29 new of 146 responses total.
hello i'm new user my name is francoul i'm french my e-mai francoulworldnet.fr
Me and a friend went to see Star Trek: Insurrection on opening night (yeah, I'm a little late getting this in). This movie, again, features the cast of STNG, including Worf (though no explination is given to his presence). As a whole, I'd say that STI would'ov made an excellent MFTV movie, but as a theater movie, I felt it wanting. One thing I did like about this Trek story was the inclusion of, what I like to call, everyday life scene; Something that's been missing in Trek stories. If your an ST fan, I think it's worth spending seven bucks...once. Otherwise, wait 'til it comes 'round to the dollar theaters.
Matinee was $4.25....
Explanation of why Worf is there is given, briefly, early in the film.
I'm going to the matinee this very day...
...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*.
(Huh huh hhhhhuh. You said "toss".)
Re. 121: Care to share? Re. 123: IMO, STWOK was the second worst ST film made. Talk about "holes."
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.
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.
(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.)
Didn't mean to denegrate Greg's opinion that much... I just think he's dreadfully wrong :)
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.
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.
Oh dear. Peeing matches over finer points of Star Trekkery. This just can't get pretty.
In the immortal words of William Shatner: "Get a life!"
Anyway, The Voyage Home was the best Star Trek movie.
Chechov could have been in the crew for Space Seed, just not a bridge crew character yet.
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.
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.
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.
Good summary of the contrasting styles, Michael.
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.
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?
((There was a lot written in the SF conference this past fall about the Alien movie series.))
Re resp:141 - "Alien 3" was the one with all the crude language.
Re #141:
Crude language is common among the sailors; why not the spacers as well?
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.....
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.
You have several choices: