| You're currently viewing the Jolene Blalock - We Want Brunette Jolene SciFi Fan Forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. We do not release ANY email information at the Brunette Jolene Board!! As a new memeber your access will be limited until you have 10 posts. Once you reach that level other sections of the Forum will open up. Due to spam we have blocked certain IP and email addresses. If you are having difficulty with registration, please email the board admin using the link and request to be added manually. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Star Trek movie reviews | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: 24 May 2009, 16:35 (158 Views) | |
| Kevin Thomas Riley | 24 May 2009, 16:35 Post #1 |
Jolene Blalock Worshipper
|
OK, since I've started to re-watch the old Star Trek movies I decided to make reviews of them as well. Feel free to chime in on your take of these movies. Agree? Disagree? I'm up to number 3. They can also be read on my website here. Star Trek - The Motion Picture Reviewed by Kevin Thomas Riley I know that most fans describe Star Trek - The Motion Picture as boring and slow, but I rather like it. It has a special place in my heart and I remember it fondly. The main reason of course is that after the original series this was a completely new Trek, something we had all been eagerly waiting for. Some might have been disappointed but I think that a lot of that is hindsight, especially compared to the films that came afterwards. Yes, it is slow and lacking in fast-paced action but it has a grand, epic scale that at least I felt captivated by. The whole V'Ger experience is in itself the sense of wonder in this motion picture. And the effects are outstanding; even if you consider that they were made in 1979. Of course Robert Wise's director's cut has improved on it, especially as we get a first real glimpse of how V'Ger looks like once all the surrounding clouds have dissipated. It takes a while for things to get going, but I'm not sure it could have started much differently. We had to see how the old crew got back together. And of course to show off the look of the refitted USS Enterprise in one of the movie's most memorable sequences. To the non-fan it must have felt a bit odd devoting so much screen time to the flyover but I still feel awed along with Admiral Kirk. It's also my favourite exterior design of the ship, narrowingly nudging ahead of the original. The message of the film - that we need both emotions and logic to become whole beings - might seem trite to some, but I think it fits really well with Star Trek. That it is the half Vulcan/half-human Mr. Spock who discovers this, after failing the Vulcan kolinahr ritual that is supposed to purge emotions, and his meld with the machine intelligence V'Ger, is only fitting. Coming back to Enterprise and his old friends has made Spock whole and after that he's a more balanced and relaxed person, without losing his special traits. Sure, the acting and dialogue in some places was a little stilted, especially compared to both the camaraderie of the old series and the later movies, but it's all right in my book. Kirk's longing for command is well done, even if he has to step on poor Will Decker to get in the Captain's chair again. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the awesome soundtrack by Jerry Goldsmith. From the opening theme (which was later stolen for Star Trek - The Next Generation) to the Klingon battle theme and the scary alien-ness of the score while travelling inside V'Ger, it is probably my favourite Trek soundtrack. I remember listening to it a lot growing up. All things considered I will give Star Trek - The Motion Picture a grade of 9 on my 10-graded scale. Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image |
 |
 
|
| Kevin Thomas Riley | 24 May 2009, 16:36 Post #2 |
|
Jolene Blalock Worshipper
|
Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan Reviewed by Kevin Thomas Riley Probably the best of the Star Trek films, The Wrath of Khan has it all. Great action, a great villain, great character moments and a heart-breaking finale we all know about. It's a totally different animal than the first movie and much more reminiscent of the original series. So it's only fitting that the villain of the piece is brought from the old episode Space Seed. This is classic Trek at its very best. No one can forget Khan as played by Ricardo Montalban. He fires on all cylinders but for some reason it works and never feels over the top. "Khaaaaaaan" as Kirk would say! It helps if you're familiar with the original episode but it can be enjoyed even without it. The name of the film is a bit odd. I wish they'd thought of something that didn't sound so corny, like Vengeance or why not simply Genesis? But it shares this with all the "trilogy" Trek films (Star Trek II-IV). Within all the action is a theme about death, sacrifice and rebirth, and how you finally must face that what you've escaped. This is perfectly presented in James T. Kirk, who as a cadet cheated his way out of the Kobayashi Maru test, not believing in a no-win scenario. Here it finally catches up with him. He cannot win without the sacrifice of his friend Spock. So while Khan is ultimately defeated, a new world is made and he finds a son he never knew he had, he loses Spock. This is a great and compelling story, and it features one of the best character death scenes I've ever seen. I still get a little teary-eyed whenever I watch it. I wish Trek had learned from this when they decided to kill off other characters, from Kirk himself in Generations to Trip in the so-called "finale" of Enterprise. After Spock's death it is almost a cheat to have him resurrected again in the next film. The character interactions are overall better in this film. They're more relaxed and natural and you really feel that they've all been through life and death together, literally. The additions of Carol and David Marcus were OK, but I never really warmed up to Kirk's son. Kirstie Alley's Lt. Saavik was much better and aside from the eyebrows felt like a proper Vulcan (or half Vulcan/half-Romulan if we're to believe non-canon sources). A pity she wasn't in the subsequent films. I liked the design and look of the film. The Starfleet uniforms introduced remains my favourite; they felt like proper uniforms and not like pyjamases. Generally speaking I appreciated director Nick Meyer giving the ship a more naval feel, which is again apparent in his The Undiscovered Country. While the interiors are mostly hold-overs from the first film, he manages to make them not feel so sleek and sterile. The battle between the Enterprise and the Reliant in the Mutara nebula may not compare to the faster, more detailed and sometimes computer generated effects of later Treks, but it's still one of the best space battles I've seen on Star Trek. It perfectly (and deliberately) captures the old submarine movie feel. James Horner's soundtrack also captures the essence of the movie, especially its battle scores which helps get the naval theme across. I can give no other grade to Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan than a 10+. It doesn't get any better than this. Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image |
|
|
|
| Kevin Thomas Riley | 24 May 2009, 16:37 Post #3 |
|
Jolene Blalock Worshipper
|
Star Trek III - The Search for Spock Reviewed by Kevin Thomas Riley Most Trek fans have heard of the odd-even rule of the Star Trek movies. It says that the even numbered movies are the good ones, whereas the odd ones aren't so much. At any rate that "rule" ceased to apply with the last one, Nemesis, which wasn't very good (I'm not bringing Abrams Trek into this). With Star Trek - The Search for Spock that seems to hold true. It's certainly not a bad film, but compared to the others it just isn't as good as the good ones. And personally, for the reasons I stated above, I don't think The Motion Picture ranks among the "bad" ones. It's difficult to put a finger on what exactly is lacking in this movie. It is in many ways a bookend to The Wrath of Khan. Spock died and is now resurrected. But it comes at a cost; Kirk loses his ship and his son, and is now, with his faithful crew, renegades against Starfleet for having hijacked the Enterprise and gone to a restricted area to retrieve Spock. It's also a counter-balance against the optimism (despite Spock's death) at the end of The Wrath of Khan, with a new world being born. Now we find out that there is a price to playing God and the Genesis planets destroys itself because David Marcus, much like his father, tried to cut corners while designing the Genesis device. David also pays with his life. Another bookend is captured in that the phrase "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" from The Wrath of Khan is here rendered by Kirk as "the need of the one (Spock) outweigh the needs of the many". It may not be logical, but it's human and gets across an age-old philosophical dilemma. On the surface the first version seems the right one, until you're put in the situation yourself. As Sarek said, "my logic falters where my son is concerned". But somehow those themes weren't presented in such a compelling manner. For once the way Spock was brought back was all too convenient, even if foreshadowed in The Wrath of Khan (the writers and producers obviously wanted to keep their options open). It also cheapened Spock's excellent death and sacrifice. And speaking of deaths, David Marcus's death seemed more like an afterthought. Granted we had little investment in the character but the way it happened felt so random, knifed to death on a whim by a Klingon. Robin Curtis's Saavik didn't help either. Vulcans aren't stoic stiffs and someone like director Leonard Nimoy ought to know this, since that's not how he plays Spock. But that's how he directed Curtis. Christopher Lloyd brought a little personality to Kruge that made him rise a bit above the generic Klingon villain, but he still seemed too one-sided and singular to make him very interesting. The rest of the Klingons were a forgettable and thuggish bunch. Mark Lenard's Sarek rose above them though. He's always been great and brings a lot of gravitas to the role of Spock's father. What carried the movie was the crew, the friendship and camaraderie between the main characters. There is no question that they would all go along with Kirk in getting Spock back. They all had memorable lines (like "If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon", "That green-blooded son-of-a-bitch! It's his revenge for all those arguments he lost!" and "Don't call me tiny!") that still makes me chuckle. The effects were also poorer. The studio set of Genesis looked rather fake and even the space shots didn't live up to the standards of the preceding movie. But it did give us the cool-looking Klingon Bird-of-Prey and the giant orbital Space Dock. And I liked to see more of Vulcan. I'll give The Search for Spock a generous grade of 7- on my 10-graded scale. Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image |
|
|
|
| sipovic | 26 May 2009, 09:51 Post #4 |
Cultist
|
I actually think that first movie was a real disaster which could kill the franchise (in this case all rest TOS movies was brutally budget-cutted after this flop). producers couldn't decide what are they doing - a new TV show or a movie and in the end they've got a movie with quality of average TV episode but with the cost of a feature. Slow pace, absolutely indistrict plot? a lot of pointless characters (which only annoyed me), lack of chemistry between old heroes and no action at all - that how I remebered this movie. There were some few good moments ( I suppose the idea of borg in some way appeared here and If I remeber correctly Spock even said "resistance is futile") but there wasn't enough. One big disappointment. 4/10 Wrath of Khan was much better, but after ultra expensive first movie studio cuted as much money as they could which make a lot of damage to this movie quality (cheesy special effects and they didn't make a Kirk\Khan fist fight which I believed was absolutely necessary). And I actually didn't like Khan charcter at all. For me he was just one time villain from one episode which even didn't look cool . But he at least had chemistry with Kirk. I also didn't like all this stuff with Kirk's son. But scene of Spock death was really very good and they have an adequate apsce battle and team chemistry finally returned. So I give it 7/10. The thing I liked mostly about Search of Spock is that finally DeForest Kelly had something to do(he was practically imperceptible in previous 2 movies). I really liked his Spock\McCoy hybrid. As for the rest, involvment of klingons to plot looked a little forced to me and C.Lloyd was mostly dissappointing for the Actor (and he is an Actor!) of his calibre. At least Nimoy as a director didn't screw it up, they got rid of Kirk's son (absolutely pointless charater) and I finally got my fist fight! 6/10 Edited by sipovic, 26 May 2009, 09:54.
|
|
|
|
| Kevin Thomas Riley | 20 Jun 2009, 17:14 Post #5 |
|
Jolene Blalock Worshipper
|
Star Trek IV - The Voyage Home Reviewed by Kevin Thomas Riley The Voyage Home is arguably the Star Trek film which has had the most mainstream appeal, and that's not surprising. It certainly is a very good film. But there are other genre films - and Trek films - that are equally good or even better, so what's so special about Star Trek IV? The answer is, in my view, that it exists in contemporary times and that makes it easier for the casual viewer to identify with. Most other science fiction outings set in outer space have the disadvantage of scaring off the mainstream into thinking that it either doesn't interest them or that it's too nerdy. It's a pity, really, since I tend to like the outer space stuff a lot more. But what can you do? There's also another thing that sets The Voyage Home apart and that is its lighter tone, its humour. Sure, humour and lighter moments are seen through-out Star Trek, but not to the degree as in this film. That also makes it more accessible to the ordinary movie-goer. Sometimes I think that this movie is bordering very close to going overboard with the laughs, but it manages to stay on the right side before it would have devolved into an all-out comedy. But make no mistake, I really like and enjoy the humour. I still laugh at the jokes and colourful metaphors even if I've seen them a gazillion times by now. One favourite is the punk on the bus (who was actually played by one of the movie's associate producers). Even Chekov's "nuclear wessels" doesn't get old. The Voyage Home is also set at the perfect time in terms of Spock. He's just come back to life and is adjusting to it, trying to remember things, people and relationships. That plays out perfectly with him and the rest being fishes out of the water in the 1980s. A more normal Spock with all those gags would've seemed too stupid. There's not even any proper villain in this movie, unless you count humanity that will hunt the whales to extinction. The whale probe is just oblivious to the damage it is causing. Perhaps you could view the Norwegian (I guess having Canadian or Japanese whalers was too sensitive, even if that meant that the Norwegians were a long way from home) whale hunters as villainesque. But it is a mighty sight as the Bird-of-Prey decloaks right on top of the whaling ship. Despite that I'm often weary about political messages being shoved down my throat in fiction (and Star Trek is no exception), I wasn't really bothered by the "save the whales" environmentalism here. Sure, it's politically correct but it's not presented so much in your face as to be annoying. It's also not a very controversial message, and delving deeper into such obviousness would have been irritating. Thankfully they didn't dwell deeper into the mechanics of time travel either. But it was conveniently easy for them to do the slingshot around the sun routine. One wonders why they're not travelling back and forth in time willy-nilly in the 23rd century. And instead of tearing themselves apart with the temporal paradoxes, they make gags out of them, from Kirk's old glasses to Scotty's transparent aluminium. I also liked the rather cute Gillian Taylor (played by Catherine Hicks), who had great chemistry with Kirk (especially) and Spock. She was resourceful and strong in her own right, and managed to stay on the right side of perkiness. And all she ever give to Kirk was a slight peck. Leonard Rosenman's score was also appropriately light-hearted for this movie, even if he will not be remembered as much as the composing giants of Jerry Goldsmith and James Horner. With The Voyage Home comes the end to the three-part story arc for the original characters. Now they have to face what they did in the previous movie, but since they saved the world (again) they're forgiven and given a new ship, not a freighter despite McCoy, ever the cynic, thinking the bureaucratic mentality is the only constant in the universe, but a newly-christened Enterprise, the NCC-1701-A. The adventures can continue. Summing up, I give The Voyage Home a grade of 9 on my 10-graded scale. Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image |
|
|
|
| Kevin Thomas Riley | 20 Jun 2009, 17:15 Post #6 |
|
Jolene Blalock Worshipper
|
Star Trek V - The Final Frontier Reviewed by Kevin Thomas Riley I almost don't know where to begin with this one, one of the worst, perhaps even the worst, of all the Star Trek films. The Final Frontier is pretty darn awful on almost every level and even my beloved original crew cannot save this mess. Some even want to de-canonize it and it's said that Gene Roddenberry himself considered it to be "apocryphal", especially the part about Spock having a crazy half-brother. The story is supposed to be poignant, and what could be more poignant than going in search of God? But it all falls flat. It's supposed to be funny, but most of the humour falls flat too. The comedic moments were mostly cringe-worthy and felt forced, unlike in The Voyage Home were they felt natural. Sometimes it was even reduced to slap-stick, like when Scotty hit his head on a bulkhead. There were some good moments, like Scotty's "Dinna you know a jailbreak when you see one?" but those were too far in between. And the less said about Uhura's fan dance the better! What's little that's worth salvaging comes not because but in spite of the film, and that is the previously established character interactions, notably between Kirk, Spock and McCoy, but even those have their embarrassing moments, like the "row, row, row your boat" sing-along. That ruined a perfectly good friendship bonding moment when they were camping out in Yosemite. But the movie nevertheless had some meaningful things to say about friendships. Kirk's line about knowing he'd die alone was moving as was the realization in the end that men like them do have families - their friends is their family. The story is nonsensical, with Spock's long lost half-brother Sybok, who we've never heard of before or since, arrives to hijack the Enterprise in search of God. And he's one of those Vulcans who has embraced emotions, which would account for him laughing and spotting a beard. But apart from one scene when Spock refuses to pull the trigger, there really is no reason for having Sybok being Spock's brother. He has a strange power to take away people's fears, which for some inexplicable reason also makes them susceptible to do his will. Sybok tries it out with Spock, but to no avail. Likewise with McCoy. I always thought Spock had an odd flashback scene of his birth. Sarek should never have that cold towards his half-human offspring and he wouldn't be considering he loved and married Amanda. McCoy though, had a better flashback scene where you could actually feel his pain for having mercy-killed his father. I also liked that Kirk refused, saying "I need my pain!" It's something that we carry with us and defines who we are. The film takes much too long to get going, but finally we arrive at what of course turns into a great anti-climax. And how can it be otherwise. Could a build-up into meeting "God" turn out other than disappointing. Indeed, what does God need a starship for anyway? There's just no way to do this justice and that is something the script-writers should've realized from the get-go. So we get a less than satisfying confrontation between some being we know nothing about that's been trapped, unknown by whom, for a long time, and our heroes (plus Sybok). Yawn! There are also Klingons, being led my some young hothead that looks like a Hell's Angels wannabe (or should that be a Gre'thor's Angels wannabe?) appearing in this movie, but they're pretty useless, except for providing the guns necessary to blast "God" to oblivion in the end. Actor David Warner was criminally underused as an Earth ambassador here, but at least they made up for that in the next movie. Laurence Luckinbill was a mostly good as Sybok, but it didn't help that his character was who he was. The special effects were terrible and didn't look finished, which isn't that far from the truth. Due to a Hollywood strike and that ILM was too busy they had to settle for another effects team that was rushed and inexperienced. Not that better effects could've helped this movie. It's also something of a waste to have the excellent Jerry Goldsmith do the score. It's not good when you rather listen to the soundtrack than watch the movie. In the end I cannot give The Final Frontier a higher grade than 3 on my 10-scale. And it's only the Kirk-Spock-McCoy friendship that saves it from getting a lower grade. William Shatner should have sat this one out and the studio shouldn't have decided to stroke his ego into making this, the worst of the original movies. Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image |
|
|
|
| Reanok | 21 Jun 2009, 10:20 Post #7 |
Vice Admiral
|
I agree with your review of Star trek 4 I just recently watched it again and really enjoyed it seeing the crew together again and I enjoyed the story about Gillian taylor and the whales. |
|
|
|
| sipovic | 21 Jun 2009, 21:39 Post #8 |
|
Cultist
|
Totally agreed about 4th and 5th movies both reviews and grades. Can only add that main reason of failure of 5th movie was script that Shatner wrote without control of professional writers. If you read the original version of his script(which available in internet), it was about failure of religion and in the end Captain Kirk blew the God ( not alien, but The God (!!!)) with torpedo. I mean what a hell Shatner thinking? Who would do movie like that? And of course no to waste money Paramount made just a few changes in the script which anyway looks more like ugly fanfic to me and just said that "this is movie about friendship" even if this movie hadn't much to do with friendship except few scenes. The line "Why God needs a starship?" actually the onkly thing which stayed in my head after watching this movie. Edited by sipovic, 21 Jun 2009, 21:42.
|
|
|
|
| Captain X | 22 Jun 2009, 11:57 Post #9 |
"Vice" Admiral
|
I never liked ST4, personally. While you don't think the humor or it's environmentalist message are over the top, I tend to disagree. Most of the humor is too corny for my tastes, and the "save the wales" message is so obvious as to not really be bothered with, really. And the way they kept pushing it kind of grated my nerves. The time travel aspect bothered me as well, though part of that was because it was the stereotypical "future people in modern day, having difficulty with our modern culture". They did it with the old BSG, The Planet of the Apes, and on VOY. Those types of shows always make me roll my eyes, so I wouldn't rank 4 any higher than 5 because it comes off just as stupid to me. |
|
|
|
| Kevin Thomas Riley | 22 Jun 2009, 15:00 Post #10 |
|
Jolene Blalock Worshipper
|
I think it bordered at being over the top at times, but in the end they stayed on the right side of that border, in my opinion. As for "save the whales", well, I agree it's an obvious message. But I actually prefer an obvious message instead of a more controversial one that would probably be divisive - not to mention getting old fast. Imagine if the message had been one warning of an impending ice age. How would that sit with today's audience that think man-made global warming is the greatest danger since, well, the new ice age. :confused: |
|
|
|
| Captain X | 23 Jun 2009, 09:47 Post #11 |
|
"Vice" Admiral
|
The thing about it was how it was used to talk down about modern humanity. It's true that humanity has plenty of problems, but for them to constantly harp about them by using the classic "save the whales" crap is what bothered me. And really if you think about it, that was the cause back then. Today it would no doubt be about global warming and how it's all humanity's fault, and all that jazz. In point of fact I'm halfway surprised Abrams Trek didn't cover that at all. |
|
|
|
| Kevin Thomas Riley | 31 Jul 2009, 17:22 Post #12 |
|
Jolene Blalock Worshipper
|
The other day I realized I hadn't made a review for TUC. I thought I had but in fact I had not. So here goes... Star Trek VI - The Undiscovered Country Reviewed by Kevin Thomas Riley The original series had no real finale, it just ended, and that with a rather lacklustre episode. So in many ways The Undiscovered Country is the real finale for the original crew. And what a great finale it is! It's probably the best finale - and the best Trek movie of them all. At any rate it's definitely on par with The Wrath of Khan in my book. Aside from being a great send-off for the original cast it also has cool battle scenes, an intriguing murder mystery, a conspiracy, political manoeuvrings, a prison break, character reflections and one of the best Trek villains ever seen - General Chang. It's everything you could wish for and more, especially considering the huge letdown of the previous movie. The movie is an allegory of then current events. In fact the end of the Cold War was taking place at the time of shooting, mirroring in the decline of the Klingon Empire. Only a couple of weeks after the premiere the Soviet Union crumbled. The mirroring of real-life events were perhaps a bit too obvious, with the destruction of the Klingon moon Praxis as a stand in for Chernobyl, and even Chancellor Gorkon's name was deliberately created to evoke the name of Gorbachev. But it worked anyway. And the idea of a conspiracy between hardliners on both sides have been explored in contemporary settings too, such as in the movie The Package. But it's also a means to bridge the settings of the original series with that of the next generation, where there is peace between the Federation and the Klingons, and the Klingon Worf is a Starfleet officer (his ancestor with the same name, also played by Michael Dorn, even makes an appearance as Kirk'a and McCoy's defence attorney). Other fun tie-ins with today were Spock quoting, tongue-in-cheek, the old "Vulcan" proverb "only Nixon could go to China" meaning Kirk, with his certified hatred of Klingons, would be a logical choice to meet Gorkon's ship as much as Nixon, with his impeccable anti-communist credentials, was the only one who could go and meet Mao. And Chang's line "don't wait for the translation" during the show trail echoed Adlai Stevenson to Soviet ambassador Zorin in the UN during the Cuban Missile Crisis. All too often in Trek the Klingons come off as thugs, especially in the later incarnations, so I'm pleased with the portrayal we got here. So they're warriors, but that doesn't mean they have to be stupid brutes. Here we get sophisticated Klingons who read and quote Shakespeare "in the original Klingon", and that goes both for Gorkon the peacemaker and Chang the cold warrior. ("In space all warriors are cold warriors!") David Warner was criminally wasted in The Final Frontier but he made an excellent Gorkon. But the real stand-out character belongs to Christopher Plummer's Chang. He belongs right up there among the few true magnificent bastards Trek has offered, together with the likes of Khan and Gul Dukat. It's almost a pity he had to be killed in the end, but his demise is perfectly fitting. He's smart enough to realize the inevitable even if the conspiracy had succeeded. He just wanted to go out in a blaze of glory, yelling "cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war" for all to hear. Of course Chang/Plummer chews the scenery whenever he's there, but dammit, he's so good! One of the few faults in the movie is the character of Valeris, who was pretty underdeveloped and her motives for taking part in the conspiracy aren't that clear. Her betrayal also didn't have enough impact, as the character was pretty much set up to do what she did, being a new addition and all. Originally this was supposed to be Saavik, which would have had a much greater emotional impact since she'd been with us since The Wrath of Khan. Valeris, like Saavik, was something of a Spock protégé. If they could have Admiral Cartwright reprise his role and be a conspirator, why not Saavik? Also, Spock's forceful mind meld on Valeris, which was effectively a mind rape, was rather disturbing. And it took place in full view on the Bridge no less! The more violent phase of it was also unnecessary, as they just acquired the coordinates to the peace conference from Sulu on the Excelsior the minute after. The sets and effects were very good for the most part. Once again I must commend director Nicholas Meyer for infusing a more realistic and "naval" feel to the Enterprise. Props and costumes were also great, and let's not forget the awesome makeup for Chang, bald, small ridges and bolted eye-patch! Both the attack on Kronos One, with the eerie feel with the boarding assassins, and the final battle between Chang's cloaked Bird-of-Prey and the Enterprise were outstanding. Cliff Eidelman's dark score is perfect for this movie, and it actually rivals those of Goldsmith and Horner. I wonder what happened to him, as he never became as well known as those other two. He certainly deserves more attention unless he somehow radically changed his style. There is just no way I can give The Undiscovered Country anything less than a grade of 10+ on my 10-graded scale. It alternates with The Wrath of Khan as my favourite Trek movie, and I think it might more often be the favourite one. Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image ***** This concludes (for now at least) my Trek movie reviews as I'm in no mood to do the TNG ones. |
|
|
|
| Captain X | 31 Jul 2009, 18:18 Post #13 |
|
"Vice" Admiral
|
I'm pretty much completely agreed with you on VI, which I feel is somewhat underrated by some. To me it remains the best Trek movie ever made, so if Abrams Trek manages to win an Oscar I'm going to be pissed that the much better STVI was slighted like every other sci-fi movie, or even comic book movies like The Dark Knight. |
|
|
|
| Reanok | 1 Aug 2009, 21:16 Post #14 |
|
Vice Admiral
|
I definitely agree with your review of StarTrek 6. I really like that movie I recently bought the director's dvd version with the added scenes of the movie and saw it again for the first time in a long time. It still really good and the fact the whole crew had important roles to play in the movie. I also remember a behind the scenes story of a close call that happened filming a Major scene with Deforest Kelly and David Warner the scene where McCoy is trying to do CPR on Gorkon a Studio light above them broke off from above and came crashing down and nearly fell on top them both and could've injured them badly.It was a real close call they got up some by the broken glass.Deforest Kelley was recovering from some major surgery he had before the movie started filming .
Edited by Reanok, 1 Aug 2009, 21:19.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Star Trek · Next Topic » |
10:45 AM Sep 4
