Despite the overwhelming popularity of the original Star Trek TV series, it was cancelled after only 3 series. This left the trekkies clamouring for more, which finally came in 1979 courtesy of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Shatner, Nimoy and the all the original crew members returned, versatile director Robert Wise (Sound of Music, Day the Earth Stood Still) was hired to direct, and sci-fi cinema was flying high with the release of Star Wars 2 years previously. So why then is Star Trek: The Motion Picture such a big dull dud? Moving so slowly that it makes Dimitar Berbatov look energetic, there is no action, no excitement and, for me anyway, no interest. It attempts to be profound and philosphically deep, a la 2001: A Space Oddysey, but just comes across as boring. There were things I appreciated about this film (Jerry Goldsmith's brilliant music, impressive effects from the maestros behind Kubrick's 2001) but very little I enjoyed. Even the title is pretentious. It's not Star Trek The Movie, it's Star Trek: The Motion Picture! Ohh la la.
cosmobrown's Reviews
Displaying Review 16 - 20 of 44 in total
-
-
Don Coscarelli's Phantasm may have the most bonkers of horror movie premises; an alien Tall Man, working at a funeral mauselium, steals dead bodies, crunches them down into barrels, takes them to his home planet via a dimensional doorway, where they are turned into Jawa-looking dwarf slaves and returned back to Earth to do his bidding. And he also has a hovering chrome ball that can drill into his victim's brains. Yep, not your average horror film then. Working off a miniscule budget, Coscarelli does wonders, bringing his imaginative vision to the screen. The actings fairly amatureish (minus Angus Scrimm as The Tall Man), but the effects look fairly impressive even today, espicially when you consider the budget and year it was made. More creative and imaginative than a million horror remakes, Phantasm promised more than Don Coscarelli's subsequent career has offered (bar the brilliant Bubba Ho Tep). 3 sequels followed this film plus an in-the-works remake. A slightly strange but brilliant little horror film, full of eccentricities and creative little touches. Well worth a look.
-
Reading the plot synopsis for The Hangover, you would be forgiven if you uttered a huge "who cares?" yawn. The tale of a bunch of friend's drunken debauchery over a weekend in Las Vegas has been done to death, films like Swingers and Very Bad Things leaping immediatly to mind. So Todd Phillip's film would need to be something a little different to poke it's head above the seething mass of similar films. Luckily, it is. After a slightly hit-and-miss set up, The Hangover decides to concentrate on what happens after the friends wake up from a night of heavy drinking, gambling and mischief. They awake to find one of the gang (the groom-to-be) missing, a baby in the closet, Mike Tyson's tiger in the bathroom and their hotel suite looks like a warzone. From there, they have to try to retrace their steps and piece together the catastrophic events of the previous night, and find their friend. This structure is a lot funnier than simply showing us what happened, as they get further and further into trouble as the pieces of the jigsaw slot into place. The film works due to 3 great lead performances from Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Zach Galifianakis (rememeber that name, he could be huge). They have great chemistry and comic timing, and you actually care about them and their predicament. Which doesn't stop us from laughing as their situation becomes more severe and embarassing but, push comes to shove, we wish them well. There are plenty of laugh-out-loud moments, some utterly unbelievable plot twists, some predicatable ones, but it's never less than funny. 90 minutes spent in the company of these 4 men is time well spent. A very funny comedy, that is able to transcend it's cliched and worn subject matter and bring something new to the table. I recommend.
-
When writer/ director Michael Davis shopped Shoot 'Em Up around the studios, he described it as "John Woo's wet dream". When Clive Owen's running around firing a gun while holding a baby, it's hard not to recall Chow Yun Fat in Woo's Hard Boiled. However, Davis' films has all the good points of Woo's early Hong Kong films (we'll ignore most of his Hollywood work shall we?) it refreshingly has none of the pretensions and "arty" moments. Shoot 'Em Up is just pure fun. Well choreographed gunplay, black wit, a sense of controlled insanity and a length that doesn't overstay it's welcome. Clive Owen is brilliant in the central role, glib and sardonic, while Paul Giamatti matches him scene for scene as the villain. A creative, imaginative, slightly mad little film, slight but very fun.
-
Michael Bay's Transformers was the perfect blend of action, cutting edge special effects, humour, charm and self-assured ridiculousness. Plus it had massive robots beating the shit (do robots shit? Probably not) out of each other! It made a lot of money Worldwide and so a sequel was inevitable and welcomed by, I imagine, a lot of people (me included). Bay and co. already had the winning formula that made the first film such a treat and thus would just have to re-apply it, add a few new bits and bobs, up the scale a little and voila! Unfortunately, a few of the vital components are missing and simply being bigger doesn't necessarily mean it's better. Transformers- Revenge of the Fallen is a mess. An enjoyable mess, but still a mess. The plot feels like it's being made up as it goes along, with no discernible structure or rhythm to it. There's too much robot fighting action (I honestly didn't think such a thing was possible) that eventually the big final scenes just wash over you in a barrage of noise and pictures, not achieving the necessary emotional weight that they should have. The humour made the first film such a delight, but this sequel just has too much and none of it is particularly funny, with so many ridiculous comedic sidekick characters and their juvenile and groanworthy attempts at comedy. The length is also a problem. This film goes on for way, way longer than is necessary, scenes drag out when they should zip by. It's not all bad though. Shia LeBeouf is of course excellent and a delight to watch at all times, while Megan Fox provides nice eye candy (the camera literally oogles her curves like a pervy uncle). All your favorite minor characters make a reappearance (John Turturro, LeBeouf's parents), as do your favorite Autobots and Decepticons (Optimus, Bumblebee, Megatron), as well as some badass new ones (hello, Constructicons!). Bay is undoubtedly the master of destruction. When it comes to blowing things up theres noone better, and he proves that yet again with some big action moments to enjoy. However, Transformers- Revenge of the Fallen has to go down as a disappointment, when compared to its predecessor. It lacks the charm, the humour and the warmth. This new installment has it's moments but is overall just a loud robotic mess. My advice? Stick your Transformers DVD in and rewatch that, rather then going to see this new one.
