davidadowns Reviews

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

Not for everybody

[5/10 · 18 July 2012]

Having not seem the director's cit of this movie, I'm basing my review on seeing the original theatrical release. Star Trek: TMP was one of the many movies of the time trying to cash in on the sci-fi craze that began after Star Wars, but unlike those other films, it also had to live up to the TV series' cult favorite status. In some ways, it does a good job. However, in others, you wonder if the people behind the movie knew what made the series so popular.

The basic plot is that (big shock) an alien object is destroying everything in its path towards Earth, and the Enterprise is the only ship that can stop it (isn't it always funny that every other ship is gone when real danger looms?). Kirk maneuvers his way back into command over an outraged Captain Decker, and after some early jitters, they reach the object. It's actually a lost old-Earth satellite, and it wants to meet its "creator". Eventually, Decker sacrifices himself for his love of Ilia, who is taken control of by the probe, and saves Earth and the Ship.

Let's start with some positives. First, the set design was great; some of the scenes were so good, they were reused in the first sequel. Star Trek always seemed to look and feel low budget, but they certainly didn't hold back here. I liked the tension between the Kirk and Decker characters; you can tell Decker resents Kirk for taking what he thinks should be his, and moments like the wormhole scene display this perfectly. And seeing the entire cast from the show feels like putting on a pair of old shoes; it's very comfortable and satisfying.

Now, for the negatives. First, the costume design. It's hard to think that the TV show had better looks, but those uniforms were dreadful (thank goodness that changed starting in #2). The dialogue also could've been better; I know it was about ten years after the series ended, but you'd think the chemistry would be better. Not to mention the Ilia/Decker romance seems about as warm as being at the top of Mount Everest (though the Ilia character was written poorly in my opinion).

However, the biggest problem is in its pacing...or SEVERE lack thereof. Some scenes drag on with nothing but shots into the abyss and blank stares from the cast. In this way, the director Robert Wise was mimicking 2001: A Space Odyssey than Star Wars, but for a show as character-driven as Star Trek, lengthy periods of awkward silence is mind-numbing and will test your patience. No amount of spectacular visuals can sustain interest for long periods of time (I heard it's better in the director's cut, but again, I haven't seen it).

Overall, ST: TMP is a decent first attempt at putting the series on the screen, and die-hard Trek fans will probably enjoy it. If you're a casual viewer, however, watch #2 or #4 for a more action-packed, faster paced fare.

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)

Could be better

[4/10 · 10 January 2012]

I remember watching this way back when it first came out. I was five, and just starting to get interested in science fiction. When it was over, I wasn't impressed, but it wasn't bad. Now that I look back...it's still about the same. It's certainly on the low end of the series, but it has parts of it I enjoy.

The easiest thing to do with a dud is blame the director, and William Shatner does deserve at least some blame, if not much of it. Shatner didn't have his focus on the script (he was away during part of the shoot, during which time producers and even co-stars Leonard Nimoy and DeForest Kelley helped rewrite the script), and it shows throughout the film. And his idea for the key plot element (the Enterprise being used to find God) was even loathed by Gene Roddenberry! So this project seemed doomed from the start.

Another element to consider are the effects. More than any genre, sci-fi films need great special effects to make audiences suspend their disbelief. The effects of ST5...fail to do that. The Enterprise of this film looks like a step back from the original films, the torpedoes don't look real, and even the opening "fall" scene doesn't look right. In short, it proves that ILM (which was removed from the project early on) is head and shoulders above the rest.

Now, about the plot. Let's delve deeper into each plot point:

-The Enterprise, despite barely working and with a skeleton crew, is sent to the planet Nimbus III when a renegade Vulcan named Sybok kidnaps three ambassadors. Why would the Federation send a ship clearly not ready to fly into such a dangerous position? Simply because they want Jim Kirk on the case? Where do they send these other ships?

-Before that, Kirk and crew relax at Yosemite National Park. It leads to Kirk, Spock, and McCoy attempting to sing...Row Row Row Your Boat. What, Mary Had a Little Lamb was too complex!? Just a silly pick for a song.

-Once the mission get under way, Spock reveals the renegade Vulcan is his half-brother. This is admittedly nit-picky, but why now? Why not during the TV series? This is simply a matter of degree, so I won't dock them too hard for this.

-We get a subplot of a Klingon who wants to become famous by defeating Kirk in battle. This is just a poor attempt to cover that there's no true villain in this picture, and is really unnecessary.

-We find out, after crossing the Great Barrier, that it's really an evil "God" who simply wants to use the Enterprise for his own purposes. A bit of a letdown, but it does lead to my favorite line (uttered by Shatner) "What does God need with a starship?".

-The payoff of a threesome of Row Row Row Your Boat? Wow, glad you could end on a high note!

The film does try to follow ST4's lead in injecting more humor into the series. But while 4 was able to make it work by not getting too slap sticky, 5 has moments (such as the Row Boat singing, Sulu and Chekov getting lost in Yosemite, and Scotty knocking himself out by running into a beam) that make you groan rather than laugh. It's almost like they thought it was a parody of a Star Trek movie!

The best parts are the tender moments that are sprinkled in. When Kirk, Spock, and McCoy bear their true feelings (such as when Spock reveals Sybok's past, or when McCoy talks about his true feelings after the Row Boat singing), it shows why the series is so popular. The all-for-1 and 1-for-all feelings are truly nice to see.

Overall, though, ST5 is, at best, a lightweight in the series. Those who want a basic Trek that doesn't have too much to think about, or those who want an easy intro to the original cast, should check it out. Otherwise, this is for serious Trekkers only.

Superman III (1983)

Should have focused less on humor

[4/10 · 24 April 2011]

The great debate amongst Superman film fans is whether this film or #4 is the worst of the series. I gave Superman 4 a 4 out of ten rating, and this one also gets a 4 out of ten. So, neither ones wins! Unlike my last review, I'll split this into pros and cons to make this speedier.

Pros: Christopher Reeve is great in his trio of roles (good Superman, Clark Kent, and evil Superman). You really believe him in all three, and the battle in the junkyard is one of the best scenes (if not the best) in the entire series. His romance with Lana Lang (Annette O'Toole) is done solidly, and his efforts help overcome some of the flaws. The effects are also good (though not quite up to 1 & 2's level), the music is improved from #2, and some of the humor works.

Cons: The main problem is that there's too much humor. Admittedly, that is director Richard Lester's forte, but there is such a thing as overkill. The much-lampooned opening sequence demonstrates this; instead of an epic space opening, we see the citizens of Metropolis bumble through one slapstick scene after another. From mimes to pies in the face to blind people running crazy to penguins on fire to a person drowning in their own car, you'd think this was the opening scene of Saturday Night Live instead of Superman!

Another problem is the insertion of Richard Pryor into the film. By this point, Pryor's movie career was in a bit of a rut, and here the director tries too hard to make the film focus on him instead of Reeve. Pryor's character, Gus Gorman, is meek and a push-over, definitely not a character you'd expect Pryor to play. And some of his scenes (such as when he skis down a skyscraper) fail to produce laughs. So he's wasted somewhat in his role.

The plot (where the antagonist Ross Webster, played by Robert Vaughn, tries to gain economic power by using Gorman's skill with computers) is hard to take seriously. How can you expect Gorman to be a computer whiz when he can't even land steady work prior to this? And the creation of synthetic Kryptonite by placing tar as the unknown ingredient? Genius! In seriousness, the plot would have been better had they created Brainiac (which was considered, but not done).

The climatic ending looks like it was ripped directly from a low-budget 50s horror movie, complete with one of the worst movie robots of all time. It looks like the love child of C-3PO and Sharon Osborne! While it is somewhat scary (if you're a kid), adults won't find it anything but laughable.

So, if you want to watch a Superman film that has a few good scenes but is plagued by abuse of humor, then 3 is your picture. If you want a film that has the right combination of pathos and humor, then get Superman 1. If only they had that junkyard scene in it...

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)

Decent premise, but budget shows

[4/10 · 23 April 2011]

I have seen recently a lot of arguments about Superman 4, mainly from people who argue that the film's message of nuclear disarmament should trump any problems with effects and story development. No movie, however noble it tries to be, is above criticism if it fails to capture the viewer. And Superman 4's problems completely overshadow any of its noble stances.

Let's start with the most obvious flaw, the special (used loosely) effects. Anyone (like those I mention above) who say effects are unimportant to the movie's message need more bran in their diets. Great effects are most important in films such as these to create the illusion that the man we see on screen is really doing what he's doing. The first two Superman films did this, and are classics. Superman 4 fails at even the most basic effects. The flying scenes are the worst; you can see the wires in several shots, and the one particular shot of Superman (and Nuclear Man) coming straight at the camera is seen over and over again. In addition, the effects for space (black curtains) are visible, and there are many examples of bad green screening (the scene where Clark and Lois fall from his balcony being the most blatant).

The story is also choppy in its execution. The basic premise is that Superman (Chris Reeve) is trying to destroy all nuclear weapons to protect Earth, but Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) creates Nuclear Man (Mark Pillow) to destroy him. On paper, it's a good start. However, the story is littered with subplots that do little to nothing to advance the story (a direct result of editing 45 minutes out of what was released to theaters). Where did Lenny Luthor (Jon Cryer) come from? Why does Lacy Warfield (played uninspiredly by Mariel Hemingway) have the hots for Clark? How does the computer in the missile with the DNA for Nuclear Man know how to create him AND a costume from simple black material? None of these are explained, and it leaves you confused as to why these characters are important.

The actors try their best with the material they have; Reeve turns in as good a performance as you could expect (though he isn't as svelte as he was previously, a minor quibble) as Hackman is good. As I stated, though, Hemingway is a bore as Lacy, and Nuclear Man will forever be identified with the 80s (not to mention Pillow never gets to actually be heard, since Hackman's voice is dubbed over his). That said, if the material was better, the performances would've stood out more.

Then there are scenes which leave you simply scratching your head. How does Clark find another green crystal in the spaceship on his farm (didn't he take it out in Superman 1)? Another one is the scene where Superman repairs the Great Wall of China with...Super Repair Vision? I've never heard of him using that in the comics! Of course, the ultimate silly scene is near the end of the movie, when Nuclear Man takes Lacy into space...and she can breathe normally!!! Isn't that physically impossible??? Not to mention it's immediately followed by Superman moving the moon out of orbit to block the sun and take Nuclear Man's power away. Watch out for tidal waves, Earth!

In conclusion, Superman 4 will be remembered as a cinematic failure in spite of its intentions to educate the world about the dangers of nuclear weapons. While the actors try hard, they can't overcome the obvious lack of care from the producers about developing the story and making the film look good. And when the producers don't care, why should the viewing public care?