|
Grex > Cinema > #23: ---<<<< AT THE MOVIES >>>>--- |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 146 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 122 of 146:
| 
Dec 20 13:24 UTC 1998 |
I'm going to the matinee this very day...
|
scott
|
|
response 123 of 146:
|
Dec 20 18:49 UTC 1998 |
...and Star Trek: Insurrection is...
Not bad!
OK, it will likely be a long time, if ever, before we get something like Wrath
of Khan again. This was a TNG film, so it wasn't quite as bombastic as a TOS
film. Rather, lots of interplay between well-known characters. If you recall
on TOS (The Original Show) where Dr. McCoy and Spock were sort of bickering
friends, TNG (The Next Generation) characters *all* have some kind of
relationship with each other full of little in-jokes from the series. This
movie plays on that a lot.
What else? F. Murray Abraham wasn't much of a villian, the obligatory plot
holes, yada yada yada.
If you liked TNG (even if you *hated* the last season or two, like I did)
you'll probably like this movie. Catch it at matinee or second run for
cheaper tickets and therefore more enjoyment.
Oh, and one other (unrelated) observation: I hadn't been to Showcase in a
couple years, so this was my first time with the new lobby and more theatres.
Wow, reminded me of walking thru Detroit Metro Airport, with all the twisty
little passages leading back to the last theatre in the building. I would
have waited for this movie to get to Fox Village for the $1.50 price, but
decided I wanted to see it *now*.
|
eieio
|
|
response 124 of 146:
|
Dec 20 20:42 UTC 1998 |
(Huh huh hhhhhuh. You said "toss".)
|
gregb
|
|
response 125 of 146:
|
Dec 20 22:06 UTC 1998 |
Re. 121: Care to share?
Re. 123: IMO, STWOK was the second worst ST film made. Talk about
"holes."
|
aruba
|
|
response 126 of 146:
|
Dec 20 22:46 UTC 1998 |
Wrath of Khan is still by far the best, IMO.
I enjoyed Insurrection. They tried to do a good episode this time, rather
than a grandiose "save the universe" kind of thing, like the last two,
and I appreciated that. I would've liked more exploration/exploitation of
the characters, but that has always been TNG's weak point; while the
characters in TOS were all essentially flawed, in one way or the other,
the TNG characters were much more blase. They all seemed to be just along
for the ride this time, though; really, the script could just as easily
have made up some new characters and not been a Star Trek movie at all.
|
senna
|
|
response 127 of 146:
|
Dec 20 23:49 UTC 1998 |
Greg? Are you okay? Wrath of Khan is almost universally worshipped as
the best Star Trek movie that was ever put together. I fail to see
where you're coming from in your particular criticism. Oh well. (And
if its the second worse, that means you rank either five or one better
than it, both of which are horrendously bad movies with plots like swiss
cheese).
This movie was a nice, light-hearted break. Not a world beater, and F.
Murray Abraham wasn't the worst guy ever invented, but he got the job
done. Mark is partially correct about the last two being serious, but
Generations wasn't a "save the universe" movie. It was a "save unlisted
planet with 200 million people" movie. More people, but it was still
relatively minor on the Star Trek scale of things. Not that that is
bad.
The characters in TNG have much more backstory behind them than TOS.
TOS had three seasons to develop its characters and the only ones that
got significant work were the main three. The others were essentially
one dimensional matte paintings until they got work in the movies.
Insurrection plays off the 7 seasons and 2 movies worth of
characterization the characters have, and it does it with contrast. I
agree, though, that the script could have been a different movie
entirely.
|
aruba
|
|
response 128 of 146:
|
Dec 21 03:49 UTC 1998 |
(I guess I shouldn't call Generations a "save the universe" film, but what
I meant was that it was grandiose, and bit off more than it could chew.)
|
senna
|
|
response 129 of 146:
|
Dec 21 08:54 UTC 1998 |
Didn't mean to denegrate Greg's opinion that much... I just think he's
dreadfully wrong :)
|
md
|
|
response 130 of 146:
|
Dec 21 12:36 UTC 1998 |
HE GOT GAME (A) -- A great performance by Denzel Washington, a so-so
story line but wonderful basketball vignettes and weirdly appropriate
music by Aaron Copland (Appalachian Spring, Billy the Kid, music
from the movies Our Town, The Red Pony, The Heiress, etc., and a
chilling couple of scenes using Copland's Orchestral Variations,
which is his orchestration of his famous Piano Variations). A good
solid performance by Jim Brown, of all people.
|
gregb
|
|
response 131 of 146:
|
Dec 22 02:50 UTC 1998 |
Re 127:
>Wrath of Khan is almost universally worshipped as the best Star Trek
>movie that was ever put together
"Universally?" And what statistical source came up with that
conclusion?
>I fail to see where you're coming from in your particular criticism.
I've been around Trek since it's inception in '66. Over the years,
I've become something of a Trek purist, and I balk at those things that
try to upset the established universe. A couple examples from WOK:
1) Several references are made to something called "energizer" or "main
energizer." You get the impression that this, whatever it is, runs the
whole ship. This greatly departs from what's been laid down in
previous movies, series, books, etc., and from third movie on, no
further mention is made of it, implying that it was an error in
"treknology."
2) Knan remembers Chekov. Excuse me, but Chekov came aboard /after/
the events of "Space Seed." Oh, and just for good measure, leet's not
forget the amazing, moving blood stain. There are plenty other such
things, if your interested.
>if its the second worse, that means you rank either five or one better
>than it,
Five was definitely the worst. No surprise that Shatner was never
asked to direct again. As for STTMP, no, it wasn't the best, but I
think it was one of most technically acurate. And'ya gotta admit,
seeing that grand cruise outside the new Enterprise was worth the cost
of admission. There was a beautiful ship.
|
eieio
|
|
response 132 of 146:
|
Dec 22 04:45 UTC 1998 |
Oh dear. Peeing matches over finer points of Star Trekkery. This just can't
get pretty.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 133 of 146:
|
Dec 22 13:54 UTC 1998 |
In the immortal words of William Shatner: "Get a life!"
|
md
|
|
response 134 of 146:
|
Dec 22 16:39 UTC 1998 |
Anyway, The Voyage Home was the best Star Trek movie.
|
scott
|
|
response 135 of 146:
|
Dec 25 20:33 UTC 1998 |
Chechov could have been in the crew for Space Seed, just not a bridge crew
character yet.
|
xtorted
|
|
response 136 of 146:
|
Dec 27 09:57 UTC 1998 |
Is it just me or is "Aliens" one of the top 5 best movies ever? The
characters were fun (it sucked when some of them died.. actually missed the
chaps), the creature effects were awesome, and the story wasn't too shabby
for a horror flick. Too bad Alien 3 happened.
|
md
|
|
response 137 of 146:
|
Dec 27 14:02 UTC 1998 |
One of the top 5 I don't know, but it's a great ride. The way
Sigourney Weaver spits out the word "bitch" at the end is perfect.
"Get away from her, you *bitch*." She isn't afraid anymore; she's
had it up to here with the f*cking monster, and is really, really,
pissed off. The monster is the greatest monster ever filmed, by far.
"Aliens" is a James Cameron film, which means his only agenda is
to put fannies in seats. In another item ages ago, before I knew
who James Cameron was, I said the difference between the directors
of the (at the time) three Alien movies was: the director of Alien^3
wants you to think he's cool; the director of Aliens wants you to
see his movie three times at the theater, and tell all your friends
how terrific it is, and buy the video when it comes out; and the
director of Alien wants you to eat shit and die. In retrospect,
pretty good likenesses of David Fincher, James Cameron, and Ridley
Scott, respectively.
|
xtorted
|
|
response 138 of 146:
|
Dec 27 22:53 UTC 1998 |
SPeaking of Ridley Sccott, was the new Alien flick any good? I think he
directed it, at least. Looked like it was pretty terrible.. The first two
were fathomable because it just so happened (1) that her crew were the first
to meet the Alien and survive and (2) that she was called to goto the planet
with a marine squad because she knew more than anyone else about the Aliens.
But the third one it made it out like it was her destiny and blah and the
fourth one kinda confirms that it's her destiny to fight the alien... which
is stupid. I heard the CG aliens looked really crappy too. I was kinda
excited at first because CG aliens, if done right, could be really scary.
But i hear they sucked, so whaeva.
|
mary
|
|
response 139 of 146:
|
Dec 28 11:12 UTC 1998 |
Good summary of the contrasting styles, Michael.
|
remmers
|
|
response 140 of 146:
|
Dec 30 14:54 UTC 1998 |
Re resp:138 - By the "new Alien flick" I assume you mean the fourth
one, "Alien Resurrection", which came out in mid-1998. I agree that
it wasn't so great. The director was not Ridley Scott, but rather
Jean-Pierre Jeunet. He did "City of Lost Children", a fantasy film
that I liked quite a bit. So I had hopes for Alien #4 but was
disappointed.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 141 of 146:
|
Dec 30 22:10 UTC 1998 |
Is that the one with all the crude language? Everthing was full of "s..t"
or "f.....g"? Like, this will be de-rigure astronaut language of the future?
|
krj
|
|
response 142 of 146:
|
Dec 31 00:50 UTC 1998 |
((There was a lot written in the SF conference this past fall about the
Alien movie series.))
|
remmers
|
|
response 143 of 146:
|
Dec 31 11:33 UTC 1998 |
Re resp:141 - "Alien 3" was the one with all the crude language.
|
drew
|
|
response 144 of 146:
|
Jan 4 01:32 UTC 1999 |
Re #141:
Crude language is common among the sailors; why not the spacers as well?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 145 of 146:
|
Jan 4 01:47 UTC 1999 |
No that you mention it - when space commerce becomes as common as merchant
ships now. In fact, after I wrote #141, I thought of truckers.....
|
redhat23
|
|
response 146 of 146:
|
May 15 04:14 UTC 1999 |
i head of a movie calle that one no enough. as pathetic as the title may sound
, the movie totally sucked to the core. it is a complete disgrace ot the
people who heard of how much moeny was put into the movie and how the
hollywood wannabes cut movies and movies and movies about the same old story
line.
|