Independence Day: Resurgence.

Review #2556: Independence Day: Resurgence.

Cast: 

Liam Hemsworth (Jake Morrison), Jeff Goldblum (David Levinson), Bill Pullman (President Thomas J. Whitmore), Maika Monroe (Patricia Whitmore), Jessie T. Usher (Dylan Hiller), Travis Tope (Charlie Miller), William Fichtner (General Joshua T. Adams), Charlotte Gainsbourg (Dr. Catherine Marceaux), Judd Hirsch (Julius Levinson), Brent Spiner (Dr. Brackish Okun), Sela Ward (President Elizabeth Lanford), Angelababy (Rain Lao), with Joey King (Sam Blackwell), Vivica A. Fox (Dr. Jasmine Dubrow-Hiller), Robert Loggia (General William Grey), Nicolas Wright (Floyd Rosenberg), DeObia Oparei (Dikembe Umbutu), and Chin Han (Jiang Lao)

Directed by Roland Emmerich (#193 - Independence Day, #413 - The Patriot, #2161 - Godzilla [1998])

Review: 

Hey, remember Independence Day? Apparently, the impetus for the original film was a question posed to Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin when they were promoting Stargate (1994) about believing in aliens building the pyramids that saw them ask, well, what if there were "14-mile-wide spaceships covering the sky?" Sure, Mars Attacks! (1996) loomed on the calendar, but Emmerich and Devlin aimed to make their movie anyway, which saw them basically write (in three weeks) a disaster movie akin to the 70s disaster flicks such as The Towering Inferno (1974) and Meteor (1979). When it came out in July 1996 to plenty of hype and fanfare, it actually was the highest-grossing film of that year (beating out poor Mars Attacks!. which sucks because that movie was probably better in actual quality). Cool, now do you remember Independence Day: Resurgence? As early as 2001, Emmerich and Devlin thought about doing a sequel, but they had curtailed those plans the first time in 2004 because they couldn't figure out the story. By 2011, there were rumblings again about doing not one, but two sequels. Through re-writes and various drafts (mainly because of the omission of one certain actor before filming), four people were credited with the story: Emmerich, Devlin, James A. Woods, and Nicolas Wright, while James Vanderbilt was credited along with the four for the screenplay. Made on a budget of $165 million and released in June 2016, the movie was not a major hit for anyone involved, with Emmerich and Devlin both stating that there was little chance of doing a third film.

Is it a quality defense when the director says he should've stopped making the movie? As early as 2019, three years after the release of Resurgence, Emmerich stated, yes, he "should have just said no" once Will Smith wasn't going to be in the film, which happened as a result of scheduling and salary demands. It is almost amazing to have five total writers and have little to nothing come out of the characters to actually root for beyond "the bare minimum". As I remember, the characters in the original were basically cardboard, but you could at least say there was a sense of interest in seeing what was under the curtain for a surprise (which in this case was, are you shocked, alien stuff in "Area 51" and a computer virus to start the process of telling the aliens to permanently go to sleep). Corny as the movie was, you at least felt there was some semblance of dignity in depicting folks all coming together (on the 4th of July you see) and being ready to kick ass (okay, maybe non-Americans didn't go ra-ra for it, but well, "Murica, baby!"). Twenty years later, with the presentation of "world peace" and a space defense program with alien technology....there is just a weird feeling that one is watching a film with nowhere to actually go. You see the designs of the (reverse-engineered) tech and a spiffier Washington and you wonder if they really thought people would be fine looking at something that reminded them of a video game cutscene. The aliens still look at forgettable as ever, and the Sphere (the "virtual intelligence") reminds me of someone trying to make a smaller version of Gort from The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951). 

The attempt at mixing in people from the original (ranging from Goldblum/Pullman/Hirsch/Spiner to basically cameos from Fox and Loggia*) with a new generation (Hemsworth, Monroe, Usher, and to a lesser extent, Topo and Angelababy) that each have had their lives shaped by one horrific week all leads to the least compelling and least interesting drama imaginable. This film feels ten years too late to actually say anything of note (once you destroy the White House, what is there left to move around for the sequel), so it instead just aims to be paid half-attention to by people on their phones. I probably care less for Goldblum than I did in the last film, and that's saying something for what was basically a wannabee Dr. Ian Malcolm in the first place, even with the addition of Gainsbourg (who ...is given nothing to do). Hemsworth and Usher might actually be competing for who achieves less with less: what the hell was Smith going to do in this film that changed the script so much to basically focus on the youth (meanwhile, Monroe, cast to replace Mae Whitman from the original, is given, wait for it, nothing to do). I can't tell who has the more unceremonious exit: Fox, who can't get off a falling building in time (after getting, what, 4 lines?) or Ward (as Madame President) goes the way of the dodo in a murky-looking scene. Probably the only people who look like they like having some work is Pullman or Spiner, and that sure says something when the latter has a scene where they gallivant around a bit in a barely contained hospital gown*. You get a few chuckles beneath basically a boring movie. For a movie that is two hours long (25 minutes shorter than the original, in one of the stranger cases when a sequel is shorter), it always seems to be two steps behind in actually going anywhere: it dangles an idea that some African war lord spent ten years fighting aliens in hand-to-hand combat, but his son is given the job of being the straight man to a middling subplot about a nerd wanting to get into combat. Hive minds and "Harvesters" and drilling to the Earth's core (with a timer) while buildings get thrown around just seems like a movie that either was postmarked "2006" or simply didn't have enthusiasm to actually make it worth looking further.  It just reeks of trying to make a franchise without actually focusing on spectacle and believing they had enough in the tank to bait people into hearing more, complete with an ending that sequel baits with probably the least amount of conviction possible. If the original film was "dumb fun" that the viewer either enjoyed or disliked with the clear flaws (dialogue, design, general Emmerich weaknesses), the sequel film manages the honor of just being dumb with middling return value for all involved. 

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Happy 4th...

*Loggia died on December 4, 2015, six months before the film was released. At least he was cool in the first film.

*Okay, so Spiner's character is apparently gay and spends most of the action with his partner, who I guess loved giving out flowers in the hospital ward for years. Honestly, I forgot if they were partners before 1996 or if this guy just fell for a dude in a coma that had long hair.

Star Trek: Nemesis.

Review #2324: Star Trek: Nemesis.

Cast: 

Patrick Stewart (Captain Jean-Luc Picard), Jonathan Frakes (Commander / Captain William T. Riker), Brent Spiner (Lieutenant Commander Data / B-4), LeVar Burton (Lieutenant Commander Geordi La Forge), Michael Dorn (Lieutenant Commander Worf), Gates McFadden (Doctor Beverly Crusher), Marina Sirtis (Counselor Deanna Troi), Tom Hardy (Praetor Shinzon), Ron Perlman (the Reman Viceroy), and Dina Meyer (Romulan Commander Donatra) Directed by Stuart Baird (#1692 - U.S. Marshals)

Review: 

By the year 2002, Star Trek was in the midst of a long slog of what you might call its second phase of franchising. From 1987 to 2005, there was at least one Star Trek TV show on the air (before the dawn of streaming, one could watch shows in "broadcast syndication"). Of those, only The Next Generation (the one that started with a child prodigy that no one liked and a crappy-ish first two years that I liked as "pretty good" before Deep Space Nine challenged what that really meant) attracted attention enough to actually make movies with; in the winter of 2002, Nemesis, the fourth and final film with those Next Gen characters, was released, coming after the lone success of First Contact (1996) and two middling efforts with Generations (1994) and Insurrection (1998). The original story for this film came from the efforts of three people: John Logan, a previous co-writer of films such as Any Given Sunday [1999] and Gladiator [2000], Rick Berman, who previously responsible for co-writing the last three films...and Brent Spiner. Stuart Baird was hired to direct the film, having been previously known for his Academy Award-nominated work on editing for Superman [1978] and Gorillas in the Mist [1988] before becoming a feature director with Executive Decision (1996) and U.S. Marshals (1998); at it stands, this is the last directorial effort for Baird, who still edits well into his seventies. The movie was a financial failure at the time of release, and it spurred the end of any new Star Trek films for seven years.

It's funny to see this as the "final journey" of a crew when you consider Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991). Those main actors were all past their fifties (some even in their seventies, whereas with Nemesis, the oldest was Stewart in his sixties), but there was something to the idea of "The wall coming down in outer space" that felt like a damn good way to end on a high note (the less said about Generations, the better?) in embracing change. Here I feel like I am watching B-roll footage of rejected Star Trek material. You have a person who looks and kind of talks like the captain to go along with some deadly plague and a plot to destroy the Earth and Data being Data (complete with the crew godawful dark uniforms because god forbid there is any color beyond undershirts); hell, Troi being mind-violated was actually done before with the episode "Violations", and that one didn't have the crew going "oh, I'm not letting you relieve yourself of duty." I don't think you can even say it falls on Baird, because, well, the last film in the series was directed by Frakes with the plodding Insurrection. Maybe it is cliche to say, but this is certainly a movie that looks "tired". Here, it just feels again that one is watching an overextended episode of the show that only lets Stewart, Hardy, and Spiner have anything to actually do. It is the ultimate experience of frustration: it provides a few familiar comforts that never has a terrible stumbling block or great moment. It fritters and dithers for nearly two hours like an old pet that forgot how to do tricks. Hell, it presents Remus (a planet right around Romulus, heh, get it) with little to no actual curiosity despite the whole *vampire slaves* thing (okay, they're sensitive to light, but didn't that sound better?). Baird seems trapped in actually making a movie with people in it, and it is funny to see that from a guy who had been wrapped in a film sequel (sort of) years earlier with U.S. Marshals (1998), which somehow seems more up his alley. The action scenes are hit and miss (we will not discuss the dune buggy sequence), with the battle for the climax at least serving serviceable, which is both the best mark for the film and a sad thing to say for a movie that ran itself into the ground before it even got halfway to the 117-minute runtime. 

You know, there were seven cast members for this show, but if you watched the four Next Gen films back-to-back, you could swear there was only three or so that actually did anything of note (poor McFadden might as well be a ghost, and it is perhaps great irony that Dorn, who had the pleasure of being a key cast member of more Star Trek episodes than anybody...has nothing do here in the last time he played Worf for years). Honestly, at a certain point, I think I stopped caring about Data when it came to this film. By the time the film tries its little rug pull moment, my mind was elsewhere (evidently, Spiner wanted his character killed off due to fears of aging in the last film, here he gets his wish with a cheap trick). Stewart (who called the film "particularly weak" in his memoirs) may be the most talented in going with sci-fi mumbojumbo, but is it really a compliment to be the best part of a sinking ship? The funny thing about Hardy is that the attempts to make him look like a younger clone of Stewart has the same effect as trying to pretend that Wooly Willy is fun after spending five minutes with it. As a whole, it is a sad experience to watch such a plain bad Star Trek movie, managing to prove that either one should make their script is all the way to go before making a movie or one shouldn't even try at all if the result is something like this. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut.

Review #2226: South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut.

Cast: 

Trey Parker (Stan Marsh / Eric Cartman / Gregory / Satan / Mr. Garrison / Mr. Hat / Phillip Niles Argyle / Randy Marsh / Clyde Donovan / Tom – News Reporter / Midget in a Bikini / Bill Clinton / Canadian Ambassador / Bombardiers / Mr. Mackey / Army General / Ned Gerblansky / Bill Allen / Fosse McDonald / Christophe – Ze Mole / Big Gay Al (singing voice) / Adolf Hitler / additional voices), Matt Stone (Kyle Broflovski / Kenny McCormick (Hooded) / Saddam Hussein / Terrance Henry Stoot / Big Gay Al / Ticket Taker / Stuart McCormick / Jimbo Kearn / Gerald Broflovski / Butters Stotch / American Ambassador / additional voices), Mary Kay Bergman (Sheila Broflovski / Liane Cartman / Sharon Marsh / Carol McCormick / Wendy Testaburger / Clitoris / additional voices), Isaac Hayes (Chef), with Jesse Howell, Anthony Cross-Thomas & Franchesca Clifford (Ike Broflovski), Bruce Howell (Man in Theatre), Deb Adair (Woman in Theatre), Jennifer Howell (Bebe Stevens), George Clooney (Dr. Gouache), Brent Spiner (Conan O'Brien), Minnie Driver (Brooke Shields), Dave Foley (the Baldwin brothers), and Eric Idle (Dr. Vosknocker) Directed by Trey Parker.

Review: 

"We grew up with Monty Python, as fucked-up as that all was, and Dirty Harry and Charles Bronson and ultraviolence. People seem to forget that the world has been ultraviolent for a long time. Both of us — and all our friends — grew up in that culture, and we’re fine. There’s nothing about Marilyn Manson that says, “Pick up a gun and kill people.” And there’s nothing about South Park that says that, either." -Trey Parker 

" If there’s an overriding message in South Park, it’s just to question authority. That’s the shit we make fun of." -Matt Stone

Believe it or not, I have been waiting for this day to come for a while. In what I would call an "on-and-off basis", I watched at least a dozen episodes of a show that was for whatever reason shown late at night (the one that served as an affiliate for Fox) for at least a few weeks in that time where kids remember the weirdest things (as opposed to bad friends) watched when they are 27. That one was South Park, and it sure is a hell of a time trying to get the memory of stuff such as "Mecha-Streisand" out of your head. The genesis for what eventually became a television show on Comedy Central was a couple of stop motion animated short films as created and voiced by Trey Parker and Matt Stone, who had first met in study at the University of Colorado. The shorts of "The Spirit of Christmas" featured a killer snowman and Jesus fighting Santa to go with a couple of kids that is all done on construction paper and 8mm film. Inspired by various programs such as Monty Python, the show (with all but its pilot using computer technology) that resulted from the folks that gave you Cannibal! The Musical (1993) and Orgazmo (1997) is one that has managed to stay on the air for over 25 years, although I have to admit that for some reason, only the early stuff (some favorites of the early stuff is the one where the kids try to get a cop to learn how to read or, well, "Jewbilee" [aired one month after the film] had Moses depicted as a dreidel and was hilarious) seems to attract my curiosity (incidentally Parker and Stone have noted their dislike of their earlier episodes in terms of writing, proving that sometimes ome really can just ignore recommendations). Anyway, the film was in mind as early as 1998, complete with the condition by Stone and Parker to have it an R rating. The episode "Death" was a key influence, since that one involved the comedy styling of Terrance & Phillip (fart jokes) offending parents enough to ditch their kids while they go off to protest (which naturally was Stone and Parker's response to certain criticism people had of the show). Parker and Stone wrote the film with Pam Brady while composer Marc Shaiman co-wrote the songs with Parker. Made at the same time that the show was in production with a slightly different animation usage (Alias|Wavefront PowerAnimator), the movie barely sneaked in with an R rating (evidently if you are a studio project, you get a specific target on your back when it comes to swearing) and was released on June 30, 1999 to general success.

Parker and Stone didn't make a second South Park film, but they did collaborate for a different kind of non-liveaction film in Team America: World Police (involving puppetry) five years later. Every so often, I have to remind myself that there is always someone pissy about folks saying swear words at certain moments. I enjoyed this about as well as I thought I would for a film that has a few amusing songs that actually work to the film's benefit. It manages to avoid most of the traps one can find when trying to adapt a show into a movie (such as feeling like just a compilation of episodes) with an engaging pace and plenty of ways to drain from the well of showmanship. Parker and Stone managing to make a film where one only needs three or four voices (which includes the smooth timing of Hayes and Bergman) to make something seem like, well, a film with cartoon atmosphere (such as with Cartman, probably the most amusing goon to ever terrorize the senses for laughter at and with). The songs hit that certain type of sweetspot in not overstating its welcome and, well, being pretty silly fun, particularly with "Blame Canada" in its scapegoating glory. Within a film involving a gay(ish) Satan and Saddam Hussein is also one about the dangers of parents trying to play scapegoat in blaming someone for what their kids pick up rather than looking in the mirror and actually making the effort to reach out to their kids. Amusingly enough, there were apparently a number of young folks who were reported to buy tickets for films adjacent to this one so they could try and sneak in. There is the usual type of creativity in havoc to be found here, such as the reveal of Hell (complete with song and ghosts of folks meant to generate biting one's lip such as George Burns or Ghandi) or the momentary bits of guest voices/making fun of certain people (incidentally, George Clooney had appeared in a previous South Park episode, voicing sounds of a gay dog). I can't resist the crude enjoyment, particularly since it proves that one can push the boundaries of animation in terms of crass nature to go with a message more interesting than corporate meandering. As a whole, the movie serves followers of the original show exactly what they would anticipate in anarchic charm without compromising its sense of self for a rewarding time in the full of piss and vinegar mindset.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Master of Disguise.

Review #1705: The Master of Disguise.

Cast: 

Dana Carvey (Pistachio Disguisey), Jennifer Esposito (Jennifer Baker), Harold Gould (Grandpa Disguisey), James Brolin (Fabbrizio Disguisey), Brent Spiner (Devlin Bowmna), Edie McClurg ("Mama" Disguisey), Michael Bailey Smith (Bald Henchman), Austin Wolff (Barney Baker), Kenan Thompson (Himself), Jay Johnston (Rex), and Maria Canals (Sophia) Directed by Perry Andelin Blake.

Review: 

You would be surprised to know that this was released on August 2, 2002 if you saw the film, because, well, it really seems to be the first film-void to ever exist. Just remember, this film was written by Dana Carvey. Well, actually he wrote the story and co-wrote the screenplay with Harris Goldberg, but the point is still true. Of course we all know that Carvey wasn't exactly a slouch for comedy. Born in Montana but raised in San Francisco, he had become interested in comedy after graduating with a degree in broadcast communications from San Francisco State University; he made a few appearances in film and television in supporting roles, but his break came with joining the cast of Saturday Night Live in 1986, and he would work on the show for seven years with a mix of original characters and impressions of various personalities of the day. Of course, not every SNL cast member went on to just be a major film star, but he did dabble in film with features such as Opportunity Knocks (1990) and Clean Slate (1994) alongside a short-lived variety project with The Dana Carvey Show (1996, which lasted eight episodes). This is the first and so far only film directed by Blake, who had gotten into film as a production designer in the 1990s after graduating from Harvard University in architecture. Incidentally, his first feature was Billy Madison (1995), and he continued his association with Adam Sandler as part of his film crew for years. The film managed to make back its $16 million budget twice over, but I suppose some things like directing aren't meant to be. This was produced by Happy Madison Productions, which Sandler had co-founded in 1999; Carvey was the third SNL collaborator that had worked with Sandler to have his own film with the company, which naturally included Rob Schneider and David Spade in illustrious works such as Joe Dirt (2001) that clearly got better in later years. At any rate, this is the last film that Carvey served as the star and the last feature he did for nearly a decade, which he stated was because he wanted to spend time with his family.

Honestly, their was a sliver of cynical guessing that this was meant to be some sort of joke on the audience, as if Carvey was trying to take your curiosity and your mood at the same time, which only makes sense if you realize that this really isn't an 80 minute movie either (owing to minutes of credits that filler a movie with no soul). One scene has him ripping a dude's nose off before spitting it back onto his face...so that's one way to do it. Heck, go even farther, you might as well have shown him go for more than 20 impressions, you could have him try to impersonate the other actors and make it an offbeat one-man show. Carvey tries to coast on mimicry and can't quite get there, as if one is watching a premature rendition of MacGruber (2010) but without the "cult audience". By the time one gets to him trying to "disguise" himself as a turtle, one has already checked out, as if being irritated is too much effort; one instead turns to indifference and hope it doesn't turn to pity over an attempt at boyish charm for a near 50-year old actor. Esposito evokes a small smile in that she doesn't become overwhelmed by the void of boredom that arises from no chemistry between her and Carvey. One has seen Gould in far better material, particularly since he spends a good part of his time playing insult man to Carvey. It is strange to see Brolin here, if only because the makeup here makes him look like he has morphed into Burt Reynolds, one that is bemused in standing around and occasionally doing a gag from time to time (hence the cameos, because they basically do the same one three times with the guest star going around and stealing an item before the mask comes off for Brolin). When asked about his favorite film that wasn't liked by critics, Spiner once responded with this film...that is probably the nicest thing I can say about a performance that has in a loop, one that sees him cackle before he farts. I don't need to pile on, do I? Perhaps it was a coincidence that Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002) was released just a week before this feature. Think about it: that was also a movie where the lead actor (in this case, a SNL cast-mate with Mike Myers) played a bunch of roles, and it also featured a strange amount of cameos (although this feature's best idea of a cameo is Bo Derek). I guess the quality of the impression goes on how much one doesn't think of Peter Sellers when it comes to assuming the persona of a role. Of course, I say this because Sellers had a variety of classics to go along with quite a handful of missteps when it comes to impressions with the rhythm of humor (in other words, there is a reason one thinks of Being There rather than The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu as the last hurrah for Sellers). You see where I am going with the impressions, do you? You can do a whole bunch of impressions, but if it comes in a movie that has the bare minimum when it comes to timing or gags besides "look, he went from a faux-Italian accent to makeup", the biggest loser is the sucker who has to watch it, and they sure do get to look at the background a bit after a while. As a whole, the movie is blah, filled with rote gags that only a bored juvenile person might appreciate. Actually, watching a film develop into a void could make for a terrible curiosity for those who really, really, really want to see cheap gags and nothing else.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Next batter up.

Star Trek: Insurrection.

Review #842: Star Trek: Insurrection.

Cast
Patrick Stewart (Captain Jean-Luc Picard), Jonathan Frakes (William Riker), Brent Spiner (Data), LeVar Burton (Geordi La Forge), Michael Dorn (Worf), Gates McFadden (Dr. Beverly Crusher), Marina Sirtis (Deanna Troi), F. Murray Abraham (Ru'afo), Donna Murphy (Anij), Anthony Zerbe (Admiral Dougherty), Gregg Henry (Gallatin), Daniel Hugh Kelly (Sojef), Michael Welch (Artim) Directed by Jonathan Frakes (#840 - Star Trek: First Contact)

Review
Given that I did First Contact on the 50th Anniversary of the original series, I decided to mark the anniversary of the first episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation (September 28, 1987) with the third installment in the Next Generation film series, Insurrection.

After the success (and tone) of First Contact, a decision was made to try and make the next film of the franchise lighter in tone, much like Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (#492) had been, with its unconventional kind of story (that also had no villain to it). But all that Insurrection proves to be is a middle-of-the-road kind of Star Trek film that doesn't really have much to it. It is tough to say what is the main root of necessarily why it isn't all that enjoyable, because it feels more like splinters of why it manages to bungle itself. Perhaps the big splinter is the plot, with the crew fighting the Federation (read: an Admiral) over the forced migration of immortals (of 600, named the Ba'ku) from the planet (with immortalizing rings) they are on. But really, the dilemma of whether they should be moved or not in order to potentially save millions isn't presented as interestingly as it could have been. Instead of agreeing/disagreeing with the view presented by the movie, one is more likely to not really care about the people affected.

The Ba'ku aren't really presented with much characterization other than "we don't use technology", aside from Murphy, whose scenes with Stewart is fine, but they don't do the movie much in terms of enjoyment. Sure, the deal between the Federation and the Son'a  may have been a bit rash (in not asking them, even making a holodeck village in preparation), but I can't imagine this being unsuccessful for millions if it had been presented differently. Had it not been for the climax (and the "twist"), one could full-heartily be for the counterpoint and the people for it and not for the Ba'ku. Abraham (as the villain) is fine, but he only gets interesting around the climax, when he starts trying to destroy everyone, even if he is killed in a mild manner. The effects are fine, but not really anything noteworthy. As weird it may seem, I wish the Ba'ku had some makeup to them, to make them a bit more interesting looking. The Son'a are interesting, with their rubbery look fitting well with their characterization. The main cast is fine, even if they don't really seem to have as much presence with each other compared the other two films with the cast. In a way, it really does feel like a two-parter of the show, just not as good. At 103 minutes, it feels a bit too short, but at least it isn't too much of a slog. Compared to First Contact, it is a disappointment, but it's not like there isn't other things to watch (Like Descent, for example). Some might find the dilemma posed by the movie to more compelling than I did, but for me it just didn't work enough.

Coming soon by the end of the year: An explanation guide for the star ratings on this blog.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Star Trek: First Contact.

Review #840: Star Trek: First Contact.

Cast
Patrick Stewart (Jean-Luc Picard), Jonathan Frakes (William Riker), Brent Spiner (Data), LeVar Burton (Geordi La Forge), Michael Dorn (Worf), Gates McFadden (Beverly Crusher), Marina Sirtis (Deanna Troi), Alfre Woodard (Lily Sloane), James Cromwell (Zefram Cochrane), Alice Krige (Borg Queen), Michael Horton (Security Officer), and Neal McDonough (Lt. Hawk) Directed by Jonathan Frakes.

Review
There have already been a plethora of Star Trek film reviews done by me (#009 - Star Trek (2009), #225 - Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, #226 - Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered County, #246 - Star Trek Generations, #299 - Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, #337 - Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, #492 - Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, #515 - Star Trek: The Motion Picture, #665 - Star Trek Into Darkness), but First Contact (based off ST: The Next Generation) was not one of them. Until now, anyway. Today is the 50th Anniversary of the premiere of the Original Series, and this year also happens to be the 20th Anniversary of this film, so I decided to connect the two for today. I guess you could call me a fan of The Next Generation, though I pride myself a film guy first...just kidding, nobody uses that phrase. In all seriousness, I really do dig the show, especially "The Best of Both Worlds", which also happens to have the Borg as the main villain. Onto the movie.

It's interesting that it's been over a year since I reviewed a Star Trek film, and it's almost been four years since I reviewed Star Trek Generations (#246). That movie was okay at points, but it never really felt interesting enough to make a movie out of. Having Kirk didn't help the idea of passing the torch fully from the original cast to the cast of the Next Generation, with a villain that was only mildly compelling at best. First Contact, however, is entertaining, using a familiar villain from the show but making it work for anyone to follow, much like with Wrath of Khan. Stewart is fairly compelling, with one of my favorite scenes being one in which he smashes a model ship into a window, and he is also pretty convincing in the action scenes, without losing too much of what makes him such a good Captain. Woodward also does pretty well in her scenes with Picard, having a fair amount of presence, particularly at the end right before the climax. Krige is clearly having fun as the villain, and she does a pretty good job, with the scenes with Spiner also being interesting to watch as well, managing to not chew too much of the scenery. The rest of the cast also does well, with Cromwell being pretty entertaining, alongside Frakes and Burton. Revenge (and time travel) are pretty common for Star Trek to begin with, but First Contact manages to convey it with enough conviction and legitimacy that it works on its own without being too familiar. The action scenes are done fine, without overshadowing the movie. The Borg look excellent, looking menacing and creepy at the same time. Simply put, it's an enjoyable movie that will most likely make you want to watch the show, but more likely stick with you for a while.

Live long and prosper, everyone.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Star Trek Generations.

Review #246: Star Trek Generations.

Cast
Patrick Stewart (Captain Jean-Luc Picard), Jonathan Frakes (William T. Riker), Brent Spiner (Data), William Shatner (James T. Kirk), Malcolm McDowell (Soran), LeVar Burton (Geordi La Forge), Michael Dorn (Worf), Gates McFadden (Beverly Crusher), Marina Sirtis (Deanna Troi), Alan Ruck (John Harriman), James Doohan (Montgomery Scott), and Walter Koenig (Pavel Chekov) Directed by David Carson.

Review
The last time I reviewed a Star Trek film was a month ago (#226 - Star Trek VI - The Undiscovered Country) I talked about this film for a sentence in that review: "This would be the last film for the Original Series cast (Except for Shatner, Doohan, and Koenig, who would return in Star Trek: Generations) A new generation of films would soon follow." That generation would begin with...a baton handed from one side to the other side. But does it work out well? Well...Kinda. To begin with, the baton holding isn't much holding as it is just "here ya go" The cast does an alright job, but Soren isn't a very threatening villain. His plan amounts to "Fire a rocket at Nexus and see if works", which isn't much of a evil thing when you think about it. The film uses the oddest way to kill a character by just "dropping a bridge on him" Data is...irritating? annoying? I don't know what to say. While its effects are good (including the ship crash), the film simply mishandles its opportunity of Picard and Kirk for...I don't know exactly. But oh well. Countdown to 250: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4...

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.