I am going to give the '74 version of the film another look-see, since I have not seen it since I had to watch it in a college lit class on what I think was someone's Betamax tape of a network showing of the film and was not impressed. I used to have the Paramount 2-LP OST with William Atherton (better known as the nutso EPA guy Walter Peck in GHOSTBUSTERS and "Dick" Thornberg in DIE HARD 1 & 2) rendering a pretty sweet version of "What'll I Do" along with the instrumental version. I do know that not too long after the film came out you could find it in the cut-out bins at most stores and I still see a copy from time to time at thrift stores.

It's too bad that there are absolutely no extras on this Blu-Ray-its a shame they didn't try to do some form of retrospective on the various versions of the story (the lost silent version, the '49 Alan Ladd version [of which I have a bootleg DVD-R]) along with some form of looking back by the members of the cast) along with plugging the new version, especially since WHV did this release and are foisting the Luhrman version on us, of which I will have to hear massive raves about everything before I will go see it. I am also surprised that no one has tried to clear up whatever is keeping the Ladd version out of circulation-could be a nice tie-in with this one and the new one.

The Bourne Legacy (2012): 7/10

Ironically, it took a Bourne-less Bourne movie to finally produced one I liked. Thankfully there's none of Paul Greengrass' hideous camerawork to muck up the proceedings, and writer/director Tony Gilroy keeps the action crisp, comprehensible and well-staged while cleverly rigging the screenplay so that this semi-reboot still leaves the door open for Matt Damon to potentially return to the franchise if he sees fit (unlike, say, The Amazing Spider-Man, which was a completely unnecesary top-to-bottom rehash of origin story material that Sam Raimi handled better only a decade earlier). Jeremy Renner provides a terse, tightly-coiled presence in the lead, albiet one a little less inherently likeable than Damon, and while the film is no great shakes, it's miles better than the curiously overrated trilogy that proceeded it. I know I'm in the minority with that opinion, but I'm sticking with it.

IRON MAN 3
8/10

It's very late so I'll post more tomorrow, but I'll echo the other comments with a rousing recommendation for this one. Shane Black brings great, smartly incorporated humor into this sequel without upping the Downey "snark quotient" -- the result is a dynamite follow up that brings back the feel of the original film while enhancing the pace. It also doesn't have the congested script of the second film, which was a real waste and felt more like an ad for The Avengers than a standalone piece.

Loved the performances, especially Downey, who's a bit more laid back here, and Kingsley's role as the Mandarin -- and I also thought Brian Tyler's score was terrific. Best score I've ever heard from him, and yeah, the end credits -- now THAT'S what I've been looking for in a Marvel movie soundtrack ever since Elfman did his boring shtick on the Spider-Man films. Marvel characters need a distinct theme, something memorable and uptempo -- major kudos to Tyler for his work on this one.

The film itself is more fun than THE AVENGERS too. Definite recommend!

I heartily agree with you on this, Andy, although I probably liked THE AVENGERS more than you did. I like that they had Stark showing a lot of vulnerability here, with a form of PTSD after what happened in New York in last year's film. Kingsley is....I cannot say without giving away a lot of plot here but he is terrific, and Cheadle has a lot more to do here than he did in IM2. Even Downey's scenes with a little kid have heart yet still have some humor and it was nice seeing Miguel Ferrer in something, even in a small role yet with some weight to it.

I also thought that Tyler's score worked beautifully, as well, and the 3D work (even though it was a conversion) was quite excellent. Might have to see this one again soon!

IRON MAN 3 7.5/10

Sounds like I didn't like this quite as much as the rest of you. I thought the opening 20 minutes or so was not well done. There was an awful lot of exposition to get through and it seemed that director Black tried to accomplish this by having the actors speak as rapidly as possible while he edited the movie as fast as possible. It wasn't until after the first major action scene that the pace got better. In fact, I thought the second act played out more like a mystery/thriller than a superhero movie and that's a good thing. It allowed Downey to get out of the suit and be both clever and understandably emotional as he tries to figure out who is after him and comes to terms with what happened in New York. All of the villains were great, especially Kingsley. I knew nothing going into this and was caught off guard by his character. For the most part the action scenes were well done. I really liked the battle on Air Force One.

The Day Reagan Was Shot (2001) 2 of 10.

-Even though Oliver Stone only executive produced this, it still plays like a ridiculous Oliver Stone directed film about recent history. In this case, a day of near tragedy which certainly did feature some moments of chaos and disorder behind the scenes, is turned into a ludicrous real-life "Dr. Strangelove" tale of a crazed Al Haig practically ready to plunge America into war because of all kinds of paranoic misreading over Soviet reaction to the shooting. Unfortunately for the makers of this film, the tapes of the Situation Room meeting made by National Security Advisor Richard Allen reveal nothing even close to the kind of events depicted in this film as far as the threat goes, and how our leaders at the time were perceiving things. Richard Dreyfuss's performance as Haig is ridiculously over-the-top but then again this seems to be standard for whenever a left-wing activist type actor plays anyone associated with a Republican Administration. Unquestionably, Haig made an ass of himself that day, but all he revealed was how Reagan had made a mistake picking him as Secretary of State in the first place.

-As if the Situation Room scenes weren't bad enough, director Cyrus Nowrasteh (who five years later would by contrast give us the brilliant "Path To 9/11" miniseries, which sadly has been suppressed from the public since then thanks to the bullying intimidation of Bill Clinton and his cronies) gives us a number of silly asides designed to highlight the black humor aspect of the day that also never happened. When Reagan is first brought into the hospital, on a gurney next to him is a punk black kid who sneeringly calls him "Ronald McDonald" and then gets wheeled out making some nasty remarks about the President. When Nancy Reagan arrives we have to hear her say, "I brought your jellybeans" just so we could get the silly stereotype about Reagan reinforced at an inappropriate moment. Then, we get an even more ludicrous scene of ANOTHER psycho sneaking his way into Reagan's room after he's out of surgery to show us the Secret Service not on the job again. And I was also struck by how Nowrasteh distorted the sequence of how the press was forced to retract the Jim Brady is dead story, because in the film the press is correcting it themselves, when in fact it took an announcement from the White House to tell the press that the story about Brady being dead was incorrect.

-Just plain silliness all around.

Finally got through my Star Trek movie marathon this morning.




Being a freshly-minted Junior Trekkie, this is all brand-new to me, so I'll keep things fairly brief...

-The Motion Picture (1979): 7/10

As tedious as the film's eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeendless special-effects sequences can be, and as pretentiously bloated as the 2001-lite narrative is, TMP still manages to be fairly compeling because the F/X are damned impressive (particularly for the day), and backed by Jerry Goldsmith's phenomenal score, which even makes Kirk gazing lovingly at a five-minute flyby of the Enterprise model into an impressionistic music video. What the film really lacks is the scrappy fun of the original series...everyone is present and accounted for, and yet there's little of the testy, ruefully amusing interplay between Kirk, Spock and Bones that made even the lamer episodes of the show enjoyable to sit through.

-The Wrath Of Khan (1982): 9.5/10

It's easy to see why this is rightfully regarded as the best Trek movie...the visibly reduced budget keeps the stakes on a pleasingly human level, Richardo Montalban's magnificent, barrel-chested hamming is a perfect counterpoint to Shatner's best performance as Kirk (now with a twinge of middle-aged regret tempering his trademark smarminess), and James Horner's soaring, nautical score -- despite already cribbing from his backlog of themes, notably Wolfen -- keeps the suspense humming. I'm a sucker for submarine movies, so the Mutara Nebula sequence was a particular favorite.

-The Search For Spock (1984): 7.5/10

The middle child of the II/III/IV "trilogy" might exist mainly as a way to get from the heavy dramatic ending of the second and easing into the lighthearted romp of the fourth, but it's a fine film, albiet obviously lacking Spock's presence. Christopher Lloyd is no Khan, but he provides suitably hammy villainy. Shame that Kirstie Alley couldn't reprise her role from II...she was one sexy Vulcan back in the day.

-The Voyage Home (1986): 9/10

A welcome break from the ponderousness of the first film and the dark melancholy that suffused the second and third, this is easilly the most charming of the bunch, with a well-constructed time travel scenario and the best special effects of the series since the first. The fish out of water humor is well-integrated into the characters' personalities ("Tell me, Spock, what does it mean, 'exact change only'...?"), and the film strikes the correct balance between spectacle and characterization.

-The Final Frontier (1989): 3.5/10



Ugggggggggggghhhhhhhhh, I can see why this one is piloried as the worst Trek film. Taking the humor of the fourth and upping the overall silliness and slapstick (Scotty banging his head off a pipe, Komedy!) and mixing in some seriously deficient "special" effects, a social security-aged Uhura doing a naked fan dance(!!!) and a wildly disappointing plot based on a truly ambitious idea (meeting "God" face to face) given a half-assed presentation. Plus, Shatner's ego is off the star charts...why is Kirk -- or at least, his decades-younger stunt double -- mountain climbing in the opening scene? Because Shatner wants to look macho, I guess. Goldsmith's score is fine, yet it's not a patch on the TMP score (what could be?), although it's easilly the one classy element of this otherwise lousy movie.

-The Undiscovered Country (1991): 7.5/10

A worthwhile send-off to the original crew, with a well-paced murder mystery and superior special effects (although it reminded me of when "morphing" was all the rage back in the late 80's and early 90's). Cliff Eidelman's score is somewhat disappointing, though...some good orchestral effects but a lack of melody.

Oh boy, I've had enough Tribbles and tricorders to last me for a long time. Now I can fully appreciate all of the Trekkie in-jokes in Into Darkness this Friday...

Lot of split reviews on TREK INTO DARKNESS. Some love it, a few have outright disliked it, claiming it's just a regurgitation of THE WRATH OF KHAN...if it is that, I'll likely be disappointed. But we'll find out (for me Friday!).

Nice reviews MJ, I like V a little bit more than you -- and I think TMP grows on you over time, seeing as its the most "cinematic" of the whole series -- but in general I'm in agreement

I never really cared for Star Trek IV, which I found to be a simple "fish-out-of-water" comedy with a tiresome, preachy "message". And that ludicrous sequence where the ship travels back in time and facsimiles of the character's heads rise out of water is the most cringe-inducing moment in any Star Trek movie.

I never liked the jaunty "Orb and Sceptre" pomp of Leonard Roseman's score either. Why couldn't Nimoy have hired Elmer Bernstein for this film, instead of The Good Mother? A Star Trek score by Elmer Bernstein -- just think how awesome that could have been.

Star Trek V is arguably a worse film...yet I have to confess I found it more entertaining. I like the mysteriousness of the opening scene, and the enigma of Sybok's character (especially the way he laughs after it is revealed he is a Vulcan).

I also love Yosemite National Park, so I enjoyed all the scenes set in that location (Chekov blowing into the communicator notwithstanding). Ultimately the film doesn't completely deliver, but Goldsmith's score is so exceptional (and so welcome after Leonard Rosenman's ) that it makes up for a lot of the film's shortcomings. As I recall, Shatner was never able to satisfactorily finish the film.

And you gotta love this poster....

CLOUD ATLAS
3/10

It’s never a good sign that my first response after starting “Cloud Atlas” – and upon hearing Tom Hanks’ garbled dialogue – was to double-check the disc menu to ensure it was set on English.

This expensive box-office bust from the Wachowski siblings (yes, they used to be brothers, but Larry is now Lana) and German filmmaker Tom Tykwer is an almost indecipherable mess of multiple timeframes, characters with shared, “connective emotional experiences,” actors playing multiple roles (including, in a few instances, different genders and ethnicities) and assorted tragedies that run from the gamut from the 1800s through England in the ‘30s; early ‘70s San Francisco; present-day London; a futuristic Korea; and a post-apocalyptic (or whatever) world that finds Hanks running around in a forest, looking nearly as lost as Kevin Costner did in “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.”

It takes all of 10 minutes for you to realize that there’s something truly “off” with “Cloud Atlas.” Why is Hugh Grant speaking with an American accent and a truly horrible nasal prosthetic? Why is Susan Sarandon also saddled with a horrible looking nasal prosthetic? Why does Tom Hanks’ gangster British author feel as if he’s dropped in from a terrible Saturday Night Live sketch? Why is Hugo Weaving dressed up like a refugee from a Tim Burton film? What do the bombastic futuristic sequences – handled by the Wachowskis – have to do with Twyker’s ‘30s set tale of a young gay man killing himself after Jim Broadbent steals his classical music composition?

The answers are supposedly buried somewhere in the rubble of this near three-hour dud, which would’ve been good for a few laughs – or the interest of bad movie buffs – if it weren’t for its unmanageable running time. To its credit, John Toll and Frank Griebe’s cinematography is stellar, with colors and textures flying off the screen, but the film is so muddled and silly that only devotees of David Mitchell’s book are likely to tolerate – much less understand – it.

Warner’s Blu-Ray combo pack boasts the expectedly strong 1080p AVC encoded transfer and 5.1 DTS MA soundtrack one anticipates from an expensive endeavor like “Cloud Atlas.” Tykwer, Johnny Klimek and Reinhold Heil’s musical score is one of the film’s strongest assets (admittedly, it's faint praise), while a number of “Focus Points” offer brief insights into the film’s production, visual effects, and the genesis of Mitchell’s original story (this is yet another “unfilmable book” that should’ve remained on the page). A DVD and Ultraviolet copy round out Warner’s combo pack.

Paul MacLean wrote:And that ludicrous sequence where the ship travels back in time and facsimiles of the character's heads rise out of water is the most cringe-inducing moment in any Star Trek movie.

Yeah, that was a bizzare, Big-Lipped Alligator Moment scene.

AndyDursin wrote:Nice reviews MJ, I like V a little bit more than you -- and I think TMP grows on you over time, seeing as its the most "cinematic" of the whole series -- but in general I'm in agreement

The Final Frontier is basically what I've always imagined Trek to be in general due to decades' worth of parodies and "Trekkie = Nerd" pop-culture shorthand...it's like a parody of itself. And to think, they wanted Sean Connery to play Sybok. Good thing he was too busy making The Last Crusade instead...

Monterey Jack wrote:

AndyDursin wrote:Nice reviews MJ, I like V a little bit more than you -- and I think TMP grows on you over time, seeing as its the most "cinematic" of the whole series -- but in general I'm in agreement

The Final Frontier is basically what I've always imagined Trek to be in general due to decades' worth of parodies and "Trekkie = Nerd" pop-culture shorthand...it's like a parody of itself. And to think, they wanted Sean Connery to play Sybok. Good thing he was too busy making The Last Crusade instead...

Connery was wise not to get involved with V -- I'm sure he saw a script and vetoed it. What's interesting is how close Eddie Murphy was to appearing in IV, before he bailed and Catherine Hicks was brought in as the role was retooled.

I think V is flawed, obviously, but I'd actually rather watch it than VI if I had to sit through one of them again. VI is the "better film," but it's -- considering its the swan song of the crew -- oddly emotionless for much of its duration, with a perfunctory story and a budget that hampered the film in a few areas (had to think music was one of the casualties there; Eidelman's score does nothing for the movie). I don't find it to be particularly engaging...and Kim Cattrall's "I'm not playing Saavik even though it's obvious I'm supposed to be her" performance isn't all that great (face it, neither she nor Robin Curtis could approximate how good Kirstie Alley was in II. It's obviously one of the problems that III faced, not having Alley around).

V was an inevitable comedown after IV's massive success (in many ways IV remains the only one of the original movies to breakthrough the mainstream viewer barrier and generate a big audience outside Trekkies), and as Paul said, it was saddled with all kinds of problems involving the special effects and Shatner's inexperience behind the camera. I think they felt pressure to maintain the 'accessibility' of IV but it was difficult when David Loughery is your screenwriter!

There are things I DO like about it: the character scenes with Kirk, Spock and McCoy are great; the actual message of the movie I think is at least heartfelt, even if it's somewhat awkwardly rendered; and Goldsmith's score is superb. Some of the humor works, some doesn't at all, but for the most part, I think it's a flawed but likeable film. (I also prefer it to most of the TNG pictures, which are pretty blah really -- even the best one of them (FIRST CONTACT) is just "solid." None of them are anything special IMO)

The one problem the Trek films -- the new ones -- are facing is that they're being forced to make these great, huge "epic" storylines involving character-motivated revenge...when Star Trek itself is often about different ideas, concepts, and themes. Some episodes of the old show were funny, some were touching...not every one of them involved a violent end of the world struggle. The downside is that we're likely never to see those type of stories in the JJ Abrams world, because when you're only making 1 film every 3-4 years with a $200 million budget, the chances of you doing anything other than "EPIC" are nil. It's an unfortunate part of that series going forward.

Paul MacLean wrote:I never really cared for Star Trek IV, which I found to be a simple "fish-out-of-water" comedy with a tiresome, preachy "message". And that ludicrous sequence where the ship travels back in time and facsimiles of the character's heads rise out of water is the most cringe-inducing moment in any Star Trek movie.

I never liked the jaunty "Orb and Sceptre"-like pomp of Leonard Roseman's score either. Why couldn't Nimoy have hired Elmer Bernstein for this film, instead of The Good Mother? A Star Trek score by Elmer Bernstein -- just think how awesome that could have been.

Star Trek V is arguably a worse film...yet I have to confess I found it more entertaining. I like the mysteriousness of the opening scene, and the enigma of Sybok's character (especially the way he laughs after it is revealed he is a Vulcan).

I also love Yosemite National Park, so I enjoyed all the scenes set in that location (Chekov blowing into the communicator notwithstanding). Ultimately the film doesn't completely deliver, but Goldsmith's score is so exceptional (and so welcome after Leonard Rosenman's ) that it makes up for a lot of the film's shortcomings. As I recall, Shatner was never able to satisfactorily finish the film.

And you gotta love this poster....

I remember attending a Trek convention in the UK around the time film was released. Richard Arnold was doing a Q&A session, and someone in the audience asked "Why was the Next Generation theme used for Star Trek V?"

I always liked ST IV - despite its flaws, it is entertaining and was a breath of fresh air. I think Andy had mentioned it somewhere else, but after III being so heavy it was nice to "lighten up" and see the cast having fun. I personally think it was a solid entry into the series.

ST V is...frustrating in a "what could have been" way. The "special effects" at the end of the film are horrendous to me...and the film never really delivered on the opening sequence's promise. I still love Goldsmith's score, but it's too bad the film was so bad...of all the ST film, it is the one that most looks like a B movie to me.