Nola6015 Reviews

Star Trek (2009)

A good Sci-Fi movie; but somewhat troubling to a true Trekker

[5/10 · 5 December 2009]

I gave this movie half of a perfect score because in the ranking I chose to rate it 50% for its quality as a good science fiction motion picture, (and it was every bit of that) and 50% for its fidelity to Star Trek--and I'm sorry to say that on this end, it came up with zero. I'm sure this won't be popular to those who champion the new set-up and inevitable "change"; but I really don't care as this is about my view of a movie that alleges to be about the "early days" of Jim Kirk, and his colleagues, and their start into Starfleet history. That said, we who "lived" the "five year mission", and loved every bit of it, and the following movies--will have a hard time reconciling much of what is presented here, with our deeply etched convictions of what is, was, and must be!

Let's look at the two major areas with which I have issues hence the zero in the last five stars, for its failure to be "true" to Star Trek: 1.) Inconsistency with original series. I didn't like the tangentially suggested/implied romantic aura existing between Spock and Uhura--for inconsistency reasons ALONE. The Nichelle Nichols character never remotely displayed any interest whatsoever in Spock--it seemed she did like Sulu a bit, and certainly Kirk. On the other hand, her hostility toward Kirk is uncomfortably palpable. The Nichols character is a thoroughly likable, gentle, and professional individual. This Uhura seems to have a major chip on her shoulder. And yet, the only individual who, from the get-go definitely had a MAJOR crush on Spock was nurse Chapel—who was conspicuous by her absence. Then there was Chekov, who didn't even appear till season two, and there he is already in action--even under Pike's command. Spock's "emotions" are far to manifest in this movie from his "illogical" fisticuffs with the other boys, to his irrational hostility toward Kirk, and even with others--I found him a very unlikeable character. As to James Tiberius... Kirk's first deep space mission was NOT on the Enterprise under Christopher Pike, who, for whatever it's worth only served with Spock under him, never Kirk. However as a young officer, Kirk's first deep space mission WAS working under a Captain Garavic, on the USS Farragut. (See "Obsession" TOS) It would seem they have re-written the entire history of what transpired before Kirk ever came in contact with either Spock, or the Enterprise.

I concede this poses no problem for youngsters who never became avid Trekkies; but for those of us who bought up the novels (I have over 90) and have owned the series (TOS) since its first release in VHS-- well, these inconsistencies are as irksome as fingernails on a chalkboard! Yes, I realize time was altered with Nero's interposition on the scene; but this nevertheless makes the claim of this representing the "early years" somewhat meaningless. Chronologically it had several faux-pas as well, since the first episode with Kirk in charge of the enterprise (Where No Man Has Gone Before) had a stardate of 1300-something or other, and these are already in the 2200's.

2.) I did NOT like the destruction of Vulcan… I thought the irreversibility of this event, and the subsequent "fate" of Amanda were irreconcilable with what we know transpires in later episodes of Star Trek, including the motion picture series—this kind of thing would have had a HUGE impact in irreversibly changing just about everything in the remainder of the Enterprise's missions. I guess there never would have been an "Immunity Syndrome" as there certainly would not have been a Vulcan crew; and as to "Amok Time" (a Hugo Award winner), -- forget it, no T'Pring, no T'pau,-- no Vulcan at all-- Spock would truly be in deep trouble. For heaven's sake they talk so much about things like the Prime Directive, and their devotion to NOT changing history--and yet this production utterly shatters TOS history. So much of what happened in TOS is rendered impossible with these events, that, as a bona-fide devotee of the Trekkie generation, I found it terribly unsettling--this could have/should have been a totally different sci-fi movie; but as presented, NOT "Star Trek". Otherwise, (as was the case in ST III The Search For Spock, they should have found a way through time, just as Nero did, or left some wiggle room to, perhaps in a sequel if necessary, reinstate the status quo—positively this was the biggest negative in the movie in my opinion.

As I'd already stated, it's not a bad sci-fi movie, it's a GOOD one. But as for being true to what became TOS, if fails miserably, hence I can give it none of the remaining stars as I grade it a total flop in that arena. The writers should have studied a bit more on important details of the past, and built their plot more around actual people and events already KNOWN from TOS--they could've done a bang up job with that; but as is the case in all too many hitchhike movies, they seem to think they can improve on the background and make a better story, completely disregarding what the "faithful" know.

They didn't! If you're not a Trekkie, well versed in the wonderful history therein contained--you'll enjoy a good sci-fi flick. If you're a die-hard devotee of ST TOS, and catch every inconsistency--you'll want to pull your hair out. I know I did! Nola6015

A Christmas Carol (1999 TV Movie)

By FAR the most Faithful to the overall Dickens' tale!

[9/10 · 13 December 2008]

I tend to assume that most who view any version of this tale, have read the original at least once, hence it is my wont to write it in what is dubbed, "spoiler" mode; albeit I hardly find it much of a "spoil" in describing a story which is fairly universally known. To cite a perhaps overused phrase: the Devil is in the details! That said, of all the uncounted dozens, nay hundreds of adaptations of "A Christmas Carol" put to film, I have found this adaptation to be far and away the most faithful to Dickens.

And yet, it does have its shortcomings:

1.) It overcompensates for the perceived ignorant masses in changing dialog to a more modern vocabulary--a thing many may appreciate, but being a purist I find somewhat irksome. Examples include changing "situation" to "job"… "Walk-ER" to "You're Joshing!", "Half a crown" to "two shillings," and "Blind Man's Buff," to "Bluff" among several others. Okay, okay... you might think these picky in the extreme; and so be it. I want a story related as told by the author; I expect it to be as written. If they truly want to put it in a modern lexicon, why not simply accept any of the modern adaptations that have done just that... like "Scrooged" with Bill Murray? --and have done with it!

2.) By far the most egregious shortcoming in your humble writer's opinion is the silly need to change the name of Fan, to Fran. Say what? Why alter a perfectly legitimate name, and the one the author of the story designated for Scrooge's beloved sister? They also depict Scrooge's niece's sister, (the "plump" one) whom Topper pursues, as anything but "plump"... she looks downright anorexic.

3.) I do wish they'd have given us a short scene from the past: where Scrooge can lament what he lost in Belle's love, as she is depicted in the story with all her happy children and the husband Scrooge might have been!

4.) The movie begins with Marley's funeral, an oversight I can forgive as it nevertheless allows for a reference to his being "dead as a doornail" and delightfully from the text a reference to the "deadest piece of ironmongery"...the scene is brief, quickly shifting to the opening scene of the storyline.

5.) Those beads of light for eyes in the spirit of Christmas Yet to Come really need to go. They might add a more creepy phantom; but detract from the mystery as related in the novel by lines suggesting all Scrooge could detect behind that hood was a darkness in which he could "sense" those eyes!

So Why a 9/10 with all these "shortcomings"? Quite simply because they are trivial, in light of all of the positives:

1.) Most of the dialog is recognizably straight from the text .

2.) Unlike many versions that have this irrepressible compulsion to impose at least one female spirit, this one remains true in that both past and present are decidedly male, which makes sense since even in the ridiculous versions changing the past to a female, the very next "spirit" refers to all of his predecessors as his 1800 plus "brothers"... nary a sister in the lot. Additionally Joel Grey truly does resemble the diminutive spirit who looks both old, and young --the only thing missing was all the morphing which no version I know of depicts.

3.) Its faithful presentation of the spirits continues as we see the spirit of Christmas Present age as his time draws to a close, another thing so far as I know, found in no other version. His remonstrance of Scrooge's "wicked cant" is line-for-line from the story.

4.) We get to laugh at Topper's thinly veiled (pun intended) pursuit of the not-so-plump sister playing at blind man's buff, and while Fred's house could hardly be described as looking "poor enough", the scenes of fun follow the story well.

5.) Even though we do not get to see the horse-drawn hearse ascending the stairway, we do note the fireplace is exactly as described in the book, with the biblical scenes, and in many of them the face of Marley (from that door-knocker) returns to haunt Scrooge. Pity he had to refer to an underdone "turnip" when the text clearly states potato, but how satisfying it was to note that, exactly as in the book, Marley's jaw drops literally to his breast upon unwrapping, and how it "snaps shut" upon its being re-wrapped. The spirits outside, also, true to those described in the book, as bemoaning their inability to intercede, and fettered to items such as safes, and money-boxes.

6.) Fan is actually a little girl, and not a practically grown woman, and very much rekindles the mind's-eye view of this little angel's excitement when she tells an actual boy (not a grown man) that "father is so much nicer now"... again, fidelity is the driving positive force.

7.) The scenes of Scrooge's transformation include his actually going "to church"...something from the book which I failed to note in every other cinematic effort. He sings, he plots and schemes to ambuscade Cratchit the next day, and the closing narration is literally from the final paragraph in the original text.

While some concessions must be made, the scenes, and depictions of this version, impel me to give it the highest rating of any version I have seen. One can truthfully revisit their mind's creations upon having read the story! Perhaps Scott is a better Scrooge, (But Stewart is good!) and the nephew from either the 1951 or the 1938 version better representatives of those characters, the sum total of this version, make it far and away the very best a Dickens purist can hope to possess, given the current choices. At least in this Dickens fan's humble opinion.

A Christmas Carol (1951)

A Great Movie, but NOT the truest to the novel by ANY stretch!

[7/10 · 10 December 2008]

I positively love the Alastair Sims version of A Christmas Carol... simply titled "Scrooge" upon its 1951-2 release. It's the first I recall seeing, and it began my devotion to reading just about everything Dickens has put to pen.

Now that said, I have noticed countless people who comment that this is the "truest" to the novel, and I'm sorry; but having read this particular novella at LEAST a couple of hundred times... (several times every Christmas), I can assure you that it in no WAY is the truest to the actual novel. But this in no way detracts from its own value as a moving experience in watching the transformation of the quintessential Scrooge in the person of Alastair Sims.

Where it deviates GREATLY with the book: 1.) There is no Belle, we have the girl of his love changed into an "Alice"... why this name change defies any logic I can fathom. 2.) Unlike the Belle whom we see happily married with children, giving Scrooge a glimpse of what he'd lost, (still with the Ghost of Christmas Past)... we later have her shown as a poor spinster working as some nurse or volunteer in an almshouse, poorhouse, or some such institution (and that by the Ghost of Christmas PRESENT)--completely not in the book, and, I think, an unnecessary deviation from a much better scenario presented by the book's original author. 3.) The first scene of young Scrooge left "back at school" has him practically a man, not the little boy reveling in the stories of Ali Baba, and Robinson Crusoe, and the Parrot! Fan, is practically a woman, not the excited tiny girl who had to reach up just to put her arms around her brother's neck. Again, these do not prevent it from being a good movie; but are a disappointment to a purist like myself who would truly like the movies to be more faithful to the book. I am stunned by the number of people who often think this to be one of the most faithful, when, if anything, it deviates from the actual text, if anything, MORE than most.

The manner in which Scrooge and his later partner, Marley, join forces at another business (not anywhere in the book)... the manner in which they procure Fezziwig's own business, and put him OUT of business, (not anywhere in the book), the continuing sequence of scenes of his hard business dealings (nowhere in the book)... His bedside scene where Fan dies and she makes him promise to look after her son... (nope not in the book)... the bedside scene of Marley's death... also not in the book. create a mountain of little infidelities which, while unfaithful to the actual text, DO manage to create a nice Christmas story--just, at least as I see it...NOT the one Dickens created.

The scenes created in the presence of the Ghost of Christmas Present (with the exception of the "Alice" scene), are among the few that do remain somewhat more faithful to the written story, although much is left out as well. The episode with the Ghost of Christmas future is practically inverted, with the first scene at the Cratchits, (which is practically the last in the book)... but this minor item can be overlooked as much of the dialogue at the 'Change, is faithful to the text and the BEST scene, in my humble opinion, is that of the Undertaker, the charwoman, and Mrs. Dilber in their dealings with Old Joe, which I find delightfully close to the text.

Of course we all know how it ends, the great transformation. This is handled very well, and close enough to the book to satisfy even persnickety folks like me, especially since the lad shouts "Walk-ER" instead of some of the inane substitutions made by those newer versions which feel this compulsive need to translate things into a more common language for the viewer. And with all that said, I give it seven stars... actually it merits an 8 1/2 as a thoroughly enjoyable and inspirational Christmas story... but I penalize it for its vast variance from the actual text, and in my opinion overuse of poetic license, and therefore, round it back down to seven; but here... don't let this Dickens purist and curmudgeon detract you in the least. It IS, after all is said and done... a very good motion picture! And that's MY take on it!

Ciske the Rat (1984)

A GREAT movie but I sure wish it had an English version

[9/10 · 12 July 2008]

Ciske is expelled from his school after pouring ink over his teacher's head (looks like he was punished in a corner when he did it--not enough to know what the motivation was)... he returns to a tavern where his mother works, and he helps. What an awful existence for a child his age. He worshiped his father, who, as a seaman is often away, and his mother clearly has very little use for him. His mistreatment continues by his mom (who is constantly entertaining male guests much to Ciske's (short for Franciskus) chagrin. Her "boyfriends" join in the mistreatment of the lad, including beating him. His dad on a rare visit tells Ciske he is leaving his mother and introduces him to his new girlfriend/fiancée, who takes to him immediately--she becomes his one ray of light in a very bleak world.

At his new school he befriends a lad (Dorus) stricken with polio, and is relentlessly harassed by the other boys. One can't help but like this feisty kid, who clearly has a good heart. Dorus eventually dies, but leaves Ciske his favorite book (I think Gulliver's travels), and the boy in tears brings it home and gingerly wishes to make a book cover for it. While thus engaged, his mother (for lack of a better word) snatches the book, and begins to tear pages out of it throwing them on the floor. In a rage the boy blindly grabs a knife and swipes at her, striking her in the neck, where she apparently bleeds to death. He is sent to a juvenile prison and is once again fending for himself in a rough world.

Enough of the spoiler stuff, the child eventually reunites with his much beloved father, and reunites HIM with his estranged fiancée (he divorced Ciske's mom--big surprise!)... He performs an act of great heroism, courage and selflessness after being mistreated, becomes a hero, and we have a happy ending to a truly moving story. If one can get the words to the theme Danny de Munk (Ciske) sings: "Ik Voel Me Zo Verdomd Alleen".. (I just feel so damned alone)... the song truly says it all in as touching a manner as the movie relates his story. I would recommend this to anyone; but would highly recommend some familiarity with this plot, or at the very least a captioned one in their native language.