Reviews

As fanboyish as I am for anything concerning Star Wars, Star Trek or James Bond, I was looking forward to this movie. Episode I wasn't all that great, but Episode II was significantly better, so I had high hopes for this movie to be the best of the series. However, despite all my fanboyishness, I was in for a disappointment.

Visually and technically, this movie is excellent. It didn't have much directional faults, and the actors played quite well. However, the script has major flaws. George Lucas can direct, but he seems to have forgot how to write.

In short, this movie did way too much in way too little time. We've had three two-and-a-half-hour movies to set the scene for the original trilogy. And what has happened? Episode I: Anakin is rescued from slavery. Episode II: Anakin and Padme fall in love. Episode III: All the rest. In about thirty minutes.

You'd expect the trilogy to gradually show Anakin turning more and more to the Dark Side. But no - he spends two and a half movies as a good guy, and then - pling! - someone flips a switch, and he's a bad guy now.

The space battle at the beginning was brilliantly animated, but it bored the heck out of me. All the purpose it served was to show off ILM's rendering skills. I desperately wanted to see someone actually act instead of flying and jumping around. Luckily, that happened soon after.

Anakin's fear of Padme dying at childbirth was very realistic and believable at first, considering how he's obsessed with her. But then the movie went and made it its entire storyline, repeating it over and over again. It felt like some sort of excuse to suddenly change Anakin over to the Dark Side.

Palpatine's battle with Mace Windu was unintentionally hilarious. He kept whining he's "weakening" when shooting electricity at Mace Windu. Funny, he didn't "weaken" in the original trilogy when doing the same at Luke. But the worst part was when he changed from a healthy-looking guy to a shriveled mummy in about one second. The movie did not offer any explanation for that. It was as if Lucas suddenly remembered: "Oh yeah, Palpatine needs to be this ugly-looking zombie thingy in Episode IV" and used the first idea that came into his head.

And then... Palpatine converted Anakin over as easily as pressing a switch. "You're evil now." "OK." He then went and killed all the Jedi children. Yes. He - killed - children. I couldn't believe it. At first, I was sad. Then I was angry. A multiple child murder - in cold blood, no less - and we're supposed to believe there's "still good" in this guy? No, sorry. I can accept him killing Obi-Wan Kenobi and all the other Jedi, but not children.

After the Great Jedi Purge, it was all downhill. Lucas must have been in a hurry to finish all the loose ends off. Padme gives birth to two children, names them - their names are the first words she speaks - and then dies. All in about five seconds. And the adoption scene - hoo boy. Luke's adoption to Tatooine was realistic, but Leia's adoption to Alderaan felt like it was written by a ten-year-old. "We've always been partial to adoption", and that's that over with. Senator Bail Organa was reduced to a one-line wonder and his wife to a zero-line wonder.

And then the rest. Just a clip show showing off the beginning of Episode IV, to come (in a matter of speaking).

In closing, this movie was a disappointment. It could have been so much better, but it turned out to be much worse. Episode II remains the best in the prequel trilogy.

Warning: Review includes some mild spoilers.

As before, I have never read any Harry Potter book. Thus I didn't have the faintest idea what "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" would be about until I saw the movie. Perhaps this way is better, as I can focus on following the story and not complaining about details such as the wrong number of hairs on Hagrid's head.

As with the previous movies, I went to see this movie with my sister and my brother. My brother had read the book at school and had told me in advance that Sirius Black was related to Harry Potter, but I didn't know any more than that. I didn't even know what it should mean in regard to the plot.

The movie felt overall less like an effects show and more character-developing than the previous movies. Of course, there were some excellent special effects, such as the dementors, or flying with the hippogriff, but they seemed to be fewer and less focused-on than in the previous movies.

In contrast to that, we got to hear what had happened in Harry Potter's past, and how Sirius Black was supposed to have murdered his parents and wanted revenge on him. The plot didn't develop much until we actually got to meet Sirius Black.

When R.J.Lupin arrived in Sirius Black's hideout, I thought he was a villain in disguise, just like professor Quirrel in the first movie. But then when we found out that Sirius Black was on "our side", that meant R.J.Lupin was, too. When they pointed out the real criminal, I think I knew who it was several minutes in advance. Stupid Ron Weasley couldn't have realised it even if it bit him (quite literally).

The most clever part of the plot, in my opinion, was the time travel. Overuse of time travel can spoil a series but this was the first time it was used in Harry Potter, and so far it worked out well.

My biggest gripe about the movie was that it seemed to be cut short in the middle of the plot. The real killer was still on the loose, but then the movie ended as soon as Harry, Ron and Hermione got back to Hogwarts. I would have wanted to seem him hunted down and brought to justice.

Overall, I don't think this movie was much better than the previous one. It is still an excellent movie but I think "The Chamber of Secrets" is the best one so far.

PS. Much kudos to the Finnish translators, who went to the trouble of inventing new Finnish-sounding words for the Harry Potter -specific names and terms instead of just using the English versions.

(ADVANCE WARNING: MAJOR SPOILER AT THE END)

The years 2002 and 2003 have been a time of new episodes of "cult" movie serieses. "Star Wars episode II: Attack of the Clones" was absolutely stunning. "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" was OK-ish, more of the same as the first movie. "James Bond: Die Another Day" was a bit of a disappointment. Now, for "Star Trek: Nemesis"...

I should learn never to go into a "cult" movie with pre-expectations. This movie premiered in Finland about four months after its original premiere, so I had an advance idea of what was generally going to happen. I still tried to avoid reading any spoilers before I actually saw the movie.

The movie opens with a scene of the senate of the Romulan Empire. (Note how all Empires always belong to "the others", never to "us". But that's not important.) The Praetor rejects the idea of a negotiation with the Remans. After this, a rogue senator assassinates the entire senate. What has happened, and why? It'll be a long time until we find out...

Instead of the "main plot" at Romulus, we get to see William Riker and Deanna Troi finally get married. The entire scene has only one saving factor: the exchange between Worf and Geordi. "Romulan ale should be illegal." "It is." Call me childish, but I laughed at that.

The Enterprise then goes to some obscure faraway planet to pick up an android in parts, and reassemble him. An open question is the three alien dune buggies. What species is this? Why do they attack the crew of the Enterprise? What do they want? None of this is answered in the movie.

The "main plot" of the movie continues when the Enterprise meets the new Praetor of Romulus, called Shinzon. Now people, this is why you should NEVER read advance spoilers. I knew in advance what Shinzon really was. This completely spoiled the surprise when Picard met him.

It occurred to me that I had never actually seen a Reman before. Now I'm not the most hardcore of Trekkies, so I might have missed something earlier, but as far as I can see, this was their fist appearance. Poor little buggers, they have always been slaves of the Romulans, and now they end up being the bad guys in this film. If Remans really existed they would have complained to Paramount by now.

Why do Shinzon and the Remans have to wear shiny latex overcoats all the time? Is it only to make them look scarier and prevent the audience from identifying with them? I was kind of annoyed by the creaking of Shinzon's overcoat every time he so much as twitched a muscle.

Shinzon is revealed to be the main bad guy when he reveals that he wants to avenge his childhood slavery under the Romulans by wiping out the entire human race. To this end he has developed a deadly weapon, capable of spreading the Whatchamacallit radiation into nearby ships or planets. (Sorry people, some names don't stick to my head.) This would have caused an excitement level that only "First Contact" could equal, had Shinzon ever actually reached Earth. But he doesn't, and so this movie is less exciting than the predecessor of its predecessor.

The battle sequence between the Enterprise and the Scimitar was fun to watch, though. Never before have I seen someone actually fly through space BY HIMSELF - without ANY sort of vessel or propulsion equipment. If Data had not grabbed hold of the Scimitar's outer hull, he would have been left floating through space endlessly. Also I have never seen the Enterprise ram itself physically into another ship. Still, that part was not quite believable - shouldn't Shinzon have had plenty of time to fire the Scimitar's reverse thrusters?

*** HERE IS THE MAJOR SPOILER! *** The biggest surprise of the entire movie was Data's death. Androids don't really "die" as humans do, but seeing what remained of Data after the explosion, it's a pretty safe bet we won't be seeing him again. I was left dumbstruck for a moment. When the crew gathered to mourn Data, I saw Deanna Troi crying, and I was almost beginning to cry myself. Then I reminded myself I was mourning over a fictional character and realised how idiotic it would be to cry. Still, doesn't this cause a contradiction with the TV episode "All Good Things..."? Maybe that part of that episode was an alternate timeline Q cooked up for us. *** SPOILER ENDS ***

The ending of the movie was hardly spectacular. In fact, if the scene hadn't shifted to the stars, I would have expected more to come. This movie was clearly less exciting than "First Contact" or even "Generations".

I sincerely hope this will NOT be the last Star Trek movie. For a last movie, this movie is not nearly exciting or awesome enough. We need something of greater proportions. Maybe the next movie, if there is one, will use a different crew?

I had mixed feelings when going to see "Die Another Day" with my sister. The press had more or less said it was the worst Bond movie in a while. Then again, they said the same thing about the Star Wars prequels - and I thought those films were awesome - and I thought "who cares, it's a Bond film, I'll see it anyway".

The last two Bond films, "Tomorrow Never Dies" and "The World Is Not Enough" had been, in my opinion, excellent. Thus I thought "Die Another Day" would be excellent as well. I was in for a surprise, but not necessarily a disappointment.

The whole movie strikes as different. Not excellent, not abysmal - different. This is evident straight from the intro sequence, which shows that James Bond does not escape this time, but gets caught.

The intro sequence also contains the movie's theme tune. And this time I was sadly let down. Madonna's "Die Another Day" theme is, to put it bluntly, quite bad. It's not because it's Madonna - Tina Turner sang a very good Bond tune in "Goldeneye" although I don't usually like her music - it's because it's an attempt at a techno tune. And a rather shallow attempt at that. It was so bad that I was actually thinking there is something wrong with the audio track because the song seemed to be cut short in parts. Techno tunes don't suit James Bond. But if you insist on trying, at least get someone decent to do it. (How about Apollo 440?)

Thankfully, the intro sequence was the worst part of the movie. It got better after it. It was rather funny seeing James Bond do his John Lennon impression - I had to actually remind myself who that long-haired beardy-weirdy was supposed to be. When M dismissed Bond of his 00 status I felt genuinely sorry for him. There was one thing I felt was unbelievable however - how did Bond manage to fake a cardiac arrest? How does anyone manage to do that? Is Bond a Jedi knight or a Zen master nowadays? Anyway, seeing an unclean-looking Bond, in wet hospital clothes, carrying no luggage whatsoever, ask for "his usual suite" at the Hong Kong Yacht Club was worth a laugh.

(MILD SPOILER ALERT) When Bond saw the "GG" logo in Havana and mentioned "Gustav Graves", I instantly predicted Graves would be the main villain. How many times has this happened before? Any CEO of a major corporation is automatically the main villain. Elliott Carver, Hugo Drax, Max Zorin and Carl Stromberg come to mind. How about something more original for a change?

(MILD SPOILER ALERT) What I did not expect, however, was the true identity of Gustav Graves. I felt both satisfied and disappointed. Satisfied because of the additional plot twist, and disappointed because now they had "deprived" me of a new villain character.

Overall, the movie was a fairly good Bond movie. It is certainly not up to par with "The World Is Not Enough" (still my favourite modern Bond) or even "Tomorrow Never Dies". But it's not that bad either. All the usual cast is still there (although this time John Cleese is Q, and he's doing a decent job at it), so I fully expect there to be an enjoyable fifth Brosnan Bond movie.

If you are going to watch this movie seriously, you must prepare to be quite stressed at some points. This is definitely not for casual viewing.

The movie is set in a medieval monastery where some mysterious character is murdering monks one by one. Add to that the absurd life these monks live - the Church is an authority with absolute power, new ideas are banned - and the setting is really intense.

Sean Connery (in his later years) plays the British monk William Baskerville, who has been invited as a guest from another monastery to solve the murder mystery. He and his assistant Adso Melk turn out to be the only sane characters in the entire movie.

The movie is based on a book by the contemporary researcher and columnist Umberto Eco. Even though the book (and the movie) appear to be a serious picturing of medieval life at first, I couldn't help thinking Eco intended the story to be a satire of the absurdity of blind Church worship. (**SPOILER ALERT** Particularly satirical is the scene near the end where the revered Jorge publically admits that there is no new knowledge at all, but only the old knowledge must be repeated.)

This movie might change your view on certain aspects of life after first viewing. If you think you can handle it, by all means give it a go.