Green Room.

Review #2460: Green Roon.

Cast: 

Anton Yelchin (Pat), Imogen Poots (Amber), Alia Shawkat (Sam), Joe Cole (Reece), Callum Turner (Tiger), Patrick Stewart (Darcy Banker), Mark Webber (Daniel), Eric Edelstein (Big Justin), Macon Blair (Gabe), Kai Lennox (Clark), David W. Thompson (Tad), Brent Werzner (Werm), and Taylor Tunes (Emily) Written and Directed by Jeremy Saulnier.

Review: 

"In Green Room, the gasps are real. People are sort of white-knuckled watching this movie. That’s what I love. The involuntary response their bodies create. It’s pretty hard to do, to make people actually terrified. It’s about making the characters relatable. It’s about breaking a few rules, not just to break them, but to keep things off-balance. Let people know that they’re not going where they’re supposed to go. You go where the characters take you, which is terrifying because these people have no fucking idea what they’re doing. As for the violence, because there’s so much brutality in Green Room, and there’s some full-frontal gore, it can be perceived as sensational. But the way I treat it, if you look and scrutinize every moment, it’s very reverent."

Sure, let's go with a vicious little thriller to feature for once. This was the third film of Jeremy Saulnier, who started making films in his early twenties. The Virginia native became a feature filmmaker with the horror-comedy Murder Party (2007), which he wrote and shot himself. His next film was the Kickstarter-funded Blue Ruin (2013), which he also wrote and shot with the idea that it could've easily been his last movie with the time required to raise his family. The impetus for making this film was his desire to make a movie with a green room, with his experiences at concert venues as a person who used to be in a punk band shaping a short film that he made in 2007 staying in his mind for when he could make a film the way he wanted. You may or may not be surprised that punk had a bit of the skinheads in there, particularly ones that liked to wear uniforms (and conversely there also existed Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice). What Saulnier had the most fun was in realizing what he wanted to do for years and yet not have a clue just where he wanted to take it before figuring out where both sides of the door would go in their choices without playing into too many genre tropes; he specifically stated that there was nothing sadistic in the film but instead "brutal difference and self-preservation" and one choice act of unmotivated violence that leads to the clash. Premiering at the Cannes Film Festival in 2015 but not getting a release in theaters until spring 2016 (first limited before wide), the movie was not a big success at the time, but Saulnier has continued to make films with Hold the Dark (2018) and Rebel Ridge (2024).

Sure, you could call it a punk rendition of Assault on Precinct 13 (1976). But it has its own type of relentless dread and brutality that make for a resounding success in unsettling the viewer with how fast things can go down in the pit of bleakness and keep going. The horror is the fact that everything that could go wrong for these folks in the film can in fact can be much worse to actually see play out. The parts you see within the land of skinheads and their type of organization (right down to the dog-training) are probably most unsettling because it seems so natural in a way that it hits all the marks required to strike bone. Yelchin (who tragically passed away in 2016) manages to sell the quick-rising fear that comes in going from having one's trouble evolve from where to maybe siphon gas to most definitely seeing someone with a knife in their head. Granted the group of rockers do have a bit of time to show the toil of punk rocking in a world that doesn't really seem to hear the notes for a few chuckles (note that they play at a Mexican restaurant early on). Poots and her weary expression to pair with Yelchin for a good chunk of the film makes for a fascinating one to see, one with a cracked sense of self that seems authentic in the all of the strange sad ways possible. Technically speaking, Stewart is not in the film too much, coming in and out of the darkening situation (figuratively and literally, if you consider one of the last lines of the film) but he makes the most of it with a unsettling sense of calm that reminds you that there are people like him somewhere in the world that are content with who and what they believe in without needing to turn to unnecessary bombast. Others who make an impression include Blair and his shaky presence at the powder keg of ugliness or the small moments that show the strange place that we are having to look upon (at one point you've got a guy willingly getting into a stabbing incident to help distract a cop). The movie earns its stripes of making you care about the violence and how it could easily happen to any of us who find ourselves in a bad spot and can't rely on people adhering to cliches and tricks, with the climax allowing for only the slightest of relief of the stark nature we just saw for 95 minutes. As a whole, Green Room manages to show the terror of places you couldn't imagine exist and shows that one can have their stomach churn in its simple brutality and solid execution.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

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.

Lifeforce.

Review #2134: Lifeforce.

Cast: 

Steve Railsback (Col. Tom Carlsen), Peter Firth (Col. Colin Caine), Frank Finlay (Dr. Hans Fallada), Mathilda May (Space Girl), Patrick Stewart (Dr. Armstrong), Michael Gothard (Dr. Leonard Bukovsky), Nicholas Ball (Roger Derebridge), Aubrey Morris (Sir Percy Heseltine), Nancy Paul (Ellen), Sidney Livingstone (Ned Price), and John Hallam (Lamson) Directed by Tobe Hooper (#348 - Poltergeist, #1297 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, #1909 - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2)

Review: 

"Lifeforce had a great look but lacked a screenplay. There wasn't a hell of a lot that could be done about that except to change it completely. The film started off as Space Vampires, and that's actually what it should've been called. With that title you'd look at that picture with a completely different set of sunglasses!"

I know that beating the drum for Tobe Hooper seems a bit futile once I get to some of his later films, but damn it, the director made The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) and Poltergeist (1982 - anyone who calls it some sort of "Spielberg" effort is not worth their salt as a film viewer). Anybody who directs two pretty good horror films (and directs a TV adaptation of a Stephen King book that I can't even fathom watching because it was made for TV) can't really have failed to live to their potential. The film is based on the 1976 book The Space Vampires, as written by Colin Wilson, a writer who specialized in the genres of true crime, mysticism and paranormal. He apparently was influenced by the works of H.P. Lovecraft for this story, which deal with energy vampires. Of course, the film is set around the time of the flyby of Hailey's Comet (which occurred in 1986, as opposed to the future in the book) due to suggestion by Hooper to the screenplay writers in Dan O'Bannon and Don Jakoby (they weren't big on the Comet thing, but who cares?). Apparently, Wilson thought little of the film, once saying, "John Fowles had once told me that the film of The Magus was the worst movie ever made. After seeing Lifeforce I sent him a postcard telling him that I had got one better." There exist two cuts: a theatrical cut that lasted 101 minutes and an "international cut" that lasted 116, with most of the edits involving less time with the spaceship. I was fortunate enough to see the international cut, which basically means lines for a handful of actors that were basically cut out of the theatrical version. Michael Winner apparently was considered for the film as director before Hooper got into it, which is one produced by none other than Yoram Globus and Menahem Golan as the first of three that Hooper did for The Cannon Group, who apparently influenced the idea to call it "Lifeforce" because they thought calling it after the book's title would make it sound like one of their low-budget exploitation films. Who the hell did they think was going to see this film, esteemed members of culture that would give Hooper or the Cannon folks credit?

Admittedly, the reputation of the film is more of a "maybe it could be a cult thing" than anything, because it really verges on what one gets from having an international version to compare things to. Well, that, and it is basically a pastiche of stuff you would've seen in those Quatermass films from a few years back along with a bit of O'Bannon's previous work in Alien (1979). The key to the film in the end is in just going with the flow of its strange bubble of energy that has some frights within vampires of energy, ghost ships, a climax set upon St. Paul's Cathedral, vampires that apparently love to wear as little clothes as possible. You've got the British with their own space program to go with spaceships that was apparently modeled after an artichoke, how could you not see this coming? I wonder what the result for Hooper would have been if this film had come out after, say, Invaders from Mars (released in 1986, which had O'Bannon and Jakoby write for it as well), rather than his big effort directing Poltergeist (1982). I suppose people really didn't think Hooper had a spry tribute to Hammer in his cards, and that's too bad for those folks, because the film is pretty enjoyable. May (in her second film role that happens to be her most notable one) makes a suitable presence in hypnotic form that invites mayhem in a manner that is not just an excuse for skin gawking. Railsback and Firth are curious observers to have for leads, particularly since one is meant to have a "psychic connection" to the vampire. They seem about on par with the general attention one would have spent with a Hammer film when it comes to looking at some weird creatures and fun that don't make them seem embarrassed to be there. Okay, maybe Stewart seems a bit miffed to be here, but you would be too if you take all the time necessary to show up for a predictable fate when compared to say, Finlay. The climax is the kind of one where you just throw your hands up and go with it if you like it or just thank the one above that it means its all over. I enjoyed the weird way it crashes all down, because at least the threat is at least presented with some sort of threat levels beyond just saying "huh?". As a whole, it is a frenzied little mystery with a few curious effects and some evident enthusiasm for making a pastiche of the old horror films of the Hammer stuff that is pretty entertaining even in its hurried strangeness to make a film you could at least see once without too much trouble. I can't call it a pretty good one, but Hooper made his efforts count at any rate.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

It is Halloween: The Week After, Year Five. As per tradition, the horror invasion from October continues from November 1st until November 7th, which has seen 22 reviews of all the things you would expect, from the very first in Dracula (1979) to last year's stuff such as 3 From Hell (2021). Let's set the tone differently with The Last House on the Left (1972).

L.A. Story

Review #1630: L.A. Story.

Cast: 

Steve Martin (Harris K. Telemacher), Victoria Tennant (Sara McDowel), Richard E. Grant (Roland Mackey), Marilu Henner (Trudi), Sarah Jessica Parker (SanDeE*), Susan Forristal (Ariel), Kevin Pollak (Frank Swan), Sam McMurray (Morris Frost), Patrick Stewart (Maitre d' at L'Idiot), Andrew Amador (Bob), and Gail Grate (Gail) Directed by Mick Jackson (#202 - Volcano)

Review: 

"My mature film career started with All of Me and ends with L.A. Story."

There are plenty of films that involve a depiction or shall we say "love letter" to a city, whether that involves symphonies like Berlin: Symphony of a Metropolis (1927), films involving history with a city like San Francisco (1936), or films with a city in mind for a theme like New York Stories (1989), or even films that just happen to have a city in the title like The Houston Story (1956). But what about Los Angeles? One could offer up La La Land (2016), sure, but there exists a more clear option, one with a dreamy touch. Here is one for the "City of Angels", written and starring Steve Martin, who was raised near the area (in Inglewood and Garden Grove), which even included study at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). This was his sixth writing effort, which he wrote on and off over the course of seven years (while working on other films, of course). Elements of William Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream come out in in the film (alongside modified quotations from the author recited in voiceover), although Martin noted that The Bothy Band's "The Maid of Coolmore" affected his writing for the film as well. This was the second directorial effort of Mick Jackson, a British director who went to Hollywood after directing numerous television films.

This is certainly a nice little film for what is a romantic comedy that drips satire every which way it can that takes amusement of everyday life in a city as eccentric as Los Angeles with clever interest that hits most of its marks when it comes to amusement made over its pokes that range from architecture to gags involving art (complete with a rolling scene at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art). In addition to that, there are various cameo appearances throughout the film that range from Woody Harrelson to Chevy Chase to Rick Moranis, which result in a few giggles as well. If one lets their mind go, the body (and enjoyment) will follow, you might say - it happens with a film that involves a mix of sight gags and other moments within the sunny superficial city (whether that means gun etiquette on the highway or a scene at lunch for example). In this sense, Martin is obviously in his element here, wry but always on the move when dealing with modern struggles that come with neurotic success. He skates, he (loosely) quotes Shakespeare, and he even gets to have an interesting time to spend in chemistry with Tennant (the two were married at the time of production, coincidentally). Tennant is up to following along with the offbeat times spent as the outsider bemused at what passes for L.A. culture without seeming distant or too wry for bemusement. Grant may not have as much to do, but he sure is nice to see here, offbeat but useful for what is needed in this love rectangle. Parker (best known for work on Broadway as a youth alongside films like Girls Just Want to Have Fun) does well here, playing a Valley Girl type with energy and enthusiasm that counters Martin (and the evident age difference, obviously) without being just being used for cheap gags and nothing else. Others have their moments, such as an accompanying Henner and Forristal in go-getter status and friendly eccentric, respectively. Pollak and others like Stewart (utilized in one fun sequence involving restaurant negotiation) fill in the edges of a L.A. that will feel right at home for those who live there without seeming too lofty for anyone else to enjoy for themselves. At 98 minutes, it sure will make for a fine way to spend one's time for enjoyment, having a touch of the bizarre without any sort of false note or any love lost when it comes to optimism and carefree time spent in a city that still finds way to resonate after three decades like the lights on a freeway sign - it's a labor of love that one could only hope to have for their own city, you might say.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Excalibur.

Review #1210: Excalibur.

Cast: 
Nigel Terry (King Arthur), Helen Mirren (Morgana Le Fay), Nicholas Clay (Sir Lancelot), Cherie Lunghi (Queen Guenevere), Paul Geoffrey (Sir Perceval), Nicol Williamson (Merlin), Corin Redgrave (Duke of Cornwall), Patrick Stewart (King Leodegrance), Keith Buckley (Sir Uryens), Clive Swift (Sir Ector), Liam Neeson (Sir Gawain), Gabriel Byrne (King Uther Pendragon), and Robert Addie (Prince Mordred) Directed by John Boorman (#565 - Zardoz and #975 - Deliverance)

Review: 
The legend of King Arthur is a myth that has lived on in various forms of media for centuries, such as in prose or in novel form. Naturally it has served as something to adapt to the world of film, each having their own sort of style to tell the tale - whether involving a comedic take (A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, itself an adaptation of a novel from Mark Twain), or as an adaptation of a Broadway musical in Camelot (1967), or as a parody in Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975). In 1969, John Boorman had wanted to make a film about the Merlin legend. His plans to do the film with United Artists did not come to pass owing to the scope of the script (for which he wrote with Rospo Pallenberg), with the studio offering him the chance to do an adaptation of The Lord of the Rings. While Boorman did not end up doing an adaptation of such material, he incorporated set design and imagery ideas from that stalled attempt for this film, which is based off the prose Le Morte d'Arthur by Thomas Malory. It is obvious that Boorman clearly wanted to make the definitive version of the legend, utilizing its 140 minute run-time to try and make a big grand story spectacle from life to death. It reads a bit like a history paper written in a fever dream by someone who really wants to get all of this information down before it flashes away - it may seem a bit long, but that's because he really wants to wow you with all that is going on. The spectacle does tend to outweigh the actual characters at times, and a lesser made film would buckle under the pressure - but Boorman manages to keep it all together to make an engaging fever dream of a movie.

The film has an interesting look to it, owing to the lighting choices (such as the forest scenes or parts involving the sword) that occurred due to production having rain fall on each day of the shoot, filmed entirely in Ireland. The result makes it seem like one is watching a otherworldly type of movie, with eerie and fitting cinematography from Alex Thomson. The aluminium on the knights glistens well at times, especially. The key highlight of the film is Williamson, who can switch from clever wit to foreboding when needed, wise and tricky as one would hope. He sells the film well whenever he pops up on screen, that is for sure. Terry (who dabbled in film on occasion when not on the British stage) has the task of trying to play the man of the myth from adolescence all the way to a withered man without seeming lost in the tale - he does just fine with that. Mirren (also known for her work in the theatre) isn't given too much depth with her conniving part, but at least she is game to have some scheming fun for her moments. Clay and Lunghi don't fare as great, each being a bit passive while not having too much chemistry of sorts with Terry, whether friend or lover. It doesn't come to the point where it undercuts the film as a whole, but it feels more haphazard than it probably should. Geoffrey ends up having to try and help carry the film a bit for the film's last half, and while he does seemingly make the role grow from when he is introduced, he can't help make it seem that the film could run out of steam when it tries to give focus on the Grail. The others of the cast fill their roles when required (including early performances on film for Stewart and Neeson, which is neat in some way). The film promotes itself on nobility and comradeship from its fabled Knights of the Round Table, where the king embodies the land he and his subjects walk on. It is a film that indulges in sets of armor, violence and a sense of hope, juggling itself amiably as an epic that merits its own place in entertainment among fantasy films. Perhaps it doesn't hold up as well as it should with some of its narrative workings, but it makes up for it with plenty of fun, spectacle and a fairly game cast that works out a quest of the legend and comes up with most of the right ideas in time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Logan.

Review #912: Logan.

Cast:
Hugh Jackman (Logan / X-24), Patrick Stewart (Charles Xavier / Professor X), Dafne Keen (Laura / X-23), Boyd Holbrook (Donald Pierce), Stephen Merchant (Caliban), Richard E. Grant (Dr. Zander Rice), Elizabeth Rodriguez (Gabriela), Eriq La Salle (Will Munson), Elise Neal (Kathryn Munson), and Quincy Fouse (Nate Munson) Directed by James Mangold.

Review:
In the films that I have watched where Hugh Jackman played the Wolverine (X-Men (#008), X2 (#010), X-Men: The Last Stand (#012), X-Men: First Class (#042), X-Men: Days of Future Past (#584); I haven't seen X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and X-Men: Apocalypse), it's evident to say that Logan stands out as the best of the bunch. Seeing this film in a packed theater certainly helped make for a homelier atmosphere, and the first five minutes certainly make for an intense if not riveting start to a movie that never really relents on entertainment. That's not to say that the movie is only full of action and language (after all, this is an R-rated film), as the film also has a good deal of emotional depth along with good performances from Jackman, Stewart, and Keen. Jackman and Stewart have already been in enough X-Men films together to make for fine chemistry already, but the road trip nature of this movie manages to give these two a good amount of highlights. Jackman and Keen have great chemistry together, just clicking immediately, with good writing also being helpful. Keen (in her first ever film) does a neat job, managing to bring out the humanity in what could've been either too sentimental or the opposite, and I hope to see more films revolving around this character. Jackman plays this withered role with the right kind of humility and timing, being entertaining as ever. Stewart certainly does a fine job once again, conveying the unstable and aged nature of the character in an emotionally satisfying way. Probably the only real flaw is that the villains aren't too great, though they do have a useful presence. Holbrook is pretty decent, managing to be arrogant enough to root against. Grant doesn't have too much screen time until the last half, but he is somewhat serviceable as a puppet master, just not very distinguishable from other mad scientists, minus hammy overacting at least. The action in the movie is thrilling, never managing to become too stale or rely on egregious killing just for killing. There is also a fairly competent story along with this movie, having a good time with a premise that could've been dreary with a lesser director/cast. On the whole, it's an excellent film that has both excitement and competency while being a good film for Wolverine to go out on.

On a sadder note, Robert Osborne, film historian and primary host for Turner Classic Movies (one of my favorite places to watch movies) died today at the age of 84. It is sad to see him pass on, particularly someone as knowledgeable and passionate about movies as he was. Rest in peace, Mr. Osborne.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

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: X-Men: Days of Future Past.

Review #584: X-Men: Days of Future Past.

Cast
Hugh Jackman (Wolverine), James McAvoy and Patrick Stewart (Charles Xavier/Professor X), Michael Fassbender and Ian McKellen (Erik Lehnsherr/Magneto), Jennifer Lawrence (Mystique), Halle Berry (Storm), Nicholas Hoult and Kelsey Grammer (Hank McCoy/Beast), Ellen Page (Kitty Pryde), Peter Dinklage (Bolivar Trask), Shawn Ashmore (Bobby Drake/Iceman), Omar Sy (Bishop), Daniel Cudmore (Colossus), Evan Peters (Peter Maximoff/Quicksilver), Fan Bingbing (Blink), Adan Canto (Sunspot), Booboo Stewart (Warpath), Josh Helman (William Stryker) and Anna Paquin (Rogue) Directed by Bryan Singer (#008 - X-Men and #010 - X2: X-Men United)

Review
It's been a while since I've reviewed a X-Men film (The two I just listed along with #010 - X-Men: The Last Stand, #042 - X-Men: First Class), but here we are once again. This is a movie that tries to connect two timelines of this franchise and make them work (that and try and fix the problems of X-Men: The Last Stand), with the main connection being Jackman. With such a big cast and such a tall task, does this movie meet up to code? Of course. The movie manages to have good action scenes and a dynamic cast that you (mostly) forget all the confusing aspects of this movie (such as Cyclops being alive, but a quick Internet search always helps), and this is certainly an excellent X-Men film. The cast is good, though I'm still wondering how Cyclops gets more lines (2) then Rogue (0, which is a shame). Quicksilver is such an awesome character that is fun to watch, even if he's in the movie only for a few minutes, as Peters does a fine job overall. McKellen and Stewart don't get much time together, but they are fine as always. McAvoy and Fassbender are marvelous (see what I did there?) together, they work so well against each other, especially McAvoy, whose character undergoes so much change and still rocks a nice haircut. Dinklage does a good job being more than just a bad guy the X-Men fight to stop, and he shines among all the cast. This is a movie that certainly packs a punch when it comes to action, and it is excellent to watch, especially when backed up by a good cast like this. Is it a perfect movie? No, but it is a good, if not excellent comic book movie that certainly works in the right categories.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Robin Hood: Men In Tights.

Review #248: Robin Hood: Men In Tights.

Cast
Cary Elwes (Robin Hood), Richard Lewis (Prince John), Roger Rees (Sheriff of Rottingham), Amy Yasbeck (Maid Marian), Dave Chappelle (Ahchoo), Mark Blankfield (Blinkin), Eric Allan Kramer (Little John) Matthew Porretta (Will Scarlet O'Hara), Isaac Hayes (Asneeze), Tracey Ullman (Latrine the Witch), with Patrick Stewart (King Richard), Dom DeLuise (Don Giovanni), Dick Van Patten (The Abbot), and Mel Brooks (Rabbi Tuckman) Directed by Mel Brooks (#061 - Blazing Saddles and #198 - Spaceballs)

Review
To begin with, this is be the penultimate (as of today) film Mel Brooks has directed (with his last being Dracula: Dead and Loving It), and...it kinda shows. While it does have some laughs, the film is not as funny as Spaceballs (or Blazing Saddles for that matter). Elwes does a good job, even almost as good as his role in The Princess Bride. The film has a good amount of cast members, and the film uses it decently. There are some alright gags, but they probably won't be memorable enough to say (There was this one though where Robin asks the villagers if they want to join: "Yay or nay?" "Which one is the one that means yes?" "Yay....") In a way, it is a bullseye for Brooks, but in another way, it is an arrow that misses the mark by that much.

Countdown to 250 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2...

Overall, I give it 7 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.

Movie Night: X-Men: The Last Stand.

Review #012: X-Men: The Last Stand.

Cast
Hugh Jackman (Wolverine), Halle Berry (Storm), Ian McKellen (Magento), Patrick Stewart (Xavier), Famke Janssen (Jean Grey), Anna Paquin (Rouge), Kelsey Grammer (Beast), James Marsden (Cyclops), Rebecca Romijn (Mystique), Shaun Ashmore (Iceman), Ellen Page (Kitty Pryde), and Vinnie Jones (Juggernaut) Directed by Brett Ratner (#305 - Rush Hour and #306 - Rush Hour 2)

Review
Well, the film is shorter then the second one, which gives it less time to make it's plots and points as the film seems a little rushed, though it seems to want to show more characters that end up appearing for a few seconds. The acting is fine, but Vinnie Jones stands out for the meme worthy performance, particularly: "I'm the Juggernaut, bitch!". It's so inane that it makes up for  The characters do great, except for some characters like Angel who are barely in at all, despite being on the cover of the DVD I have. The story is odd for the most part. It seems to come out of nowhere, while conflicting with Jean's arc, which probably would've been a much more interesting story to focus on exclusively.  Overall, the ending is kinda ambiguous, as the film leaves clues about a fourth film (the final scene, the scene after the end credits), though why hasn't there been one? It makes us want more, and that's the problem. It makes you wonder what could have been if they had got a better director for the job.

UPDATE: Thank you X-Men: Days of Future Past, for being a good installment, while also managing to erase a good portion of this film. Of course, that also means the other two films don't count either, but to hell with all of that, I stand by my rating for this film.

Overall, I give 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: X2.

Review #010: X2.

Cast
Patrick Stewart (Professor Charles Xavier), Hugh Jackman (Logan / Wolverine), Ian McKellen (Eric Lehnsherr / Magneto), Halle Berry (Ororo Munroe / Storm), Famke Janssen (Jean Grey), James Marsden (Scott Summers / Cyclops), Anna Paquin (Rogue), Rebecca Romijn (Raven Darkholme / Mystique / Grace), Brian Cox (William Stryker), Alan Cumming (Kurt Wagner / Nightcrawler), Bruce Davison (Senator Kelly), Aaron Stanford (John Allerdyce / Pyro), Shawn Ashmore (Bobby Drake / Ice Man), Kelly Hu (Yuriko Oyama / Lady Deathstrike), and Katie Stuart (Shadowcat) Directed by Bryan Singer (#008 - X-Men)

Review
This is the sequel to X-Men (already reviewed two reviews ago) and this might possibly be better then the 1st. It's a longer plot, which allows more depth and detail and it shows with a Plot of complications and heart. The cast does great and all, with good acting from Jackman and Stewart. While I don't approve of having Wolverine having to fight a technically evil version of him, it doesn't make the film have much effects. Anyway, with those things in the way, it's still a good movie, but is the third better? Or worse...?

Overall, I give it an 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: X-Men.

Review #008: X-Men.

Cast
Hugh Jackman (Wolverine), Halle Berry (Ororo Monroe/Storm), Patrick Stewart (Xavier/Professor), Ian McKellen (Magento), Anna Paquin (Marie/Rouge), Famke Janssen (Jean Gray), Bruce Davison (Senator Robert Kelly), James Marsden (Scott Summers/Cyclops), Rebecca Romijn (Mystique), Ray Park (Toad) and Tyler Mane (Sabretooth) Directed by Bryan Singer (#010 - X2)

Review
This film is a dramatic film with visuals of coolness that are a good adaption of the comic (With a clever reference to the costumes of the comic) The movie has good acting, especially from Jackman, Stewart, McKellan, and Berry. The action is allright, with the film not having an overload of action to make a film that while not being the most perfect movie, is still an useful film adapation that would make room for the sequels (Review #010, #012, #042)

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.