rate the last movie you saw

[AndyDursin]

CLEANIN' UP THE TOWN: REMEMBERING GHOSTBUSTERS
5/10

Yet another "fan doc" fueled with Kickstarter funds, this 2-plus hour look back at the making of Ghostbusters offers pretty much everyone you'd hope to see -- Dan Ayrkoyd, Ivan Reitman, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts, a late interview with Harold Ramis, even Sigourney Weaver, whose name doesn't appear on the packaging or print credits for some weird reason -- but is, like a lot of these, badly organized and kind of dull.

Production anecdotes you've heard before are mixed together in a jumbled, almost arbitrary manner -- for example, Peter Bernstein pops up about 15 minutes in to talk about Elmer and his music for a minute, while Ray Parker Jr. shows up a half-hour later to talk about his #1 hit single.

More disappointing is that, after a watchable first half, the second hour is nearly entirely comprised of special effects tech talk, which is pretty dull if you're not into it. It all ends with a whimper too.

Stick to the Blu-Ray/DVD special features instead.

[AndyDursin]

DEEP BLUE SEA 3
6/10

Surprisingly agreeable direct-to-video continuation of the franchise follows the shenanigans of those genetically-engineered sharks, whose offspring prove to be just as deadly as their ancestors. This one continues the storyline from “Deep Blue Sea 2,” but for those who can’t remember or care (hand raised), it’s easy to jump into John Pogue’s nicely-shot, sun-drenched Cape Town production, starring Tania Raymonde (“Lost”‘s Alex) as a scientist whose humble “Little Happy” Island is quickly overrun by the buggers.

There are no dimly-lit nighttime sequences, just some adequate CGI work and appealing visuals at play here — if only Dirk Blackman’s woke script wasn’t so stodgy and serious, throwing in climate change and a heaping dose of female empowerment to curtail the fun (guess which sex makes it through to the end?). If you can get past that, there are enough B-movie thrills here to make this worth a rental. Warner’s Blu-Ray (2.39, 5.1 DTS MA) is out August 25th, boasts two featurettes, a DVD and Digital HD copy.

[Paul MacLean]

Star Trek: The Motion Picture -- Director's Edition (8.5/10)

The last time I watched this film was in...2004, I think? Anyway, I decided it was time for another screening.

In actuality I had intended to watch the theatrical verison on Amazon -- but discovered it is presented cropped to 16:9, and looks to be scanned / enlarged from a 2.35:1 transfer which I'd swear was only 720p. I got as far as the San Francisco scene, and decided I didn't want to watch a mediocre 16:9 transfer of this movie so I switched to the DVD! (I don't own the Blu-ray.)

First an observation about the DVD format. It was great in its day, and was certainly revolutionary, not just in terms of picture quality (16:9 enhanced DVDs anyway) but also brought all those perks we cinephiles loved about laserdisc -- widescreen transfers, special features, commentary tracks, etc. -- into the mainstream. Viewed today, in the age of Blu-ray (and 4K disc), especially on a big screen, it doesn't quite cut the mustard.

All the same, I was able to overcome the format's antiquated shortcomings and thoroughly enjoy this film. And what a terrific film this is. I still think this is one the best of all the Star Trek movies, and certainly the most unique, as it strove more than any of the others to be a science fiction film. It gets off to a bit of a slow start, but gets more and more captivating as it progresses (particularly after the Enterprise encounters the cloud). There is a truly epic scope to Star Trek: The Motion Picture, particularly in the images of the Enterprise as it is dwarfed by the colossal scale of V'Ger.

As far as the Director's Edition vs. the theatrical one, I think this is the superior version. The new effects sequences are nearly all improvements on the originals, the overall edit is smoother, and most of all it restores the scene of Spock's tear and the dialog where he speaks of V'Ger's search for meaning. It is a pivotal scene -- and in many ways the most important scene in the film. It poses interesting and provocative questions, and is also significant in the evolution of Spock's character.

I also think this movie has dated well, and while it doesn't "move" like the slick sci-fi offerings of today, that is actually part of its allure. The costumes and art direction betray the era it was made, with the orange carpeting and conversation pits of the rec deck, and the "new age yoga retreat" look of the costumes (particularly in the Starfleet terminal!) but again this is part of the appeal. I don't think cinematographer Richard Kline gets enough credit for his inventive work on the picture, having had to deal with very difficult lighting situations in the Enterprise scenes, as well as his resourceful lighting effects during the climax on the Voyager set.

Jerry Goldsmith's score is one of his finest of all time, easily among his five best, and effectively compliments the celestial settings to really give the viewer the feeling of being "out there".

In all, an entertaining and genuinely "otherworldly" experience that improves on the 1979 cut, and one which is worth enduring a 480p transfer to watch (though I ernestly hope Paramount will one day shell-out the cash to recreate this edition in 4K).

[AndyDursin]

I really enjoy Richard Kline's work. THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN is shot much in the same manner as ST-TMP in terms of how he and Wise blocked actors on sides of the frame. Gives it an attractive widescreen appearance. He shot a lot of good movies and interesting genre films, from KING KONG '76 to HOWARD THE DUCK, BODY HEAT, THE FURY, even BATTLE FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES.

[Monterey Jack]

Kline was a great DP. There's a terrific, half-hour interview with him on the UK Arrow release of The Fury ("Blood On The Lens") that's worth a look.

[Johnmgm]

When I saw ST:TMP in 1979, I hated it. A buddy and I saw it theatrically last year for it's 40th anniversary and compared to today's junk, ST:TMP has become surprisingly watchable.

[Edmund Kattak]

When I saw ST:TMP in 1979, I hated it. A buddy and I saw it theatrically last year for it's 40th anniversary and compared to today's junk, ST:TMP has become surprisingly watchable.

Over the past decade, I have started to agree with this sentiment. There are very few movies that I have a change of heart on - and not because I have an affinity for Star Trek - it's because over time the comparisons to other attempts of similar Star Trek efforts have been mainly a shell of what the spirit of the original series. Yes, to me, as lethargic as STMP always was, it was the only effort of this film franchise that made the attempt to put actual questions of philosophy and science fiction together as a core of it plot and narrative.

While I am able to enjoy other Trek outings on their own terms, these have mainly been action/adventure movies. STIV comes close to hitting the mix of the old show's social commentary with the action and SCIFI elements, but even then it feels like it's in your face. The old series could put in those social ideas without drawing attention to itself by not insulting, pandering, or pontificating to the audience. Now, it has to be in your face.

[mkaroly]

Paul, I agree. It has been several years since I watched TMP, but last time I did I was speaking to my ST friend and told him that I loved that the film was really science fiction-y and very thought provoking. Goldsmith's score is operatic and religious in scope...interesting to compare it to his other late 70s sci-fi offering, ALIEN. Two different styles for two different sci-fi movies. Showed how eclectic and imaginitive of a composer he was.

[Johnmgm]

The old series could put in those social ideas without drawing attention to itself by not insulting, pandering, or pontificating to the audience. Now, it has to be in your face.

On the nosey.

[AndyDursin]

As Ed said, TMP and IV are, in hindsight, the two Trek movies that best capture the essence of the original series in terms of tone. One's a grand sci-fi premise that's occasionally slow-moving and could've used more character interaction, but the SCOPE of TMP is impressive and the physical production the best of the entire film series. IV is fun, frothy, mixing time travel and comedy in a way the original series did at times also. But it's also upbeat, even if the social messaging was a little preachy. That said the interaction between the characters was spot on, and there wasn't more of a crowd-pleaser than IV -- it was one of the only installments that met with universal acclaim and audience approval that broke through the fan base.

Not every week in STAR TREK was about an alien trying to destroy the galaxy -- there were different kinds of stories with different stakes involved. As outstanding as II is, it set an "action standard" that many films tried to live up to -- but that kind of story was only a fraction of what you'd see in the original series.

I feel like too many movies in the subsequent Star Trek movie universe and comic book franchises in general are "apocalypse driven". Most of the "modern" Trek films are hung up on an action formula but they don't possess big ideas -- they're clearly "dumbed down" and trying to reach a larger viewership, but they're missing the core of what made the best Star Trek stories what they were.

It's like this -- growing up you'd read different kinds of comic book issues where Superman or Spider-Man WEREN'T charged with saving the universe -- they'd be sometimes variations on routine heroism or "everyday" type of stories. That hasn't translated to the film medium, where everything seems to result in a loud, obnoxious bombastic assault with the future of mankind at stake in the final 30 minutes, and it's become so mind-numbing that it passes by your eyes and evaporates as soon as it's over.

TMP doesn't have that. It's thoughtful, a little stodgy, but between the score and the effects, it plays better and better as time has gone on and modern studio filmmaking has become so by-the-numbers, thoughtless and predictable, that a movie like TMP is just enhanced with age. The flaws it had were legitimately discussed at the time, but the bar was higher back then, too.

[Monterey Jack]

-Peninsula (2020): 7.5/10



My first trip back to theaters since March 10th(!!) was this exciting sequel to the 2016 Korean horror smash Train To Busan. While it lacks the claustrophobic novelty of its predecessor's railway setting, this is still a well-mounted zombie flick brimming with tense, well-directed action sequences and some mordant humor cutting through the standard genre scenarios. A Mad Max-ian car chase at the climax is particularly well done. And while some of the CGI looks a bit janky, you could say the same thing about World War Z, and this film certainly didn't cost $175 million to make. It's a bloody good time, and seeing it on a vast IMAX screen instead of my dinky 65'' television set made this like a draught of cold water after a long, arduous trek through the desert.

[jkholm]

LIAR LIAR
7/10

My wife and I were looking for something fun to watch last night that wouldn’t be too taxing. We settled on Jim Carrey’s 1997 hit LIAR LIAR. I remember it being very popular with audiences when I was working at a movie theater in the 90’s. This is a good example of the kind of movie that doesn’t get made anymore and if it were, it would be much more raunchy. (it’s still a bit heavy on the sex humor for a PG-13 movie that straddles the line between sentimentality and crudeness.)

We both laughed quite a lot. I’ve never been a huge fan of Carrey, and to this day have never seen Dumb and Dumber or the Ace Ventura movies, but I like him in this one. He’s the whole show here as a lawyer prone to fibbing who is magically forced to tell the truth for 24 hours. Nearly every other character plays it straight to allow Carrey to get as many laughs as possible. That’s for the best as the movie threatens to wear out its welcome even at a short 88 minute running time. I can imagine there were lots of unnecessary scenes involving the supporting cast that were wisely cut out. Maura Tierney is fine as Carrey’s ex-wife but Cary Elwes is terrible as the new boyfriend. His American accent comes and goes and he doesn’t know what to do with his thinly written part. I also appreciated the well-lit cinematography.

[AndyDursin]

FIVE CORNERS
6/10

Writer John Patrick Shanley’s film work includes a varied lot of classics (“Moonstruck”), cult faves (“Joe Versus the Volcano”) and the occasional “what the hell?” item like “The January Man” and his first original script, FIVE CORNERS (94 mins., 1987, R).

This is a strange mix of nostalgic drama, comedy and off-kilter character study, set in the Bronx circa 1964. Jodie Foster stars in one of her first post-collegiate appearances, with Tim Robbins a well-meaning social activist and John Turturro an unhinged nut who’s out of prison and just as unstable as before. Tony Bill directed and shot this barely-released Handmade Films production on-location, and it’s consistently watchable in spite of varied performances and tonal shifts.

None of it is helped by a heavy-handed synth score by James Newton Howard that’s so obtrusive, you wish there was a way to turn it off in certain sequences where it totally overpowers the actors. MVD’s Blu-Ray includes a passable 1080p (1.85) transfer and PCM mono sound, the trailer, and a podcaster commentary.

[Monterey Jack]

None of it is helped by a heavy-handed synth score by James Newton Howard that’s so obtrusive, you wish there was a way to turn it off in certain sequences where it totally overpowers the actors.

Did Howard write a single good score prior to the 90's?

[AndyDursin]

I've never been a big fan of his in general, but he seemed even less capable before he started working with orchestras. This score is abysmal!