being destroyed. Yes, it's reused footage from Star Trek VI, but Star Trek II used far more footage from Star Trek: The Motion Picture and most seem to let that slide. The unfortunate truth is that most Star Trek films were made on the cheap. Another complaint is that the Bird of Prey should have been destroyed much sooner, even with the Enterprise's shields being down. If it's one thing I've noticed in fiction it's that writers tend to make characters, objects, people more or less powerful just to suit the plot. While this may anger fans of the show or the Enterprise D, I'll be honest and say that I've never liked this Enterprise. The Enterprise D always looked very sterile like a "hotel in space" and I actually think the bland aesthetics are a reason that, while I do overall enjoy Star Trek: The Next Generation, I didn't like it as such as the other shows. To be blunt, I'm glad the Enterprise D was destroyed to make way for the much nicer Enterprise E. This leads me to yet another complaint I've heard, that being some fans don't like the change in uniforms and lighting for this film because it differs from the show. Again, I have to disagree in that I much prefer the more cinematic look of this movie and the DS9/Voyager uniforms over the show's aesthetics. To me, this sounds like Star Trek fans complaining that the movie actually looks better than the show. Other nitpicks like Picard apparently tossing away an artifact from the show while I the movie he is clearly seen setting it down on the ground and the size of Data's emotion chip are minutia to someone like me.

All in all, Generations is a flawed film, even its defenders will admit that. In a way it's sad since had the film not been rushed after TNG's end and if the script had been given another pass and a few other quibbles had been fixed, this could have been a truly great film instead of the mostly fine film that has a strong dissenting opinion on the internet. That said, I grew up after this film came out in theaters, so I didn't have the hype and anticipation of seeing Kirk and Picard on the big screen, nor the feeling of disappointment some fans had and still have over this film. I'll admit that Generations has its issues. However, I do consider this to be one of the better films in the series thanks to its strong character-driven story and the film's emotional beats such as Picard's loss of his family as well as the Nexus scene really work well. I also find the music by Dennis McCarthy to be vastly underappreciated with his score's use of the choir giving scene even more emotional weight. Generations is still, for my money, one of the better Star Trek films and the best of the Next Generation Star Trek films. Unfortunately, things only got worse for The Next Generation crew on the big screen.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

Star Trek had a rough transition to the big screen.

[3/10 · 15 July 2022]

I know that Star Trek: The Motion Picture is a film that has been getting a lot more respect in recent years, mainly due to the release of the remastered director's cut. However, I am surprised that so many audiences and critics these days put this film above all of the Next Generation and reboot films. While those films have their problems, at least they have more of a semblance of plot and character growth, and those films don't feel like they grind to a halt and deliberately waste my time. I have heard many say that this film's plot is unique and interesting, to those people I say watch the episode of the Original Series called "The Changeling" where an old Earth probe called Nomad is searching for its creator and merged with another entity to continue its mission. If that sounds familiar that is because its the plot of this film except this film dragged out be excessive effects sequences with music. Admittedly, the effects and music do hold up, especially Jerry Goldsmith's score which was even reused for The Next Generation show. However, these long sequences drag on so much that they long overstay their welcome and get dull very fast and film film's already poorly thought-out plot and characters don't help either.

Now when it comes to Star Trek, many would say that the characters are the most important aspect of the franchise. However, I found the handling of the characters in this film to be pretty poor. Kirk is an Admiral who desperately wants to get command of the Enterprise even if it means pushing Decker out of command. Admittedly, this is a pretty good idea, but it never really gets paid off in this film and is instead an idea that is handled better in Star Trek II where the character yearns for his past glories and makes mistakes that cost him in that film. However, Kirk just gets control of the Enterprise again, makes a few mistakes (transporter incident and the wormhole sequences), and carries on like nothing ever happened. I never got the sense in this film that he changed as a character, the Enterprise is just given to him as by the end he get what he wants along with all his old crew back. Spock has the best arc where he is attempting to rid himself of his human side once and for all, but his contact with V'ger makes him realize that his human side his a benefit. This is admittedly the best character arc and growth in the film, and it nicely wraps up Spock's character from The Original Series. It's also no coincidence that Nimoy himself had final say on the film's script, so he probably added this aspect of Spock's character that wasn't in the earlier drafts. Even this execution is flawed and was only concluded properly in the Director's Cut where Spock weeps for V'ger and pities how cold and lonely V'ger must be.

The rest of the characters do not fair much better. Decker mostly just pesters Kirk about being a poor choice for command and talks to Ilia and her doppelgänger probe V'ger created. Decker's self sacrifice feels very shoehorned at the end probably because the script was incomplete and the ending was thought of on the spot by Shatner and Nimoy. Decker says he wants to merge with V'ger, but why? Does he merge with V'ger to be with Ilia, or is it because it's the noble thing to do? Heck, I felt like Decker was still trying to get back at Kirk and show him "who's the better man" by being the hero and one-upping him by merging with V'ger. I don't think I ever got a full grasp of his character. McCoy became a vet and looks like a hippie at the start, although to be fair he does seem to be having the most fun out of the cast. Ilia was fine and the actress did a good job between being more human at the film's start to being a robot probe with hints of Ilia's old self being present in her towards the film's end. The rest of the TOS cast are fine, but rarely get much to do. However, some of the performances feel very stilted (barring McCoy who I mentioned earlier) because the film was rushed to meet a deadline and many of the cast were not happy with how the film was progressing. Even director Robert Wise said he had no interest with Star Trek and it was his wife who convinced him to do the film. Not to mention that this film feels nothing like Star Trek, it feels like a discount 2001: A Space Odyssey and considering it was released in Star Wars wake, why wasn't there more of an effort to have the fun, wit, and banter that Star Wars and even Star Trek The Origin Series itself had?

The Director's Cut isn't even that much of an improvement with some updated effects and a couple of cut scenes, one of which where Ilia stops Chekov's pain after he was electrocuted which derails the film's pacing even more, and it's easy to see why it was initially cut. The one deleted scene I liked was towards the end where Spock cries for V'ger which I already mentioned. The film still has major character issues and plot holes such as having a barley refurbished Enterprise and a comm station be the only things between V'ger and Earth is dumb. It would be like if an oil rig and a newly refitted U. S. battleship were the only things between Washington DC and an invasion force. This is because the film was a rush job. Star Trek: The Motion Picture was based off of a pilot for a Star Trek Phase II series which never happened (and considering a lot of early TNG was recycled scripts from this failed show, I'm glad Phase II never got off the ground). When Star Wars was a hit and every studio wanted a science fiction film to rival George Lucas' hit film, Paramount quickly cancelled Phase II and the pilot script was sloppy rewritten to be this movie. Not to mention that Gene Roddenberry and scriptwriter Harold Livingston got into many arguments about the script to the point where the film started being made without a finished script, this is why the film had no ending at one point. Also the film had little time to be edited so much of the long, drawn-out effects sequences remained, something that I wish was cut down in the Director's Cut.

So in all, I will say that Star Trek: The Motion Picture is my least favorite Star Trek film and it feels as cold and barren as V'ger itself. However, it can be skipped and you would not miss anything so you can go straight to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Heck, if nothing else all the other Trek films are an improvement over this best forgotten first installment of the Star Trek film series so the film series could only go up from here.

Transformers: Armada (2002–2003)

Starts off weak. However, good characters and writing improve the show drastically even with some issues along the way.

[8/10 · 23 May 2022]

While I didn't see Armada when it came out in 2002, I am aware that this show has a very divisive reputation among not only Transformers fans, but in general. After doing a bit of research it seems that Cartoon Network wanted this show ASAP and for it to air six months ahead of the Japanese version called Micron Legend. When we got the animation in the United States, it was still incomplete and several miscolorings are still present. The dub was also rushed with the translation sometimes having character call each-other the wrong names. I'll be honest in that the first time I saw the show, I didn't notice most of these issues aside from episodes such as "Decisive Battle" which look like it was done on someone's lunch break. That said, the animation early on is mostly poor even without the animation errors. The movement is unnatural, and the characters look blocky. One aspect that complain regarding this show is the human kids and while I get why many would find them annoying, I didn't mind them that much. I will say that the show focuses on them a lot in the earlier episodes, and they are quite bland personality wise, but as the show focuses more and more on the Transformers the human kids become more background characters. If anything, I thought that they weren't that well developed aside from Alexis. One time I was watching Armada and I realized that It's not until the show's end that we finally see Rad's parents and get some idea of what his home life is like and what he's really like as a person. I also thought that there were too many kid characters, when the show started it was just Rad, Carlos, and Alexis. But, by the shows end two other characters, Billy and Fred, start becoming regulars and they added nothing to the rest of the show. Really the biggest issue with Armada in its early run was that it felt as if the stories "we have to find the Minicon" every week and it became very repetitive. Not to mention that the show would try to have some sort of character growth like Hotshot learning to get along with Red Alert and the Autobots saving a forest from a fire and acting like Captain Planet.

If I'm being honest, first time I saw Armada I was ready to give up after the whole Star Saber arc. However, something incredible happened when Scavenger and Sideways were introduced and the show finally got its act together and got good. Granted there were still occasional animation and dub mistakes, but the animation in general was smoother. The Transformers themselves were given more focus and development, especially Hotshot (this continuity's mix of Hot Rod and Bumblebee) and Starscream, who isn't the backstabbing opportunist like he was in G1, but has a long character arc in this show which I'll touch on later. Also, new additions like Scavenger, Sideways, Smokescreen, Blurr, Jetfire, and Thrust were nice additions to the series since it gave the initial characters more to interact with, as well as having fun and colorful personalities on their own. The show also became more mature with Hotshot going through multiple betrayals throughout the show (Sideways, Wheeljack, and Starscream), and even get put in charge of the Autobots at one point. Starscream I especially like with this version initially quite loyal to Megatron, however he overhears a conversation where Megatron says that he'll put Starscream into a suicide mission. After hearing this, Starscream actually, genuinely defects to the Autobots. However, he gets convinced to join back into the Decepticons by Thrust who is conspiring with Sideways. But that's what I liked about this show, it had character with different allegiances as well as serialized storytelling that was handled very well and it's a shame that Armada started off on such a bad note, if the show started off this good, I think it would have been regarded much more fondly.

I also enjoyed Armada's takes on both Optimus and Megatron, while neither's past is explicitly said or shown like in G1 or Prime, you do get the sense through their dialogue (in the Armada dub at least) that not only do these characters have a history, but some form of respect for each other since Optimus and Megatron do have quite a bit of banter. I'll even say that for all the dub's faults, it does have it highlight with some funny dialogue (Megatron rescuing Optimus at one point and exclaims "I can't believe I've just saved Optimus Prime" in front of his troops made me chuckle) as well as the voce talents of Garry Chalk, David Kaye, Scott McNeil, and the late Kirby Morrow giving it their best.

Towards the show's end, the action shift to the planet Cybertron where the last episodes titled "The Unicron Battles" takes place. After Starscream's death where he convinces Megatron (now Galvatron) to join with Optimus's forces to defeat Unicron, a massive battle ensues in which Unicron is stopped and Optimus and Megatron have their final battle (at least in this show) and, this really surprised me when I first saw this, Optimus realizes the Unicron was right about his desire for war, and he actually feels unworthy to be the Autobot leader. I'll say that it's quite a gutsy move to have Optimus, the dad character of the Transformers, to admit to liking war and realizing that he's a flawed character. Granted, I wish this character arc was further realized in the later shows. But nonetheless, I appreciate Armada's attempt to change the character.

In all, while it's not as good as Beast Wars, Animated, or Prime nor does it have G1 or even some of Cybertron's charm, I overall really enjoyed Armada in spite of the litany of issues. What's sad is that if the show started after the first quarter, and of the animation and dub in the U. S was better handled earlier on, I don't think Armada would have this infamous reputation that it has in some circles. Armada was also a very well hyped show back in 2002 and it was meant to be the glorious return of Transformers back as Autobots and Decepticons, while the toys sold well the show was quickly forgotten as another dud series. There have been some fan remasters of Armada as well as some websites that have the Armada dub with the improved Micron Legend animation. That said, this year is the 20th anniversary of Armada and I would like to see an improved "special edition" version of the show with fixed dialog and animation. While many would argue to just watch the subbed version, I do like the vocal performances of Armada and with some fixes to the voice clips and having with the improved animation from Japan, this can easily be done. However, considering that Armada isn't considered to be one of the "good" Transformers shows in many circles, and it's not as famous as G1, Beast Wars, Animated, or Prime so I doubt this will ever happen.

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)

A weak send-off for Kirk and Company.

[4/10 · 19 February 2022]

I generally enjoy Star Trek, especially the Original Series. However, I find the Star Trek movies to be mostly underwhelming. Granted, I enjoy the trio of movies from The Wrath of Khan to The Voyage Home, but most of these films have been dull like this film and The Motion Picture or badly made like The Final Frontier. That said, I know that The Undiscovered Country tend to be considered one of the best Trek movies and I personally don't get why. I'll admit from a filmmaking standpoint it's better than The Final Frontier, but that's not saying much. In fact, while the Final Frontier is a worse movie in general, I actually enjoy that film more in a dumb fun sort of way.

For me, the main premise of the film being a murder-mystery is flawed to begin with. While I know that Kim Cattrall's character of Valeris was supposed to be Saavik from Star Trek II-IV, to viewers who know that she isn't a part of the regular cast it becomes obvious that she is the traitor-character because she is introduced for the purposes of this film. Speaking of Valeris, Cattrall's acting is pretty poor with her performance coming off as smarmy and smug to the point where she would seem out of place even on Star Trek: Enterprise which is a show famous for unlikable Vulcan characters. If the filmmakers managed to get Saavik back or even if they made one of the main cast members to be the traitor, not only would that have been unexpected, but I would have respected the film more for making a genuine risk. This is not to mention that it is obvious that Chang is the main baddie of the film since he is literally the eyepatch wearing, mustache twirling villain whose performance is wat too over-the-top to be taken seriously. While I enjoy Christopher Plumber as an actor and I was quite upset when I realized he passed away, his performance is so scenery chewing would not be out of place in those awful Batman films of the 1980s and 1990s. Again, if the film had taken a risk and made a Starfleet member the main baddie not only would it have been memorable and different, but it would have an interesting antagonist with the villain being Kirk's dark reflection had his bigotry and racist tendencies gotten the better of him. The aspect I hate about this plot the most is that Kirk and Bones are separated from the rest of the main cast for so long, and for what is supposed to be the last outing for this cast, it's a shame that Kirk and Bones are on a dull prison escape subplot while the crew of the Enterprise are on a dull and predictable murder-mystery plot. The way the mystery is presented as well as the execution just isn't that interesting. Not to mention that Kirk's character change from being a bigot to being someone who is ok with the idea of Federation and Klingon peace feels way too rushed for my liking. Seriously, despite being in an infamous Klingon prison planet Kirk just thinks to himself "gee, maybe that Gorkon guy wasn't so bad and actually had a point." Kirk's change in character doesn't feel earned or natural whatsoever. Not to mention that Kirk's sudden vitriolic hatred towards the Klingons feel very sudden and out of no-where since we've never seen him act this way since the death of his son. Heck, in that last film Kirk and company were becoming drinking buddies with the Klingons at the end of the previous film. The closest Kirk ever acted like this was in "Errand of Mercy" in which he was trying to persuade the Organians that the Klingons were a threat and they needed the Federation's aid, or "Day of the Dove" but that was Kirk acting out-of-character due to his judgement being influenced by a being that feeded off of hatred and conflict.

There are other problems I could nitpick such as how did the torpedoes go through the Enterprise and Excelsior shields at the film's big battle? Why couldn't the Enterprise trace where the torpedoes were coming from and destroy the Bird of Prey? Why didn't the Klingons notice that the tracking device was on Kirk's shoulder when it's clearly visible during several scenes? Why are Klingon's blood pink in this film but red in other shows and movies, and why don't they have tear ducts in this film when we have defiantly seen Klingons cry? Why is Starfleet presented as a military force with there now being Colonels, I though Starfleet used naval ranking and was not strictly a military (admittedly this is an argument that has existed since the start of TOS as far as I know)? Why was it necessary for Kirk be the one to usher the peace between the UFP and the Klingon Empire when TNG's Yesterday's Enterprise suggested that the Enterprise C was the ship to usher in that era of peace? And Lastly, If the Klingons can't reach a peace agreement with the Federation who are they going to trust, the Romulans (a race known for deception and treachery), so if the Klingons can't reach a peace agreement with any faction, why would the why want to go to war with the Federation or any other power knowing that they are dying and would possibly lose the war, or would all Klingons rather die (which I doubt than every Klingon would want to die)? I know this is nitpicking, but other critics have torn into films by examining every detail so I thought I would do the same. Admittedly, I did a lot of pedantic nitpicking in that last paragraph. However, I think it's only fair since I've seen the most of the other Star Trek films nitpicked to death, yet this one seem to get a free pass by most fans, critics, and audiences. I'm just trying to show that this film has just as many plot issues and canon inconsistencies as the rest of the Trek films.

If I'm being honest, I find the Nicholas Meyer's influence was a negative for this film. Granted, he did direct and write for Star Trek II, but I think an underappreciated aspect of the film's success was Harve Bennett who, while not a Star Trek fan, did watch and research the Original Series to see what aspects worked such as the character dynamic of Kirk, Spock and McCoy and the show tackling current events through allegory. Star Trek VI, while having a allegorical story the parallels the end of the Cold War, lacks the character dynamic of Kirk, Spock, And McCoy and feels less like Star Trek and more like the Jack Ryan films but set in outer space with its military-esq conspiracy and its Cold War plot. I will end this by saying that many people criticize modern Star Trek with the "it's not true to Gene Rodenberry's vision" argument. While I don't think that Gene Roddenberry's vision is the end-all-be-all of Star Trek (the man hated the Wrath of Khan after all), Roddenberry did hate a rough-cut Star Trek VI before the film was released and yet this film is widely praised by the same Trekkies who claim that "this is what Star Trek should be". While this isn't the worst Star Trek film and I'll admit that this film just really isn't for my tastes, I do think that there are issues with the premise and execution that should not be ignored. As for me personally, while I never thought the Star Trek films ever reached the heights of the best episodes from the TV shows (yes, that even includes The Wrath of Khan), I liked Star Trek's II, III, and IV and I consider The Voyage Home to be the perfect finale for the crew of The Original Series.

Star Trek: First Contact (1996)

A dull, plodding zombie movie in outer space. Yet, this is considered to be one of the best Star Trek films.

[4/10 · 10 February 2022]

It seems that my disappointment with the Star Trek films continue, and once again I'm disappointed with an entry that many consider to be one of the series' best outings. The odd thing is, in spite of its flaws, I actually enjoyed Generations. Granted, it was far from perfect, but I liked Picard's arc as well as the themes of mortality and making your life matter. First Contact, despite a B-plot which is more engaging than the main plot, is a generic action-zombie film with Star Trek's name on it. Now, to be fair, First Contact has some things going for it. For a start, Frakes' direction is easily the most cinematic looking of the Star Trek films thus far. The film also looks pretty good and holds up very well in the aesthetics department with the sets, sfx, and costuming being so good that they were reused through the remaining seasons of DS9, Voyager, and even Enterprise. Jerry Goldsmith's soundtrack is excellent with returning tracks from his previous Trek soundtracks along with new compositions make for a great listen, my favorite piece being the opening theme. The acting is consistently good, the highlight being James Cromwell as Cochrane who was originally supposed to be played by Tom Hanks, and while I would have liked to have seen Hanks take on the role, Cromwell plays the part of a drunken fortune-seeker who finds out that he leads to an optimistic future very well and his subplot is the best part of the film. I'll even say that, while I don't care for the stuff taking place on the Enterprise, I don't mind Picard's character arc of wanting revenge but realizing the errors of his ways. Granted, I have issues with this development, but it's not out of character as some have said (TNG's "Family" shows that his experience with the Borg did affect him greatly). The last positive, although not really related to this film, is that because this film, Star Trek Voyager could start using the Borg in their stories. While the Borg did eventually become overused in that series, their initial episodes and story arcs with Seven of Nine were very compelling so if it weren't for this film, we wouldn't have had Seven in Voyager.

Unfortunately, First Contact has a litany of issues mainly stemming from the script. I find it weird that Generations, despite being rushed after TNG's final season, had a better thought-out script that this film. This is one of the dangers us using time travel in a plot like this, the more you think about it, the less it makes sense. So, the Borg used time travel as a plan b, but why not travel back in time in their own space and assemble an armada and then travel to Earth and the entire alpha quadrant, or instead why don't they either travel back in time to a point where humans are so primitive that they'll offer no resistance (like caveman era). Also, why do the Borg always underestimate Starfleet and only send only one ship our way even though we've already destroyed Borg cubes in the past? The last point about the Borg's plan is that why did the Borg only go to the Enterprise and not beam down to where Cochrane was and start assimilating Earth from the ground so First Contact is definitely prevented?

Speaking of the Borg, while I know that Voyager tends to get a lot of flak for "ruining the Borg", I have to say that First Contact honestly beat that show to the punch. In fact, I'll even go as far as to say that considering Voyager had to work with elements that this film created such as the Borg Queen, Voyager handled the Borg a lot better in that show than this movie. I say this because not only are the Borg treated as genetic zombies, but the Borg Queen actively ruins the concept of their species. What made the Borg so threatening is that they didn't have a hierarchy or a central complex to destroy. As said in TNG, a Borg cube could be 2/3rds destroyed and still work at 100% efficiency. However, in this film Picard orders firing on a few locations on the cube, and it's destroyed with seconds. Then there's the Borg queen, while I do like Alice Krige as an actress and she does fine with what's given to her, I hated the Borg Queen character. The scenes between the Queen and Data with the sexual tension I found to be cringe-worthy, especially the "was it good for you" line and I feel as if these scenes could have been cut out and nothing would have been lost. In fact, cutting these scenes out would have really made the audience wonder if Data had gone bad since he would have been absent from most of the movie. That said, the very anticlimactic ending of Data hitting the glass and destroying the Borg Queen as well as all of her drones would still be there. This movie really ruined the Borg since now the Borg can be destroyed with a few hits and killing the Queen. I also find the Picard killing the Queen was a mistake. Now, while I didn't mind Picard's revenge arc as much as most people, that said I find Picard killing the Queen at the end to be a mistake since it shows that Picard hasn't really gotten over his revenge and hasn't improved as a character since he is completing his revenge. Also, if I read the movie right, Borg assimilations is treated in this film as a rape allegory, and at the end Picard and Data both say that the Borg Queen was "unique" and Data regrets her death, so in a sense both Picard and Data imply they liked the Queen and thus imply they kinda liked being assimilated, so the movie implies that they lied being raped. I doubt the writers intended this and maybe I'm reading too much into this, but that's the reading I got from this film. However, that's the films biggest downside in that it's just a dumb action film that's only surface deep and the writers haven't really thought-out the film that well from the start. While people give the JJ Abrams (admittedly deserved) flack for being glossy action movie and only Star Trek in name only, where were these people when First Contact came out?

I honestly remember First Contact being a highlight of the Star Trek films, and easily the best TNG film. That said, on my latest rewatch I was greatly disappointed by this film and honestly aside from Star Trek II, there hasn't been a truly great film in this film series (while I liked III, IV, and Generations, they are flawed films). Sadly, many consider this to be the TNG's only great film and if I was let-down by this film, I doubt Insurrection and Nemesis will do much to redeem this film series.

Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)

It's not the worst Trek film.

[7/10 · 1 February 2022]

Honestly, after watching the film, not only is Nemesis not that bad for a Star Trek film, but I find it to be one of the better Star Trek films and The Next Generation's best film. While the plot has issues (which I'll get to) and there are aspects of the film I just don't care for (which I'll defiantly get to), I personally think the good far outweighs the bad.

For the bad aspects, I'll admit the logistics of the narrative are somewhat shoddy. Apparently, Shinzon planted the B4 android on that planet near the neutral zone hoping the Enterprise's close proximity will lead Picard to Romulus. Not only does this film use the "you're the closest ship in range" ploy to get the plot going, but Shinzon planning it hoping that the Enterprise would conveniently be there is contrived to say the least. Also, the dune buggy chase not only feels forced, but Picard breaks the Prime Directive by engaging a pre-warp civilization. It feels as if that the movie was originally written without the buggy chase, but the studio or producers forced an action scene to make the film more exciting. Many people have criticized about the mind rape scene and rightfully so. Not only are the crew of the Enterprise already on to Shinzon's scheme, but it feels off weird with the character in Star Trek. I can't quite explain why it feels so weird, but it should have been cut out and the only point to that scene is Troi's mental connection to the Viceroy which is used in the final battle. There are other niggling things like Picard apparently going into shock which after killing Shinzon and Data needing to rescue him, leading to Data's death. While I actually don't mind Data's death in of itself, I think that Picard, seeing all the things we've seen him go through in the various shows and movies probably wouldn't have gone into shock. Also, after Shinzon dies it feels like an eternity until Data arrives, so whoever was the editor of this film should have cut down on that time. This actually leads me to my next point, while Stuart Baird is an accomplished editor, and his direction of this film isn't that bad, the cast didn't get along with him and he had little knowledge of Star Trek, so I think his lack of experience led to the film's stranger scenes which I've already mentioned to remain in the film. The last point here is that while I get Shinzon's hatred for Picard since he feels like an inferior copy so long as Picard lives, but I don't entirely get why he wants to destroy Earth and the Federation so badly. If I was to guess, Shinzon considers the Remans to be his true parent race and wants to ensure a good future for them which is why he not only took control of Romulus, but now intends to bring the Federation to its knees so the Remans can conquer the Federation as well.

Now to be fair there are other aspects I can nitpick like how did a slave race like the Remans build the Scimitar ship in secret, and how is that ship so overpowered with the ability to fire when cloaked, carry fighter craft, and carry the Thaleron Radiation weapon. That said, and I'm sure many people who are deep into the lore of Star Trek look at me with ire, but I don't really care much for the technical stuff. Granted, I would prefer that the writers, or whoever made these continuity errors, would have ironed-out these mistakes. However, I'm willing to live with a few continuity errors if the overall film is better and honestly I found this to be the best TNG film.

For a start, the film's plot and premise managed to balance both Picard's and Data's plots to the overall story and themes in a satisfying way. Picard's confrontations with Shinzon, and Data's relation to B4 I found compelling in that both characters wrestle with the idea that they could have ended up differently had their lives been different. Picard believes that he could have ended up as maniacal as Shinzon had he lived his life and Data could have been like B4. However, both Picard and Data realize that their drive to better themselves is what led to both characters being who they are. I even liked that Picard tries to convince Shinzon to see this as well, but he decides to side with his Reman heritage and rejects Picard's plea.

Now, one of the biggest criticisms of the TNG films (and the reboot films) was that they leaned too much into action. While I did not care for this direction, Star Trek IV is one of my favorite Trek films and that isn't an action film (if anything it's a comedy). That said, If the Star Trek films had to have gone down the action movie route, I think Nemesis handled it the best. Granted, some of the action feels a bit too excessive, and it has been said that many character scenes were removed to make way for action scenes. But overall, I did like the action scenes from the infamous dune buggy chase to Picard and Data's escape, to the big final battle.

Speaking of those deleted scenes, I have seen a few on YouTube and I feel that if these scenes were left in then Nemesis would have flesh out it's characters better. These include scenes such as Picard and Data discussing what life will be like when some of the crew leave (mainly Riker and Troi), and probably more character scenes with Shinzon. Now Tom Hardy plays Shinzon quite well and comes off as a younger and more arrogant version of Picard, not bad for an early performance. I've even heard criticism about how weak the performances from the main cast are in this film or how out of character everyone feels. The thing is that this film follows Insurrection where everyone had been affected by the Baku planet's radiation which gave everyone their sense of youth back, hence why Riker and Troi have rekindled their romance and are married. However, everyone believes that Picard is out of character, but this isn't the case. Not only is Picard more adventurous after the event of Insurrection, but he learned to open-up to others during the events of the series, hence why he was willing to play poker in the finale of the series. So, if anything the change in personalities is actually good character development and continuity.

Now, one aspect of the film that people detest which I actually don't mind is Data's death. While admittedly it does come off as very sudden, and I'm not a fan of Picard going into shock and just standing there, I do like how Data's journey to becoming human is complete by his sacrifice. Essentially Data dies doing one of the most human things one could do, that being giving up your own life for another.

I know that this likely won't convince anyone into believing that Nemesis is a great film. Heck, I still have a lot of issues. However, I don't consider this to be anywhere near the worst Trek film, nor do I believe that this film should have bombed as badly as it did. Honestly after Voyager wrapped-up, Enterprise was struggling, and Nemesis bombed so it seemed like Star Trek was just fizzing-out. Its day had come and gone, and the franchise was running out of borrowed time. However, there is still plenty to like about the later Rick Berman produced Star Trek and Nemesis, in spite of its many issues, is a worthwhile entry in the series.

Doctor Who (1996 TV Movie)

The guiltless pleasure that is the Doctor Who movie.

[7/10 · 11 December 2021]

Many viewers of Doctor Who know that this TV movie was an attempt to revive Doctor Who in the 1990s. This film was a 3-way production between the BBC, Fox, and Universal and was filmed in Vancover. Despite strong views in the UK, the film failed to gain an audience in the US and a new Doctor Who series didn't premiere until 2005. Most Doctor Who fans are glad that this film failed to bring about a new series and this film is often considered to be one of the worst stories in Doctor Who's history with this film still inducing a somewhat vitriolic response from same fans even more than 25 years after the film premiered. Even the nicest comments I've heard about this movie boil down to "it was a good try" and many have described this film as a "so bad its good" film. However, it's not a stretch to say that many Doctor Who fans hate the TV Movie.

As someone who used to be a Doctor Who fan, and is now a casual enjoyer of the show, I can honestly say that this film is pretty much on par with most Doctor Who stories. Many viewers complain about the films lackluster plot with its many convinces and the half-human controversy. However, why does this film get so much flack, while the BBC run Doctor Who mostly gets away with poor writing? Most Doctor Who stories rely on convince and a quickly thrown together ending. Yes, the TARDIS bringing Grace and Lee back to life is silly, but how is it any less sill than examples in the revived series such the Doctor being restored back to his youthful appearance due to prayer, or Donna having the Doctor's intelligence because she touched the hand with the regeneration energy which created another Doctor. I'm not saying that this is a well written plot. The Master getting into the TARDIS before Lee is a major issue. However, I didn't have an issue with the Master's snake form stealing bodies. Again, how is that any sillier than him stealing Tremas' body in Keeper of Traken or the Master looking like Skeletor and having Sith lighting in The End of Time. As for the half-human controversy, Doctor Who has always been changing the Doctor's history to suit the plot. The Doctor was treated as a human until the Timelords were introduced, and suddenly Pertwee had two hearts. I would argue the revived series is even more guilty with unnecessary changes to the Doctor's backstory with Clara's character and the Hybrid plotline with Moffat, as well as the Timeless Child plot with Chibnall. Not to mention when Moffat changed aspects of Doctor Who lore such as Clara showing the Doctor which TARDIS he should use, the Dalek armor being what channels raw emotion into hatred.

Going back to the Master, his depiction by Eric Roberts seems to draw a lot of ire from most fans. That said, while he is certainly no Roger Delgado, I've never minded Robert's performance in this film. I know that many people think of the scenes towards the end of the film where he really hams up his performance, this is where we get the "I always dress for the occasion" and the scene in which he kisses Lee on the forehead. Regarding these scenes, the Master has basically won at this point, and he chooses to celebrate by dressing up in his Gallifreyan robes, he's essentially so vain that he's celebrating the fact that he's stealing the Doctor's lives. As for kissing Lee, the Master is again happy that he managed to pull the whole thing off and maybe he actually wanted Lee to travel with him until Lee decided to side with the Doctor. So, the Eric Robert's camp performance at the end is really down to the fact that, for a time, it seemed like the Master won. Again, is this really so much worse than Antony Ainley's Master manically laughing while pushing controlling the observatory dish in Logopolis before the 4th Doctor fell to his death, or John Simm's Master dancing to music while ruling over the Earth while beating up an elderly 10th Doctor. Not to mention that Robert's performance, while not great, is a bit better than often given credit for. He comes off as stiff and robotic at the start since he is still getting used to controlling this new body, then his performance becomes more natural as the film progresses. It's still not what I would call a great performance, some of his line delivery comes off as forced at times, but it's far from the terrible performance most make it out to be.

While the script has issues which I've mentioned before, there is still a lot to like about the film's writing. For a start, writer Matthew Jacobs really nailed the Eighth Doctor with this iteration blending Pertwee's charm, Tom Baker's alien quirkiness, and Davision's nobility, as well as being more romantic than his predecessors. Coupled with Paul McGann's performance, its easy to see why the Eighth Doctor has had such longevity even to this day despite his limited screentime. I even like the side characters of Grace and Chang Lee and their character arcs. Because of the Doctor, Grace decides to continue her job as a cardiologist and Lee decides to turn over a new leaf. I though the themes of renewal and regeneration was actually really well woven into the story with not only the Doctor and Master literally coming back to life, but also with the changes to Grace and Lee's characters by the stories end. I also liked the symmetry between the Doctor and the Master with both characters coming back to life, but the Doctor regenerates while the Master steals an innocent man's body. Both the Doctor and the Master have sidekicks, but the Doctor manages to convince Grace with the truth while the Master lies to Lee about getting gold dust. There are even other interesting aspects such as the Doctor looking a lot like Christ by only wearing a shroud after regenerating and wearing a metal crown of thorns at the film's end. The Master was not only duplicitous but, is depicted as a snake early in the film. The Doctor is shown to be Christ-like, and the Master is even referred to as the Devil. While I don't really care for this religious symbolism in this film, it's another aspect of this film to think about.

Other aspects I enjoyed were the production design, music, and direction. Richard Hudolin's TARDIS interior is a favorite of many including myself with its appearance feeling very Victorian and channels a lot of design cues from the 1960s The Time Machine. The film itself, in terms of production design, has aged very well. This is due to Hudolin talents since he has also worked in other notable Science-Fiction works such as Timecop, Stargate SG1, and the reimagined Battlestar Galactica. John Debney's music, while not my favorite music in all of Doctor Who, is a welcome departure from the classic series with an orchestral score. Again, I think the film's score is somewhat underappreciated due to its similarities to Murry Gold's score to the modern Doctor Who show. The highlights of the score for me would be the main theme, the music when the Doctor finds his costume in the locker, and the climax of the film. Also, Geoffrey Sax's direction was, at this point, the most cinematic Doctor Who had ever looked and if it weren't for some tv quality effects (stock footage and other TV quality SFX), this film could have passed for a theatrical release if it was in widescreen.

There also seems to be this idea that the TV Movie was just made by FOX and a bunch of clueless Americans who knew nothing about Doctor Who. This notion is far from the truth with Philip Segal, the film's producer, being a Doctor Who fan since childhood. The film's writer, Matthew Jacobs, was also a fan of Doctor Who from an early age with his father even appearing in the First Doctor episode The Gunslingers as Doc Holliday. Not to mention that the film's director, Geoffrey Sax, has directed many films and tv shows as recent as ITV's Victoria TV show. Not to mention that this film was co-produced by the BBC so clearly people knowledgeable on Doctor Who were involved in the making of this film.

In recent years I've really noticed a large level of distain towards this film. Now don't get me wrong, this film was never that well liked but considering how similar this film is to the revived series, I expected that this film would find a new appreciation aside from just McGann's performance and the TARDIS interior. However, this film's reputation apparently has only gotten worse considering this film's score has gone down from a 6.4 to a 6.3. While I wouldn't call this film a classic by any means, it pretty much encapsulates everything good and bad about Doctor Who. The story is overly convoluted with too much exposition and relies too much on the show's lore, the antagonist hams it up, and the story is wrapped-up too quickly and easily. However, the film also has good performances bolstered by a likable lead. Despite the story itself being mediocre, it has some good aspects that make it entertaining. Chang Lee and Grace Holloway make for decent side characters, and I wouldn't mind if they showed up again in the modern series, the quick pace of the film makes it enjoyable as well, and the themes of the film are well presented. In all I enjoy the Doctor Who movie and I don't think it deserves the reputation of being a blight or stain on the series record. While I agree that the films could have been better, I don't think it's that much worse than most of the series finales of the modern Doctor Who show. While I'm not saying you have to like it, but if you are someone who thinks that the TV Movie is one of the worst stories in Doctor Who, I urge you to give it a rewatch. I's flawed, but it was made by people who genuinely cared about Doctor Who and I think it shows while watching the film. Not a great film, but worth watching once for any self-confessed Doctor Who fan. If nothing else, it showed that there was still a little life left in the old Doctor.