Change Your Image
dontworryboutitbaby
Recent Check-Ins
Reviews
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)
Gauge your expectations, and just enjoy it
Listen, this is a good film, no matter what they say.
We all know that Star Trek 2, 4, 6 and First Contact are the best of the franchise, but this film holds up against a lot of Trek episodes and is better than at least one of the films (Nemesis). (Maybe better than two more, depending on your opinion of TMP and Insurrection).
Like I said, you just have to gauge your expectations a little.
It's obviously not without fault, I admit. Some of the dialogue is a bit "quippy" - I suspect Shatner was injecting some of his dad-humour into it. But you know what? I think this is the first time we see the Enterprise crew talking to each other like normal people. They get along, share jokes. It's a bit of a relief to see them this way - and wholly justified as they're supposed to be on shore leave.
Ignoring that, there are really just 2 major flaws to this film:
1. "God". The "God" alien bit was done to death in TOS, and really only belongs in that show. No other Trek movie deals with an alien of this sort, it's too campy and doesn't leave room for exploration of characters or world building.
2. Spock's half brother. Sybok, in my opinion is a good character with lots of potential. A rogue Vulcan of extremely high intellect, rejecting logic and pursuing his calling as a radical religious cult leader/terrorist - now, that COULD be a very compelling antagonist and has so much potential for a good story! And what he does bring is quite good: the moments where we get to witness Spock's - and especially McCoy's - pain. I loved these insights into their histories that we've never seen before. They don't seem manufactured, they're legitimate to those characters...
But UGH! Making him Spock's half-brother! How trite! It doesn't need to be done and just serves to turn him into an embarrassing side note.
At this point, I'm beginning to wonder why the Vulcan council holds Spock's father with such reverence. His first son is an exiled religious fanatic, his second son is an embarrassing half-blood, and his adopted daughter is a train wreck who caused the Federation-Klingon war.
Right now, the house of Sarek is starting to look a little bit... redneck-y.
I admit, I do have some nostalgia for this film since I grew up with it as part of the full collection of Trek films. It wasn't my favourite, but I've always enjoyed it.
Actual filming locations, with actual props and models are always a joy to watch instead of CGI. Plus, they ride blue unicorns to get around so how can you dislike that?
Uhura gets to do more in this film than in any of the others, which is a joy to see (and that's without drawing attention to her bizarre feather dance).
The concept of Nimbus III as this desolate dystopia for 'the planet of galactic peace' is also beautiful and takes the franchise in another direction where it's not all perfect socialism, and finally shows us that the Trek galaxy has more ambiguity than that.
And fleshing the characters out as friends, not just colleagues.
This film isn't deep. You won't see Kirk contemplating the consequences of his actions, strategising against a wily and vengeful foe, facing the fact of his own mortality, or anything like that. But in terms of casual inter-character relationships, I'd argue that this film delivers on that highly important aspect in a big way.
And whatever is happening between Scotty and Uhura is beautiful and I'm here for it. Even if it's not romantic but they're close friends empowered by their chemistry together, I still love it. They're good people for each other at this late stage in their lives, it's a shame they never got to explore that further - even just a nod to it in Scotty's TNG cameo episode would've been nice, as if he mourns for her as he realises he's so lonesome. I'm pretty sure this film came out a few years before that episode, after all. (But there was a lot more wrong with that episode than just this).
The Long Goodbye (1973)
It's good, but not for everyone
Initially I read the book and, while it was a good book, I found the non-linear storyline to be quite confusing.
Well, I can tell you, this film is pretty much completely faithful to the book.
That being said, the film was actually quite a bit easier to follow despite telling the story in the same way.
I honestly thought Elliott Gould's performance was fantastic, and in fact so was Sterling Hayden's.
Some reviewers on here have criticised that the film was a little too light hearted at times, which was disjointed from the darker narrative - mainly that Gould's Philip Marlowe was comical. But I dispute that. The character for me - both in the book and the movie - was always just sarcastic, satirical and ironic.
He's generally down on his luck with the way he's treated. A bit of a wise-ass but not a bad person. By no means a hero, but he treats people better than they treat him. It goes to show the kind of people he's forced to encounter in his line of work. I do believe Raymond Chandler was in a bad patch when he wrote the book and tended to reflect that in the story - I would be inclined to feel that Marlowe's sarcastic nature is a way for Chandler to cope.
Ultimately, it's tragic, not comedic, when you get to know these characters and what's going on to and around Marlowe.
I think some have criticised Robert Altman's direction as well, as he apparently overused his signature techniques here. I didn't mind at all. None of it was particularly jarring, I don't think he was wrong in his direction at all, and in fact managed to draw out some absolutely amazing acting from the cast.
We were constantly in the POV of Marlowe. Not literally from his eye line, but when we were in the room with the characters, we were by Marlowe's side and at his level; and when he was watching from afar, you felt like a voyeur too.
This is most obvious when you think of the fact that Marlowe's neighbours are a group of young hippy girls who wear very little. Most directors in the 70's would be tempted to give us some focus on them and pass it off as an artistic nude. When other people come to Marlowe's home, they're fascinated by these nude women doing yoga, and are literally being voyeurs, some even with binoculars. But we never see them from that point of view - we aren't in anyone else's shoes but Marlowe's. And Marlowe's lived next door to these women for ages, there's no longer any novelty to it, so we hardly see them at all.
Counter to that, the only other Altman film I've seen is Disney's Popeye, where the film is entirely from a voyeurist perspective for some reason. So, no, I don't think he's overused any techniques in The Long Goodbye - each decision seemed deliberate and right for the film.
There is one thing, though, and that's the ending. It's a big reveal, they kept it from the audience for dramatic effect, and I really don't think it suits Marlowe's character at all. Nor his motivation through the film, it goes against his belief system.
I honestly can't remember if it's faithful to the ending of the book, or if they wrote it just for the movie. But what I know is, it wasn't quite right.
Did it ruin everything that came before it? No. (This isn't Star Wars). As a member of the audience, you've been on this journey with the characters and gone through so much - you deserve a decent ending and you do get it. My personal feeling is simply that it didn't quite gel for me. But that's fine, it's never going to be perfect for everyone.
In the end, I know this film isn't for everyone. The 70's-ness of it, the twisty turny storyline, the Altman-ness. But whatever, I liked it, and if you liked the book then you'll enjoy this film. If you like Elliott Gould then you'll like it. If you really appreciate cinema then you'll enjoy this.
Modern audiences probably won't get past the opening scene.
Return of the Seven (1966)
I love a compelling bad guy
I was going to title this review 'Don't compare it to the original'.
The sad thing about the Magnificent Seven franchise is that any film under this moniker will live and die by 'comparison'. With the first film being a remake of the absolutely fantastic 'Seven Samurai', they're all cursed to live in a shadow of their predecessors.
But I don't see why this film has *so* much criticism - I had a great time watching it!
OK, the original had an absolutely stellar cast, which this one lacks. Only one of the original Seven return. And that is one reason why you mustn't compare it to the original and simply view it as its own movie, if you want to get the most out of it.
In a way, not bringing back the original core cast gives you freedom to view this film without ties to the first one. You aren't bogged down by anything that came before.
This is what I love about this film.
Somehow this one seems darker, more gritty. There's some good tongue-in-cheek wit, but when you do finally learn the motives of some of the lead characters, and the great bad guy, it's really quite tragic and makes for an even stronger final act - bringing meaning to their mission, instead of the very campy old Hollywood 'bad guy is a bandit, good guy has a moral obligation' kind of scenario. Our heroes here weren't just born under a star and destined for good, and our antagonist isn't just blindly evil for the sake of being evil.
To the contrary, in the case of our heroes at least: they become better people as the film goes on and they're faced with the consequences of their actions. Now THAT is good storytelling, THAT is a clear and defined character arc.
I said "finally" earlier, because we learn very little about these people until about the third act. They're men with secrets held close to their chests - as you'd expect from characters who have a past they aren't necessarily proud of. This film isn't about to spoon feed you. You learn about the characters as if you're one of them: up until now, a stranger to each other; the more time spent together, the more you get to know each other. This film respects the audience as a friend on this journey, and respects the audience's intelligence to piece things together.
When it comes to our antagonist, his motive is a mystery for quite some time. We hear it second-hand (because we aren't hanging out with him). So instead of seeing his character development as we do with the 'seven', it happened in the past and we're witnessing the result of his actions. A nice little juxtaposition against the story of the core 'seven'.
All of that is why this film deserves much more praise than it gets. It's a thoroughly compelling one, really. It's beautifully written, the acting is on top form, it's shot well, and the score is of course great.
Unfortunately, with such a compelling bad guy, I feel we could've done with more of him - really show us what a damaged and psychopathic person he is! But what can I say. Even though this movie is more gritty than the first (closer to Italian westerns than Hollywood ones, perhaps), it's still a Hollywood movie made in a time when there were more restrictions on what they might present on screen. It does a great job in spite of that.
Some people say it's a carbon copy of the original, because it's about a small village who need the Seven to defend them against a bandit. OK, it's a bit unfortunate that it's so similar in that respect, but, again, watch and appreciate it as it's own film - don't give in to the curse of comparison. You might even appreciate it a little more, as a strong character driven story.
The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (2018)
Possibly Gilliam's best film in about 15 years
First of all, the bad: as with most passion project movies, it seems to be a little bit too long. Not by much, though, maybe only about 30 minutes. You'll get over it.
The second bad (or sad) is, Gilliam's reputation in Hollywood these days tends to limit his funding potential and backing. This film doesn't benefit from the good faith and large leading cast that he used to command in the 80's and 90's...
... But you could argue that that is actually a positive. Because with the funding finally in place, he's been able to give opportunities to hugely talented indie production crews, foreign stars, and not-your-first-choice-but-still-great and well known actors.
With that said, Adam Driver and Jonathan Pryce are spectacular and enchanting in the lead roles.
You probably know that the story of Don Quixote is seemingly 'cursed' when bringing it to the big screen, and you probably also know that this curse extends to Gilliam's own attempt. Famously, this film was 25 years in the making and sadly he had to scrap the original takes from the early 2000's when it was to star Jonny Depp.
But, instead of delivering a weak, fatigued attempt just to finish the project, Gilliam has released one of his most introspective films to date.
Not so much a pseudo-biographic film, though - even though it's about a director making the Quixote film - he maintains the whimsy and fantasy that he had planned all along. But, contrary to some reviews I've seen, I felt that this is really more tragic than comical.
Consider here, Gilliam's own struggle with this film - that much is obvious. But then, look back at his catalogue: tales like Baron Munchausen, a fun fairytale blurring fantasy with reality; or Fisher King, which is arguably a tragic retelling of the Quixote themes where a man is so emotionally damaged that he grows delusional - and brings a seemingly rational but problematic man into his world (ultimately healing each other). Or the struggles during the filming of Doctor Parnassus and Zero Theorem. It seems Gilliam is deeply aware of his career, how it looks to us, and what he wants to do going into the future.
People say this film is messy, but that's deliberate in order to distort your own perception of what's real (much like Twelve Monkeys). Other people say this film is back to 'vintage' Gilliam, but I think it's deeper than that.
I've always loved Gilliam's films, but in more recent years I've wondered if his style overpowers more subtle forms of storytelling - has he been more style over substance? Well, Quixote shows me otherwise.
Here, he's been able to maintain his style while poignantly telling a story of personal struggle. Our 'hero' is a disillusioned director who seemingly cares for nobody, grows to reflect on his younger self who - well he still cared not for the lives he was affecting, but really out of naivety than arrogance. Hollywood happy endings would have us see him grow as a character to right the wrongs of his past and become a better man, but in this tragic sense, he really just stops being quite as arrogant and more like a 'normal' human.
By which, I mean, he can't change the past, and while he does try to improve the lives that he damaged years before, it still seems that there's an awareness of himself (selfishness). He's not a selfless hero, yes he wants to help these people, but to help himself as well - on a couple of occasions during his arc, he asks "what about me?" and is punished by Quixote, but doesn't learn the lesson until it's too late. In the end, his less than majestic growth as a character does indeed make him a better man, but not quite in the way you would expect.
And that's the thing about this film: it reminds us that ultimately, we're only human, and we can keep trying to be better - sometimes we succeed, sometimes we don't, it's all just baby steps. As Don Quixote patronisingly explained to Sancho Panza: "Humility is an enviable quality"
Our final scene reflects that fact, as the famous Quixote exploit where he fights the giants, it's a reminder of said humility: we're small creatures in a big world, so try your best.
I quattro dell'Apocalisse (1975)
Arty fluff
I wish I had read these reviews before watching this. I didn't love it.
Don't get me wrong, there's definitely an audience for this film. Another reviewer mentioned it in the same sentence as 'El Topo' or 'Django Kill', and I totally agree, that's where this film resides.
It's definitely a cult piece. As I understand it, this director is more famous for horror films. Perhaps he should have stayed in that genre, but I guess he had something to say that couldn't be presented in that context. This isn't a horror film at all. It's not really an anything film.
I could say that nothing really happens, but that wouldn't be exactly true. It's just, whatever happens is kind of boring and a bit of nonsense.
If, like me, you're a lover of Spaghetti Westerns and think this has a bit of a badass title, don't be suckered in by the title - give it a miss.
If you're into things a bit arty, with a bit of a more subtle story, go for it.
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018)
I've never known an entire movie to just 'phone it in' until now
I don't know what the hell just happened. I thought I was in the theatre for a solid 3 hours or more but it was only 2, and that's because this film is chocked so full of filler you end up in a time vortex as you desperately wait for something to happen.
The first Fantastic Beasts was fine. Good fun comedy, endearing characters, etc. Except for shoehorning in that whole Grindelwald/Credence storyline that detracts from the point but somehow resolves itself. Great, finished, that was a fun stand alone movie... or was it?
Now, I've taken a leaf out of this movie's playbook by spending half of your time catching up on the events of the first movie as if you didn't see it. It's almost like this movie has such low self esteem that it assures itself you didn't see the first one and is shocked that you decided to spend any time on the sequel.
The characterisation in the first film has been done with. Now we have the same actors playing COMPLETELY different people, so it seems.
But wait, there's more. How about a whole host of new characters you care about even less? Sure, why not.
The opening action sequence fails at the fundamental right of a chase scene, which is to give the audience a sense of geography. I lost my bearings almost immediately and thus the action was hard to follow.
The use of CGI is excessive and needless - that is to say, when you decide to CGI a button (A BUTTON!) rolling across the floor... you're wasting my time.
The storyline here is super confusing: they set up this unrequited love thing between Newt and his brother's fiance (too many new characters) which goes absolutely nowhere, but not without sending us down this winding pathway of a flashback to their childhood where they try to set up this unrequited love thing AGAIN, that does nothing to further the storyline or bring depth to the characters. Cut it out and you still have the same movie.
Speaking of this fiance, she later aggressively steals our attention with yet another flashback where she essentially tells the audience she's a b---- and we should hate her, but this is the movies and there are no consequences for anything. In fact, she's rewarded by the characters loving her.
That whole bit there was deep, thick, dirty exposition where two new characters that we don't care about TRY desperately to string their stories about why we're even sitting through this nonsense together in an attempt to match it all up in the end. They fail, and I was left screaming "what the hell just happened?!"
Johnny Depp, through no fault of his own, is phoning in his performance entirely.
For one thing, he only really gets a total of about 10 minutes of screen time in this lifelong laborious ordeal of a film.
For another, I believe that Depp may be one of the greatest character actors of our generation... so I'm entirely unsure why the part of "generic bad guy with English accent" was given to him at all. There was nothing for him to work with, so why bother?
Apparently something happened between Dumbledoor and Grindelwald. One of those convenient things that happened to be set up years prior (in ANOTHER flashback) for the exact purpose of not flipping the off switch on the events of this movie really easily. I dunno, good luck trying to follow this nonsense.
It's a recurring theme in this film: Conveniently this happened, which was convenient because it meant this could conveniently happen, so this conveniently happened next, where these different characters conveniently came together at this convenient location, etc. etc. etc.
As is traditional in movies, the final battle should be about 30 minutes long, I find.
But not this film, where 5 minutes of painfully tension-free CGI nothingness took place, before a bunch of no-name characters gasped a bit and then made it all go away.
The aftermath was a slow pan of devastated faces as we reflect on the loss of loved ones in some form or another... except that these are characters who we only just met and who barely had any lines - so... are we supposed to care or something?
And then there's Credence. I mean, I didn't care about him in the first film, but now that he's a 28 year old man wandering around whining about his mummy issues, I REALLY don't care.
He screeches about how he doesn't know who he is or whatever. Well, kid, why don't you grow a pair and decide what you want to do with your time instead of moaning about how nobody loved you, hmm?
And lastly... what is the title all about? 'The Crimes Of Grindelwald'. There were approximately zero crimes committed, and at one point, the wizard police LITERALLY said "He's not committing a crime by just talking to people" and OH MY GOD all he does is TALK! So...?
With that title, a much better thing to do with this film would have been to make a prequel, giving Depp a chance to be on screen and do some real acting, show Grindelwald commit some actual crimes and do that whole off-switch thing with Dumbledoor. Then cram this film and whatever happens next into one much more bearable film later.
My key takeaway from this, as it was written by JKR herself, is that she is NOT a screenwriter, but a catacomb of jumbled exposition awaiting an excuse to blast it out into the open.
And I ask again: what the hell just happened?