Change Your Image
IrishWriter34
Reviews
The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)
I tried watching this one night...
...and the moment Willem Dafoe's Jesus did his "This is my heart...take it" moment, I turned the film off. (How the heck can he die of nail wounds when he can yank his heart out of his chest and still be alive? An atheist would have a field day with that one.)
I admit it, I'm a Baptist traditionalist. I like my Jesus biopics to least be accurate to the Gospels. The blatant fictionalization of Jesus' life presented in Scorcese's film (I've not read the novel he based it on) strikes me as poor taste. It's one thing to want to explore Jesus' humanity, but is warping history to the insane degree this movie does the way to go about doing it? (And after hearing about the prolonged hallucination sequence where Jesus imagines he's been saved from the cross and has a normal human life, I'm glad I didn't stick around for more.) Is stripping Jesus of his authority and charisma really doing justice to the man who was also the son of God? I'm sorry, but that doesn't sit well with me. As for the music by Peter Gabriel, it's interesting to listen to on its own merits, but when matched with the film it's totally out of place. (Shouldn't the traditional instruments have been mixed with orchestral music rather than the techno-rock Gabriel provides for the movie? Rock music in ancient Jerusalem just doesn't work.)
From what I saw of the film, I can honestly say that the brickbats it got were all well deserved. Blasphemous? Maybe, but the word I'd use is "misguided," and badly so. (Then again, I'm not so sure the gory spectacle of THE PASSION OF THE Christ was much better.) I'll stick with KING OF KINGS and THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD, thank you very much. At least those movies sell the notion of Jesus' sacrifice without going to the bizarre extremes that Scorcese and Gibson went for, and I can watch them without feeling like I'm partaking in an exploitation piece at the Savior's expense.
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)
Big expectations, meager results...what a turkey!
I remember when ROBIN HOOD: PRINCE OF THIEVES came out, I had extremely high hopes for it. The promotional stills and interviews looked promising, and I was expecting a high-spirited romp on par with Errol Flynn's celebrated film. Boy, was I in for a letdown.
The movie starts off thrillingly, with Michael Kamen's spectacular score playing over medieval illustrations. But as soon as the opening credits end, the film shows its true colors
a dark, dank, gore-laden bore. Seriously, what Robin Hood movie worth its salt starts with a dismemberment scene? I couldn't even look at the screen for this sequence. Alas, it was only the beginning. We're later treated to a close-up of Robin slitting his hand open (and blood seeping thru his fingers) to swear revenge for his father, we see Will Scarlett take an arrow thru the hand, we see the Sheriff of Nottingham's witch slice her arm open and spit into her blood to make a prediction, we see a blood-filled egg cracked open in another scene, we see the Sheriff's face getting stitched up
really, how's a guy supposed to keep his popcorn down? How did this movie get away with a PG-13 rating? This is R-level stuff all the way. Of course, the movie's lack of color and light doesn't help much. I don't mind them foregoing the tights for this go-round, but why isn't Robin Hood wearing his signature Lincoln green? Why isn't Will Scarlett at least wearing SOMETHING red? Everybody's wearing browns and blacks, which makes the film monochromatic and dull. Sherwood Forest looks dirty and gloomy instead of inviting and exciting. The sets are so dark and shadowy that it's a miracle anyone can see where they're going. I'm sure John Graysmark and John Bloomfield did their best with the sets and costumes, but they would have been better served had they been colorful and well-lit. And the plot takes too much of the spirit out of the legend. Robin's such a sullen gloomy Gus that it's impossible to imagine the Merry Men taking him in, much less letting him lead them. Friar Tuck's reduced to a potbellied wimp (what happened to the swordsman who was more lethal than he looked?). Azeem, while a good character in his own right, really doesn't belong in the Robin Hood mythos. (He would have made a fine stand-alone character, though.) The witch has no business being in this film at all. And what purpose does it serve to make Will Scarlett Robin's traitorous half-brother? Director Kevin Reynolds tries to guide the movie with a swift and steady hand, but the film is such a dismal mess that he ultimately can't hold it together. It's so ponderous and serious that there's no sense of fun to be had. And hearing Kamen's glorious score accompanying the film makes the experience even worse. That music deserved to be in a much better movie, and it possesses the fun, exciting spirit that the movie itself utterly lacks.
And then there's the acting. You couldn't find a better Sheriff of Nottingham than Alan Rickman, and he literally steals the show. But that's not too hard when everyone else stinks. Morgan Freeman does his best with Azeem, but again, this character doesn't belong in the saga. Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio doesn't have any spark as Marian, nor is she really beautiful enough to play the part (Olivia DeHavilland she ain't). Christian Slater can't make heads or tails of the tarnished Will. Brian Blessed is wasted as Robin's doomed dad, as is Michael Wincott as Guy of Gisbourne. Sean Connery's cameo as King Richard is fun, but pointless. The supporting players are so dull they aren't even worth mentioning. And Kevin Costner
great actor, but a LOUSY Robin Hood. He has neither the presence or the attitude this character requires, and he's always talking in a droning monotone. In no way does he come off as an inspiring leader; he's more apt to put you to sleep. Nor does he have the physicality the role demands. I haven't seen a Robin Hood this inept since Barrie Ingham in A CHALLENGE FOR ROBIN HOOD. Yeah, Costner gets in a few good shots with an arrow, but when Robin thoroughly sucks at swordplay and can't even take the Sheriff without help from Azeem, you know the filmmakers have screwed up. Robin Hood's supposed to be the last dude on the planet you want to mess with, not a graceless klutz. Errol Flynn would have trashed the Sheriff and his witch with both hands tied behind his back. Heck, even Cary Elwes' MEN IN TIGHTS incarnation and Disney's cartoon fox Robin would have made short work of them. This Robin
well, had he been killed at the end of the movie, I doubt anyone would have really cared. He's hardly the sort of guy you want to root for.
Call me old-fashioned, but I don't like my swashbuckler epics to be gory, dark, and dismal exercises in tedium. I like them bright, colorful, exuberant, and fun
with a minimum of bloodletting. THE MASK OF ZORRO is a case in point, as are THE PRINCESS BRIDE, LORD OF THE RINGS and PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN. Compared to those films, PRINCE OF THIEVES falls horribly short. Compared to the Errol Flynn classic it so wants to topple, it's an even bigger failure. Maybe some day there'll be a good, modern Robin Hood movie that measures up to the Flynn version and truly revives the legend for a new generation. But for now, this film ain't it. Stick with the Flynn version.
Moment by Moment (1978)
Uh...who green-lit this thing?
There are certain films that are required viewing for all the wrong reasons. MOMENT BY MOMENT is one of them. Not only is it a textbook example of how not to make a movie, it's also an example of how not to approach a woman.
Case in point: Throughout the first half of the film, John Travolta's character Strip (yeah, you heard me-Strip) is basically stalking Lily Tomlin's Trish, especially at the beginning when he does his little rant about the dent. Then there's his incessant following her around her beach-front property, which she comes right out and says is an intrusion. And his loopy attempts to strike up a conversation with her sound like the rantings of a maniac on the prowl. (I won't even go into his running away from home just because his parents forgot a couple of his birthdays
.) In real life, Strip would have found himself either committed to a mental institution or slapped with a restraining order for this rather creepy behavior. Guys, take note
this is not how you go around trying to meet women.
Then again, what does Strip even see in her to start with? Lily Tomlin is certainly funny, but attractive she is not. In fact, she's one of the last people on the planet I'd ever want to see nude. (And yet she bares it in this film
not a bright idea.) Even worse, her character has absolutely no personality. We're given no reason to care about her (or anyone else in this film) and her failing marriage. Sheesh, the most important thing she and her husband have to discuss is who gets the pool filter? Are we supposed to care about this? It also doesn't help that Tomlin's acting is abysmal, especially when she cries over the pool filter. I've seen more genuine emotion coming out of a rock than I did from her. Oh, and she and Travolta have no chemistry together at all. A logical substitute for the luscious Olivia Newton-John, she ain't. Of course, nothing about this film is logical. We're expected to believe Strip's stalking turns Trish on when it's not even remotely charming. We're expected to buy into their romance, yet it has creepy mother-son overtones (and again, they have no chemistry) and is very poorly written and staged. Details that should be important (Dan Santini killing Strip's friend and worming his way into Trish's social circle, Strip's criminal past, Trish's collapsing marriage) are reduced to inconsequential sidelines. Characters that should be critical to the plot (or more accurately, lack thereof)-Santini, Naomi, Strip's doomed pal Greg, Trish's husband-are either useless stock characters or just carelessly mentioned in passing. Strip's rationale for running away from home is shallow and ludicrous. And what exactly was the significance of "what a world"? (My mother joked when Trish got that message, "Hey, at least the Wicked Witch got it.") The movie is just one big, sloppy, nonsensical mess that ultimately amounts to nothing.
A May-December romance involving a younger man is a perfectly viable idea. (I'm currently writing a novel dealing with just that.) A May-December romance starring John Travolta as the younger man could easily have worked in the right hands with the right co-star. It didn't have to be this bad. But Jane Wagner is painfully inept at writing and directing drama, and Tomlin is just a total mismatch for Travolta. Geez, if they were so keen to work together, why didn't they do a full-tilt comedy instead? At least that might have used their skills properly. You'd think the supporting cast would be able to pick up the slack left by the void that is this pairing, but the supporting roles are so badly written that even the backup players get lost at sea. This situation is not helped by the movie being largely set at Trish's beach house, making the story needlessly claustrophobic. Good grief, this film is so bad it doesn't even have a decent soundtrack; Lee Holdridge's jazz score is utter dross (it sounds like the score's being played on a broken Muzak), Dan Hill's "Sometimes When We Touch" is easily the most depressing romantic ballad I've ever heard in my entire life, and the title tune is just lame with a capital L. The only worthwhile aspect of the film is Philip Lathrop's sun-drenched cinematography, but really, when has good camera work ever been enough to save a movie? Seriously, folks, it's not hard to see why this film and BATTLEFIELD EARTH remain such major black marks on Travolta's career. What possessed him to follow up SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER and GREASE with this? If anything, MOMENT BY MOMENT is a perfect example of how NOT to write a May-December romance.
However, I do have to admire American Movie Classics' chutzpah in airing this movie. How in God's name could this thing ever be considered a classic?
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
It gave me a new appreciation of Tolkien
My first exposure to JRR Tolkien was the animated RETURN OF THE KING when it ran in syndication one night in the mid-'80s. To say the least, I came away hating anything even slightly hobbit-related (notably because Frodo Baggins lost his finger-not something one takes well as a kid), so when Peter Jackson set out to adapt THE LORD OF THE RINGS into a film trilogy, I couldn't have been less interested. Then my family saw THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING and enjoyed it, so I decided to give Tolkien one last try.
I'm glad I did, because Jackson produced an entertaining, energetic movie (and an even better sequel) that wiped my bad cartoon memories away. I got a charge out of the sheer epic scope of the film, the lovely New Zealand landscapes, the outstanding production designs, lavish costumes, splendid makeup, colorful characters, and (of course) some great acting. Ian McKellan and the magnetic Viggo Mortensen carried this film as the wizard Gandalf and the exiled king Aragorn, respectively. Elijah Wood and Sean Astin were terrific as the hobbits Frodo and Samwise. Christopher Lee, as the corrupt Saruman, was at his evil best. Cate Blanchett and Hugo Weaving were excellent as Galadriel and Elrond. Orlando Bloom doesn't say much as the elfin archer Legolas, but his attitude, energy, and intensity still made him a blast to watch. It's always fun to see John Rhys-Davies, so I was tickled to see him as Gimli the dwarf. It was a huge treat to see Sean Bean, normally typecast as a villain, play a hero as the tortured and conflicted Boramir. (Somebody give this guy more heroic roles, please! He's got the chops for it!) Even Liv Tyler delivered a gritty, commanding performance as Aragorn's lover Arwen, especially when she pulled a sword on the ring-wraiths and dared them to attack her. (How often does Tyler EVER display such authority as an actress? This was a major victory on Jackson's part.) But best of all was Howard Shore's lavish, operatic score. I'm actually glad they didn't get someone like John Williams (who I like) to do the film; Williams' style is just too distinctive and would have been distracting. Shore's music fits the film like a glove.
Having seen a lot of old movies that made big changes from the books they were based on, the liberties Jackson and his writing partners made aren't a problem for me. (It also helps that I haven't read the books, and am viewing the movies from a fresh perspective.) As many have pointed out, an exact translation of the book would either be impossible or would result in an overlong and boring movie that would alienate too many viewers. Besides, even the most faithful book-to-film translations have to make some compromises in order to adapt the material effectively (Richard Donner's SUPERMAN, anyone?). Some sections of the book had to be cut or reconceived in order for the story to translate to film. And like it or not, Aragorn's romance with Arwen (which is very nicely done on film) would not have made a lick of sense on screen unless Arwen's role was expanded and built up. Sorry, Tolkien nit-pickers, but you can rant about how you "have to wait for a TRUE adaptation" until you're blue in the face. You just want a movie that's nothing but a verbatim, word-for-word copy of what's on the page, and that simply is not a realistic or even financially viable option. Keep your selfishness at the door and stop giving Jackson grief for TRYING to please you and an audience of newcomers at the same time. He wouldn't have made these movies if he wasn't a fan of the books.
That said, I don't think this is the greatest movie ever made, partly because I have my own favorite films, but mostly because this movie is still too new to make such a call. It needs to have more time behind it before we can judge how it'll hold up. And to be honest, the film's not flawless. The pacing's somewhat erratic, Billy Boyd plays Pippin like a crazed Lucky Charms leprechaun on acid, some of the dialogue is stilted at times, the editing on the fight scenes is sometimes too chaotic, and the shot near the end where Legolas just stands still and shoots arrows at onrushing orcs is mighty weak. (They could at least have had him moving around a bit..) But for all of that, the movie's a lot of fun to watch, and it certainly stands a chance of having the sort of timeless appeal enjoyed by the STAR WARS series.
That, and it got me to enjoy something I'd previously hated. No small feat. That said, I'm dreading THE RETURN OF THE KING, largely because of the aforementioned finger loss. Hopefully Jackson will handle that scene in a way that isn't too gross? (A small request to the ladies: While I am glad to see Orlando Bloom achieving breakout superstardom from these films, I feel Viggo Mortensen is getting unfairly overlooked. Please, give the guy his due, won't you?)
The War of the Worlds (1953)
Has great moments, but it stumbles a bit
In the past 30 years of sci-fi cinema, modern audiences have pretty much seen it all. Alien invasions, intergalactic voyages, gruesome future visions, advanced technology.you name it, it's been done. As such, a lot of the older sci-fi films of yesteryear tend to have a much weaker impact when viewed today. THE WAR OF THE WORLDS is a case in point. Yes, it's a likable and entertaining film, but it just doesn't have the punch of some of its better contemporaries. This isn't because screenwriter Barre Lyndon, producer George Pal, and director Byron Haskin had to update the HG Wells story (which didn't bother me, as other book-based movies of the time had to make big story changes) in order to keep the budget manageable, but rather that the movie's a little too genteel and occasionally silly.
The plot, based on Wells' novel, goes like this: Cylindrical asteroids crash-land on Earth (1898 England in the book, 1953 L.A. in the movie), containing murderous aliens from Mars armed with super-hot lasers that destroy everything in sight. Attempts to make peace with these maniacs fail, and the aliens launch a full-scale war on the human race in an attempt to take the planet for themselves. Obviously, updating the book meant the story had to be streamlined, and the film does this very well. The dark side of humanity is nicely explored in a wrenching scene where Gene Barry's character (a scientist in this; a reporter in the book) is beaten and overpowered by a mob when he tries to get to a secret lab in order to plan a way to stop the aliens. Instead he's forced to watch as the mob destroys his truck and equipment. The use of military strategy is good as well, as attempt after attempt to combat the aliens fails. And there's a wonderful nod to the book when the movie makes lengthy mention of how the Martians favor England as a vantage point. (As if that wasn't enough, one of the soldiers knowingly smirks when he talks about England being attacked.great in-joke.) But by far, the best scenes in the movie are the full-scale attack sequences. The first battle between the Martians and the U.S. Army is masterfully done, with nervy scenes of soldiers in flames and glowing disintegrations. The death of the preacher (another nod to the book) is menacingly handled. And the finale, where Barry frantically searches the churches of L.A. for his lover and friends while dodging the laser salvos of the rampaging Martian airships, is thrillingly staged. This exuberant climax trumps the comparatively weak resolution of the Wells book.
And really, what more can be said of the Albert Nozaki-designed Martian airships that hasn't been said? With manta-shaped bodies and flexible laser mounts that look like mechanized cobras, these vehicles are a vast improvement over the book's impractical tripods, and the brass-with-green-neon color scheme is great. (The humming sounds they make as they're about to open fire are wonderfully ominous.) And the FX work achieved with them is excellent. Except for a couple of early scenes, the wires on the ships are nicely hidden by smoke and fog, and the force-fields are done splendidly. By far, these ships are the real stars of this movie.
So what keeps this film from being more than just pleasant entertainment? Well, the whole farmhouse scene (another nod to the book) is pretty weak. The alien probes look like that light-up Simon toy on a big cable. Even weirder, the Martians have those probes for their faces (are they supposed to be cyborgs?). And when the lone Martian touches Ann Robinson's shoulder.he just stands there and does absolutely nothing, giving Barry the chance to whale on him with an axe. (This is an alien invader? I thought the Martians were supposed to be totally ruthless!) The square dance scene is a bit much (where did they get those period outfits, and shouldn't there be something much more happening going on in L.A.?). Robinson's character is way too much of a screaming stereotype. There's a lot of overripe '50s dialogue (the exchanges between Barry and Robinson). And the opening credits suck. "There was WWI! Then came WWII! Now comes the war of the worlds!" (Camp alert!) And the flashing stencil font was really unimpressive. Even in 1953, they could have done a better job. (Why didn't they use Cedric Hardwicke's narration as the prologue over a starfield?) And while Leith Stevens' score is very good overall, the theme music sounds more appropriate to a jungle adventure than a sci-fi apocalypse. But above all else, this film has a real "been there, done that" vibe to it. If you've seen other sci-fi movies before seeing this one, you've already seen it all. This movie could have used less corn and more grit, because it can't maintain the threatening atmosphere of its better sequences. It is, after all, a war movie, and could have been done with more punch and verve. It has fine set-pieces and some truly menacing moments, but the whole doesn't quite coalesce into a great film.
This isn't to say THE WAR OF THE WORLDS is a bad film. It's perfectly decent and watchable fare, and I'll gladly watch it again. But it isn't up to the level of, say, FORBIDDEN PLANET or THE INVISIBLE MAN, and its camp tendencies hamper its strongest attributes. Hopefully the proposed Tom Cruise/Steven Spielberg adaptation will bring the proper grit to the story. (Oh, and setting the new movie in 1898 England would be ideal, too.)
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)
Good premise, good intentions, BERSERKLY uneven execution
It all began when Leonard Nimoy told William Shatner over lunch, "You know, because of our favored-nation situation, you could ask to direct STAR TREK V." In retrospect, maybe Nimoy was unwise to suggest this, because Shatner's end result, STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER, ended up being a weak point in the film series and a major disappointment for Shatner, who had big hopes for the film and wound up not being able to realize any of them.
What went wrong? Well, Shatner's plan was to make a moody, gritty TREK film that dealt with the subject of faith, including a harrowing encounter with the Devil at the end. Paramount wanted V to be a lighthearted comedy in the vein of STAR TREK IV, and insisted that the final showdown be against an evil alien pretending to be God for its own gain. Shatner was forced to concede this in order to make the film (which he believes was his worst mistake on the film). Shatner wanted novelist Eric Van Lustbader to write the story treatments and TREK veteran Nicholas Meyer to handle the screenplay. Lustbader had a falling-out with Paramount and Meyer wasn't available, so writer David Loughery was hired by producer Harve Bennett to make the film into the comedy Paramount wanted. Shatner wanted Sybok's influence to result in a major falling-out between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Nimoy and DeForest Kelley thought it wouldn't make sense given the events of III, so that idea was scrapped early on. Shatner wanted big, epic visuals for the film. Paramount kept the $31 million budget so stiff that Shatner lost much of what he'd been planning. Shatner wanted ILM to return to the series, but they were caught up with other projects and couldn't provide their best people to work on the film. Bran Ferren, the replacement FX outfit, dazzled Paramount with stunning test footage but dropped the ball when it came to the film's actual FX work. Throw in a Writer's Guild strike that positioned V against BATMAN at the box office and numerous production problems, and it's easy to see why V didn't turn out as Shatner had hoped.
So what exactly is wrong with the final film? Inconsistent pacing, for one thing. There are moments where the film moves swiftly and moments where it just DRAGS. Terrible cinematography by Andrew Laszlo; the film looks more washed-out and flat than even ST: TMP. Even worse, Laszlo seems to have no sense of scope; his photography is pedestrian and devoid of any epic quality. (STAR TREK II DP Gayne Rescher would have been a much better fit for this outing.) Lousy costumes for the Starfleet away team; those brown and beige jumpsuits combined with Laszlo's bland camerawork again echo ST: TMP's glum visuals. The studio-mandated "evil God-alien" ending is extremely anti-climactic and hokey; it completely undermines the whole trip we've been on, especially since this alien impostor can be killed by Klingon phasers. (Shatner's "battle with the Devil" ending would have been much more satisfying.) Shatner's direction is wildly uneven; he succeeds greatly during the quieter moments but stumbles when it comes to the action scenes. The Paradise City street fight is very badly staged, relying too much on close-ups than on showing the action in full and plagued by choppy editing and stiff choreography. Half the time, Shatner directs like a scared rabbit (which, given his well-documented discomfort over how the film was turning out, isn't surprising). And of course, the FX work is underwhelming. While Bran Ferren delivers excellent phaser and transporter FX, everything else falls short. The "God" effect looks like a face layered over a floodlight. The photon torpedoes look cartoony. The bluescreen shots look fake. And the warp speed FX look like they just took normal shots of the Enterprise and stuck colored lines behind it. (Isn't the ship supposed to become a blur when it takes off?) And finally, the film's tone is a little too jokey for its spiritual subject matter; Loughery's script doesn't balance the humor and drama properly. The running "marsh melons" gag and the turboshaft flight are more irritating than funny.
The film is not without merit, though. Again, Shatner does a fine job directing the film's quieter moments. The scenes where Kirk, Spock, and McCoy discuss family and friends are truly engaging. The supporting cast gets their moments to shine, too. (Call me crazy, but I thought Uhura's desert dance was hilarious.) There's a flirtation between Scotty and Uhura that has a playful zest. Sulu and Chekov get into the thick of the action and have a funny moment where they get lost on a hike. Some of the scenery is really stunning, especially the Yosemite scenes. The acting for the most part is very good, with Laurence Luckinbill's Sybok being the standout. Jerry Goldsmith's music is, as always, gorgeous-nobody scores STAR TREK better. And as flawed as it is, the film is true to the spirit of TREK in that it tries to explore the human condition. It tries to explore the concept of faith and man's desire to believe, and even though it doesn't reach its ambitions, its heart is in the right place. Had Shatner not been so heavily compromised, the film might have met its goals. As it stands, there's a good movie somewhere in V, but it's muffled under a lot of detritus.
Since Shatner wasn't happy with how the film turned out, and since the FX work is so bad, I highly recommend that he re-edit the film and re-do all the FX work for the "director's edition," as Robert Wise did on ST: TMP. It wouldn't make the film perfect, but it would go a long way toward improving it and getting more of the intended impact across. As is, V is the only TREK film that has such extreme highs and lows in it, in spite of its good intentions.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
It took a while, but I finally came around...this IS a good movie
Since its release in 1982, STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN has emerged as perhaps the most controversial film in the STAR TREK series, eclipsing even the much-debated first film. To some vocal fans, KHAN is a total violation of what STAR TREK is about, what with its paramilitary atmosphere, its use of revenge as a plot point, and the horrific violence caused by said revenge. Gene Roddenberry's rejection of the film on those same grounds has only intensified the debate between those who hold the film as a desecration of the mythos and those who regard it as the definitive entry in the saga. Up until a few years ago, I probably would have sided with the naysayers, simply because the violence in the film upset me as a kid. I was 4 when the film came out, and I thought it was the goriest movie ever made. But then I grew up, realized that there've been far bloodier films, and gave KHAN another chance. When I finally saw it again when I was a teenager, I realized that I actually liked the film a lot
and that its violence was actually pretty mild compared to most movies.
As written and directed by Nicholas Meyer (the "screenplay by Jack Sowards" credit is a misnomer), the film goes like this: Jim Kirk is now a desk-bound admiral suffering a mid-life crisis while the Enterprise is now being turned over to a team of cadets. Unfortunately for him, Khan Noonien Singh, a genetically-enhanced maniac he marooned 15 years ago, has hijacked a Federation starship and is about to (a) steal a terraforming project called Genesis that could be used as a weapon and (b) go after Kirk in a suicidal revenge campaign. (The garden planet Kirk marooned Khan on was ravaged by a cosmic disaster that turned it into a barren desert, and Khan's wife and many of his followers were killed as a result of the devastation.) Once the scientists working on the terraforming project-among them Kirk's son and his mother-are threatened by Khan, Kirk takes command of the Enterprise and proceeds to investigate the matter. Much to Kirk's surprise, Khan is waiting for him, and a series of harrowing encounters ensues, resulting in the controversial death of Spock.
The plot is pretty simple, but this works to the film's advantage. Meyer's script (from a story by Sowards and producer Harve Bennett) is tightly constructed, moving at a swift pace and not wasting a moment on useless details. Even though the film deals with such heady matters as old age and death (an unwinnable test scenario called the "Kobeyashi Maru" becomes a motif that brackets the film), it still finds time for gentle verbal humor and wordplay. Unlike the first film, which felt uncertain at times, KHAN is confident and relaxed with the characters. The core cast is much more at ease this time out, and their performances are all the better for it. William Shatner especially is at his best in this film; this talented actor finally drops the hammy shtick that has become the target for mockery (or self-mockery, as is the case with Shatner's recent work) and delivers a subtle, easy performance that hints at what might have been had he not given in to camping it up. Bibi Besch and Merritt Butrick (both of whom have passed on) are engaging as Kirk's estranged family (the death of Kirk's son in the third film is all the more regrettable for this), and Paul Winfield, as the brainwashed captain whose ship is swiped by Khan, is suitably tragic. There's also Kirstie Alley making her debut as Saavik, Spock's protégée. But let's not kid ourselves; this is Ricardo Montalban's movie all the way. Cool yet insane, murderous yet elegantly charming, Montalban makes Khan one of the most intriguing villains in film history. And despite Khan's limited screen time, Montalban makes the character an imposing presence that dominates the film. Aided by James Horner's bombastic pirate movie-esque score and some of ILM's most dynamic FX work ever (barring one stiff matte painting in the Genesis cave), the film generates an energized feel and mood that refuses to let up until the story has run its course.
Which brings me to the accusations made by those who claim this film trashes Roddenberry's vision. "Too paramilitary"? Sorry, Roddenberry had always said that STAR TREK was a high-tech Horatio Hornblower saga, and the original series had military underpinnings. "Violence has no place in TREK"? Then please explain why the original series was saturated in deaths and near-deaths, why everyone in a red tunic got iced in almost every episode, and why every last one of the crew members was constantly getting into brawls. "Revenge is not a theme that fits what TREK is all about"? Excuse me, but I thought STAR TREK was essentially about the human condition, and the nastier, darker aspects of humanity are a part of that condition. To ignore them would be to whitewash humanity and do TREK a disservice. This film is no grimmer than the classic episode "Wolf in the Fold," about Jack the Ripper's soul possessing people in order to carry on his killing spree. Really, KHAN doesn't do anything that wasn't already done on the series. As for Roddenberry's gripes about the film
well, it's been established that he became a control freak whose grip on STAR TREK nearly paralyzed it creatively. His complaints had more to do with Meyer and Bennett being allowed to bring a fresh voice to the series than anything that was actually in the film.
It took a while for me to wake up, but now I can see STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN for what it really is: a well-crafted adventure story and a worthy entry in the STAR TREK mythos.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)
Don't bother with the theatrical cut, the extended versions are better
After a 10-year absence and a wildly successful syndication run, it was inevitable that STAR TREK would make a comeback. And what a rocky comeback it was. Several scripts were pitched for a movie and rejected, a planned TV revival fell apart (although the revival's pilot script was recycled into the final film), the project became a film whose budget was bloated by the costs of all the failed prior attempts (the film itself cost $25 million; the $20 million spent on all the other attempts boosted the budget to $45 million), the FX house hired to do the film ripped the studio off and forced Paramount to hire two other FX outfits to do the film under super-tight conditions, and ego clashes between Gene Roddenberry and screenwriter Harold Livingston resulted in the script being written as it as was filmed. And as a final insult, director Robert Wise was denied the chance to properly edit the film, and critical plot points were cut in order to emphasize the FX. The end result was STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE, an unfinished film that left the cast feeling so betrayed that they almost didn't reunite for the sequel.
I first saw this film when I was three years old, when it ran on ABC in its extended version. This is the version I grew up with, and it's the one that cemented my love for Classic TREK. The great scenes of Spock affirming his friendship for Kirk in the sickbay, Spock crying on the bridge out of the realization that he and V'ger are kindred spirits, the spectacular flyover where we saw the Enterprise in drydock (never before or since in any other incarnation of TREK has the Enterprise looked more gorgeous than it did in the first six movies), the hilarious scene where Sulu makes a fool of himself in front of Ilia, Jerry Goldsmith's magnificent score
all of that stuff enthralled me as a kid. Then I saw the theatrical version, which LACKED all of the good stuff in the ABC broadcast
and man, did it suck. Watching that version made me see why the film was so savaged upon its release. Then along comes Robert Wise, deciding to do a final re-edit of the movie (which he didn't get to do back in 1979) and complete the film as he intended. The end result is an amalgam of the lifeless theatrical version and the character-rich ABC broadcast, complete with new CGI FX sequences that were planned for the original release but weren't completed in time.
So how does the new, "finished" cut stack up? Well, I'm disappointed that the Sulu-Ilia exchange was left out, as was the "sexually immature species" joke that ended the scene, and I really wish Wise had used the Kirk-McCoy argument from the ABC version instead of the theatrical version. (The theatrical version makes Kirk look like a arrogant creep, the ABC version shows him tormented over his feuding with Decker and shamefully agreeing with McCoy's criticism). Thankfully, the cut scenes are included as supplements on the DVD. But overall, Wise's final edit of the film is very good. The subplot of Spock's bond with V'ger is restored to its rightful prominence, the pacing is tighter and sharper (it moves a tad faster than in the other versions), and all but one of the new FX scenes are excellent (the asteroid explosion in the wormhole is greatly improved on, we actually get to see what the V'ger exterior looks like, Vulcan actually looks like Vulcan now, etc.). But the scene where the points of light form a bridge from V'ger to the Enterprise looks like something out of a video game. (Oh, well, you gotta try, right?) The film still has the same old flaws: the acting and direction are both unsteady at times, largely because Gene Roddenberry interfered with Livingston so badly that script revisions were constantly delayed and because the film is largely confined to the bridge crew reacting to what's on the viewscreen. That, and the Starfleet uniforms suck. Not only do they look like skintight pajamas, but there's no color to them at all. In fact, the whole Enterprise is so gray and beige that in the rare moments when you see orange cushions or blue and purple lights, they burst out like beacons. The ship and costumes are too dull and lifeless, especially compared to the colorful uniforms and ship decor of the follow-ups. And while the late Persis Khambatta is serviceable as Ilia, she looks awful without hair. Even the Paramount execs realized it was a stupid idea to shave her head. Would it really have been so hard to let her keep her hair and give her some body markings like the Trills in other TREK incarnations? It certainly would have looked less ridiculous. And the storyboards on the DVD are pathetic; they look like they were drawn by a 5-year old.
But for all that, the director's cut still casts an enchanting spell, because it retains the character-rich feel of the ABC broadcast and avoids the plodding emptiness of the theatrical cut. That said, the film is not for everyone. I fully understand why this film is a love-hate deal. But for those who like the film, the DVD is highly recommended, if for no other reason than for the three documentaries covering the making of the film and Wise's re-edit. The interviews with script doctor Jon Povill, Livingston, Stephen Collins (who played Will Decker), and others are fascinating. William Shatner is especially insightful and thoughtful in his interview for the DVD, which makes for a marked contrast with his silliness on the STAR TREK II DVD. If you disliked the theatrical version of ST: TMP, maybe Wise's re-edit will be more palatable to you. The best way to describe this film is that it deals with the mind of STAR TREK, while the sequels are more about the heart.
Xanadu (1980)
ONJ and Gene Kelly deserved a lot better than this
All right, get this. There's this Greek muse who shows up to inspire an artist whose life is in the doldrums. They end up falling in love and she makes his dreams come true by helping him open up a nightclub. She also has an acquaintance from way back when pitch in. Unfortunately, there's a bit of a culture clash between the lovers, since muses aren't supposed to fall in love, but it all works out in the end.
Admittedly, this is a pretty outlandish premise. Silly, even. But it's certainly a workable idea, and could have made for a great screwball comedy. But instead what we get out of it is XANADU, a really bad script (blame Richard Christian Danus and Marc Reid Rubel for this one, folks) that somehow got Olivia Newton-John and Gene Kelly attached to it. This script is so bad that not even director Robert Greenwald, editor Dennis Virkler, and cinematographer Victor Kemper, guys who've done good work elsewhere, can fix it. In fact, these poor guys are totally hamstrung by the script's lameness. Even Kenny Ortega, the choreographer behind DIRTY DANCING, ends up turning in bad work (ONJ's dance moves near the end are a mess). And Don Bluth's animation is woefully out of place here. What the heck happened?
Now, ONJ, then hot off GREASE, has acting talent. She can do light comedy. We see none of that skill in this film. The playful sexiness this lovely lady had in GREASE is replaced here with being handcuffed to bad plotting (the story goes nowhere, and the characters are as flat as it gets) and even worse dialogue ("Nobody's ever gotten out of here in the whole history of
the whole history!"). Granted, ONJ is a singer first and an actress second, but even Judi Dench would be hard-pressed to make this role work as written. Making this scenario even more of a let-down is the fact that ONJ's costumes are ludicrous and silly. In GREASE, she was (and still is) the embodiment of sex appeal in those black tights and red slides, but she also looked beautiful and appealing in her girl-next-door costumes. In XANADU, she only looks glamorous in this film when she's dressed in the army gear for her number with Gene Kelly, when she's in the chorus line with the other muses, or when she's dressed as the rock diva. Otherwise, she looks totally ridiculous in those goofily-tailored muse dresses (which she wears throughout 90% of the film), that MC Hammer-esque pantsuit, and that horrific FLASH GORDON-type alien gown. And poor Kelly, like ONJ, tries gamely to enliven the proceedings, but not even his charm can overcome such a rotten script. The worst part is, the concept of pairing Kelly and ONJ wasn't a good idea, it was a GREAT idea. And yet here we have two very talented individuals who can't even cut loose and strut their stuff. Simply put, ONJ and Kelly were let down by the film. Again, why? Why would you waste not one, but TWO incredible assets to your film? This only makes XANADU doubly disappointing.
And why did they pick a leading man who can't sing, dance, or act? This film could have been given some much-needed snap had ONJ's love interest been played by John Travolta or someone along those lines. But Michael Beck has all the charisma and screen presence of concrete. Simply put, this guy makes Dean Cain and Freddie Prinze Jr. look like good actors (and if that doesn't scare you, nothing will). Also, Wilfred Hyde-White, as Zeus, sounds like he's half-asleep when he's delivering his lines (maybe he realized how bad this movie was). Speaking of music, almost all of the songs are used as background pieces. Rarely do the characters themselves sing. Doesn't this defeat the purpose of a musical? And also, the musical numbers are far too gaudy and over-the-top; the mixing of time-periods doesn't work. The circus acts that show up during the "Xanadu" number don't belong at all (couldn't they have just kept it simple and stuck to singing and dancing?). It also doesn't help that there are only two good songs in this film, "Suddenly" and "All Over The World." Everything else is either headache-inducing are needlessly sugary (the title track is OK, but bland). And what, may I ask, was up with all the abrupt displays of the muses' powers (instant costume changes, vanishing in bursts of light) where NOBODY ever once questions what just happened? This is a MASSIVE, not mention careless, plot hole. Again, why? Why did the filmmakers drop the ball so badly?
This movie gets two stars only because of Gene Kelly and ONJ. Otherwise, this movie was a waste of their talent and time. And even though it's too late for ONJ and Kelly, it would be great to see Hollywood remake this film as the frantic screwball comedy it should have been. The premise of the film is comedically sound, but the final product is far from it.
Masters of the Universe (1987)
Oh, what might have been....
This was the premise of a classic toy line and the classic cartoon that emerged from it: When the planet Eternia-think a futuristic Camelot-comes under attack by the demon sorcerer Skeletor in an attempt to abscond with the mythical Castle Grayskull and thus conquer the universe, Prince Adam, teenage son of Eternia's King Randor and Queen Marlena, discovers that he has been chosen by destiny to bear Grayskull's power against all who would threaten Eternia's safety. By raising the enchanted Sword of Grayskull aloft and shouting "By the Power of Grayskull," Adam is transformed into the superheroic swashbuckler He-Man, and proceeds to do battle with Skeletor...and to try and prove himself to his demanding father.
From that premise, Filmation created a terrific cartoon that, even though it had its share of '80s cheese, was rich and complex, deftly mixing Arthurian legend with sci-fi. At its essence, MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE was a coming-of-age story set against a high-tech sword and sorcery backdrop. As such, it had the makings of a great movie. Unfortunately, the low-budget Golan-Globus team (which destroyed SUPERMAN IV) got their hands on it, and we the viewers got cheated. The essence of MOTU was trashed; the Adam/He-Man duality and everything it entailed was tossed away. Several critical characters, like Randor, Marlena, Cringer/Battle Cat (Adam's pet tiger), and the like were ignored. And finally, 90% of the character and set designs immortalized by the toys and cartoon were changed as to be unrecognizable. Only Man-At-Arms, Skeletor, and Skeletor's lover/servant Evil-Lyn emerged on film as being visually recognizable as their cartoon counterparts.
So what did we get in return? We got a shameless, low-budget STAR WARS rip-off. Instead of the myriad beasts, demons, and cyborgs that Skeletor employed in the cartoon/toy line, we got three beasts and a bunch of armored stormtroopers. Instead of getting a He-Man who captured the feel of the character, we got a wooden Conan wannabe who relied more on laser guns than on his sword. Instead of a story that spanned Eternia and carried the appropriate sci-fi/fantasy feel of the series, we got a story that took place primarily on Earth, complete with a crabby cop and two ditzy teens. Instead of having a skilled, experienced director at the helm, we got unsteady, pedestrian direction from novice filmmaker Gary Goddard (whose day job was designing amusement parks). Sure, we got some excellent FX work, a great Bill Conti score, and a terrific Castle Grayskull throne room set, but we also got bad costumes, a stupid Grayskull exterior that looks like a pirate ship, a plotless script that's all noise and no depth, substandard fight choreography, and really bad acting. Only Man-At-Arms (Jon Cypher), Skeletor (Frank Langella), and Evil-Lyn (Meg Foster) are well-acted in this film; Langella's theatrical performance in particular is the film's saving grace, and deserved to be in a much better movie. Otherwise everyone else in the cast stinks. Dolph Lundgren is a perfect physical match for He-Man, but the guy can't act and his awkward Swedish accent has been the butt of fan jokes for years. Everyone else is just too vapid, too bland, and just too unsuited for the roles to be any good. This film needed to be a big-budget affair with top-rate actors and a script that followed the cartoon closely, not a STAR WARS wannabe that fails on most levels. THE BEASTMASTER with Marc Singer was far closer to the spirit of MOTU than this film (and Singer's Dar looked and acted far more like He-Man than Lundgren's hero did), and is a vastly superior movie. Pretty sad that the actual MOTU movie didn't even come close to matching that level, isn't it?
To be fair, I initially saw this film when I was 9 and enjoyed it, but over time I realized how weak it really was, and how it could have been so much more. While I don't HATE the film, I don't like it too much, either, and it hasn't aged well. This summer, Mattel will relaunch MOTU with a brand-new cartoon series and toy line that retells the story of Prince Adam/He-Man from the beginning. Hopefully, if Hollywood decides to make another go at a He-Man movie, they'll use the cartoon as the baseline and get it right this time. As it stands, the 1987 film is an OK way to kill a few hours, but as a He-Man film and as a fantasy film, it just doesn't cut it.
Superman III (1983)
Forget kryptonite, you can kill Superman with a bad movie!
Not long ago, I wrote my ideas as to what SUPERMANs III and IV should have been for Superman Cinema's fan-fic section. My version of SUPERMAN III picked up where the last film left off, with the relationship between Lois and Clark/Superman dead and gone. In it, Lana Lang returns to rekindle her relationship with Clark while a pair of insane government scientists mass-produce Bizarros for use as a disposable army. Spurned on the basis that such an army would violate human rights, the scientists use the Bizarros to wreak havoc upon Washington and end up in direct conflict with Superman.
Why am I telling you this? Because what I came up with was way better than the actual SUPERMAN III. It's no secret that the Salkinds originally intended the SUPERMAN films to be camp comedies, a plan that Richard Donner and Tom Mankiewicz undid when they made SUPERMAN as a dramatic film. Even though both men had been fired from SUPERMAN II after filming 80% of the picture and replaced by Richard Lester and the Newmans (who rewrote and reshot much of the final film, and are the "masterminds" behind III), enough of Donner and Mankiewicz's influence was stamped into the film to keep it from being totally screwed up. With SUPERMAN III, Donner and Mankiewicz's influence is completely absent, and we finally see what the Salkinds intended the SUPERMAN series to be all along. And what we get is a campy, dumb, and unfunny insult to the mythos. Not even the superb FX work, a good rescue scene at a chemical plant, and Robert Paynter's comic book-panel photography can make this film feel like genuine Superman.
It's not the idea of having Richard Pryor in a Superman film that makes this film bad, or using Lana Lang. It's not even the idea of using new villains. What makes this film bad is the sheer carelessness and idiocy of it all. For a film that revolves around computers as a menace, the villain should have been Brainiac, the genocidal AI of the comic books. Instead we get Robert Vaughn and Annie Ross as greedy tycoons who sucker a computer wiz into helping them corner the commodities market. Not very exciting. Instead of giving Pryor a meaty, serious role that would have tested him as an actor and have fit into the tone of the Superman mythos, we get Pryor as Gus Gorman doing standard Pryor shtick and not being funny at all. Instead of Lana Lang having some zest and excitement to her, we get a very bland and dull character played by a very boring Annette O'Toole. It also doesn't help that Pamela Stephenson's Lorelai character is beyond annoying, that Lois Lane barely appears in this movie at all (the Salkinds were punishing Margot Kidder for openly sticking up for Donner), that none of the plot threads are remotely satisfying, that Superman is now a bit player in his own movie, that Ken Thorne's abysmal and boring score continues to reduce John Williams' powerful fanfares to shrill and campy disgraces, that Richard Lester's disdain for Superman shows in his indifferent direction, and that the acting is all-around awful. Even when Superman ISN'T evil (and the "Superman goes evil and fights himself" scene is the lowest point in the film), Christopher Reeve comes off as smarmy and insincere (probably because he realizes the film sucks). And let's not forget the horrible slapstick gags, which are totally out of place here. And why does Metropolis have such a strongly British feel to it in the opening sequence? Shouldn't it be more American? Shades of SUPERMAN II's Idaho residents with British accents....
I can't say that this is as low as the SUPERMAN films can sink; the upcoming Jon Peters-produced SUPERMAN movie promises to be even worse. But of the Christopher Reeve cycle, this is by far the worst of the four. To those who assert that this film is truer to the comic books than the first two, I beg to differ. The first two films are kin to the best Superman comic stories. III is kin to the absolute worst.
Superman (1978)
A genuine classic that still hasn't gotten its due
Richard Donner's 1978 film SUPERMAN has to be one of the most misunderstood films of all time. In an age where it's "hip" to deconstruct superhero characters and make them grim-n-gritty and/or vapid teen idols, the movie can't help but come off as a valentine to a bygone era. And with the advent of SMALLVILLE and a proposed new Superman movie (in which producer Jon Peters and his crew have been trying for the past 10 years to radically alter everything about the character except the name), even Superman fans have taken to bashing Donner's film, sneering at it as being "campy," too reverential of the source material, and too "dated."
And yet
nothing could be further from the truth. Far from being "dated," SUPERMAN is just as fresh and timely today as it was 24 years ago, and the spectacular digital restoration (including a new sound FX track-the original had deteriorated) makes the movie look just as fresh and new as the latest box-office hits. Even more impressive is how the special effects have held up; except for three brief front-projection shots, you can still believe a man can fly. I can only imagine that the "dated" claims have to do with the film being 24 years old and having been made before CGI and choppy MTV-style editing came into use, because there's nothing else about the film that dates it to the 1970s. (Do yourselves a favor and watch the 3 documentaries on the DVD. They give incredible insight into how much work was put into the film.)
And then there's the script, by Tom Mankiewicz (credited to Mario Puzo, David and Leslie Newman, and Robert Benton). When producers Alexander and Ilya Salkind first developed the project, they intended it to be a camp comedy. When Donner and Mankiewicz came aboard, the film was altered into a serious piece, and the end result is magical. We're given an epic depiction of the origin of Superman, beginning with the Krypton holocaust, going thru his childhood in Smallville, and finally ending up in Metropolis where the adult Superman faces his first trial-by-fire in his encounter with Lex Luthor. The story has plenty of humor in it, but it's still played straight, and runs the entire gamut of emotions. The oft-criticized ending, in which Lois dies in an earthquake and a grieving Superman defies his oath to not interfere with human history by flying back in time to save her, is the defining character moment for Superman. In defying the orders of his father and following his heart, Superman rejects his alien heritage and embraces his humanity. It's a great moment, but yet it's one that too many people are quick to bash because "he can save anybody that way." They don't see what it really means as a character bit. Making the story even stronger is Donner's taut, reverent direction, as well as some truly great acting. Christopher Reeve IS Clark Kent/Superman, body and soul (his own size mirrors the physical stats of the comic book character). Playing the role with heart and conviction, Reeve literally becomes the character made flesh. Marlon Brando, in his small role as Jor-El, is also excellent, bringing a commanding dignity to film. Gene Hackman's sociopathic Luthor, a guy who merrily jokes and brags about himself while planning an act of genocide simply to make big real estate money, is both funny and chilling. Add to this knockout trio fine performances by an international cast of superstars, and the film comes alive. Also of note is the powerful score by John Williams. Those condemn this score as being "too heroic" need to have their hearing checked. Williams delivers more than just heroism; he captures the eerie ambiance of Krypton, the rural warmth of Smallville, and the romanticism and tragedy of Superman and Lois' relationship beautifully. And to cap it all off, he gives Superman one of the most unforgettable fanfares in film history. Further strengthening the film is Stuart Baird's brisk, punchy editing; John Barry's lavish production designs (including the memorable crystalline Krypton); Yvonne Blake's clever costuming (the glowing Krypton costumes, and a flawless rendering of Superman's classic suit); and Geoffrey Unsworth's misty, ethereal cinematography, which enhances the fairy tale aspects of the character. Every step of the way, the film successfully brings Superman and his world to life.
That said, SUPERMAN has its flaws. Ned Beatty's Otis character is mostly a non-entity; he doesn't really add anything to the proceedings. And Margot Kidder is badly miscast as Lois; not only is she far too tomboyish to play what in the comics is a glamorous character, but she comes off more like Reeve's vapid sister than she does a feisty love interest. Their scenes only work because Reeve makes us buy into the movie. Watching the screen test for Anne Archer-a much better and much better-looking actress, I can't help wondering why she wasn't cast as Lois instead. She would have been perfect opposite Reeve. (But to be fair to Kidder, she was way better than most of the other actresses tested-Stockard Channing in particular was awful.) And there's a really careless glitch when Superman saves Air Force One; the film is reversed when he grabs the plane, so his emblem and spit-curl are both backwards. But in the end, those flaws aren't enough to weaken SUPERMAN's impact. It was and still is not only the best comic book movie ever, but it's also one of the finest films ever made, period. Those who bash the classic version of Superman and this film while supporting the planned Jon Peters version should definitely reconsider their stance. This is not an inept drek-fest like BATTLEFIELD EARTH, nor is it a heartless, soulless mess like the Peters film promises to be. This is a beautiful, heartfelt piece of Americana, crafted with love and respect. SUPERMAN deserves to be seen as the classic it is, not to be disrespected and forgotten.
Battlefield Earth (2000)
There isn't enough space to list this film's flaws
To begin with, Battlefield Earth is not the worst film ever made. Tim Burton consistently makes worse films than this. But it remains a pretty sorry excuse for two hours and almost $80 million bucks. Even my parents, huge John Travolta fans, said that Travolta should have been slapped for making this film. That alone should tell you something about this film's lack of quality.
The funny thing is, the premise of the film is actually not that bad. Earth is conquered by aliens, and the human slaves rise up in a revolt. Sounds like a worthy base concept for a film, but the details of the movie ruin it. Like naming your alien invaders "Psychlos" from the planet "Psychlo," for instance. Or naming your hero "Johnny Goodboy Tyler." Or making your alien invaders such nitwits that they actually take rebellious humans and pump their brains full of knowledge to make them smarter. Or having Harrier jets working perfectly fine after 1000 years and having cavemen easily pilot them after a few days on a simulator when experienced pilots can't even do it after years of training. Or having one nuke take out an entire planet because its atmosphere can't handle any kind of radiation (are we to believe that Psychlo has no ozone layer?). Or any of the other many, many flaws, inconsistencies, plot holes, logical lapses, and idiocies that pass for the movie's story. Seriously, just what were writers Corey Mandell and JD Shapiro (working from the L. Ron Hubbard novel) thinking, if they were thinking at all? From start to finish, the script is so ridiculous and whacked-out that there's no way you can buy into it. And when the cavemen start chanting "Piece of cake! Piece of cake! Ugh ugh ugh ugh!", the only response you can have is to laugh yourself silly.
Making matters worse is Roger Christian's inept direction, which includes an addiction to tilted camera angles. Granted, angled shots can work when used properly (The Bride of Frankenstein and Batman, for example), but 90% of this film is canted for no reason (and at least half of it is done in slo-mo). Our first glimpse of Johnny Goodboy Tyler is when we see him striding down the plains on horseback like the Lone Ranger
and the camera tilts from one side to the other every time the shot changes, and it looks so ridiculous that you just start laughing. And the slo-mo shots of the cavemen being hosed down by the aliens look like bloated Super Soaker ads
and again, you have to laugh. Oh, and let's not forget the scene where they rip off The Matrix's lobby shootout, another laugh riot. And what's more, they don't even use sound FX in some of the shots, which makes it even nuttier. For someone who apprenticed under George Lucas, Christian didn't learn anything about making a good movie. And then there's the problem of the visuals. Why do the Psychlo ships look like flying shoeboxes? Why do the Psychlos all have George Clinton hairdos with Village People Leather Guy outfits, Joel Schumacher codpieces, and rubber werewolf hands? And why do the FX look so cheap (when Travolta's arm is blown off, it looks like exploding styrofoam)? Visually, this movie is so pathetic that again, it only induces laughter (and the less said about Kelly Preston's The Mask-style uber-tongue, the better). As for Elia Cmiral's score
argh. A tinny, high school-sounding orchestra mixed with synth-rock does not a good blend make.
Then there's the acting. I really liked Barry Pepper and Kim Coates a lot. Pepper's an intense actor in the Ron Eldard mold, and Coates has an amiable goofiness about him. Both men deserve better than this. But Travolta, otherwise a stellar actor, was just plain awful. He overdid the hamminess, his faux-British accent was annoying, and his flowy hand gestures made him look like a bad gay stereotype
which had me laughing again. (While we're on the subject, what was with his Snidely Whiplash laugh?) And Forrest Whitaker's Fat Albert voice as Travolta's dippy sidekick was howl-inducing. In fact, all of the Psychlos and the other cavemen were ridiculous. They were either laughable or just plain stupid. With no story, no characters to care about, and no decent visuals to hook us, what are we supposed to latch onto?
I can't help but laugh when I hear people say that this movie's too deep, too intelligent, too moral, and too truly sci-fi for the unwashed masses to appreciate it, hence its failure. Just who are they kidding? Battlefield Earth is little more than MST3K fodder at best, a screamingly funny piece of ineptitude. And if Travolta is serious about pushing ahead with the planned sequels
please, don't. Once was bad enough.