Old 06-27-2012, 03:05 PM
Sons of Anarchy: S3

Starts off slow, as opposed to the snappy rhythm of the first two seasons. It also loses a bit of steam up until about halfway in, though it really picks up in the last 3 or so episodes.

Old 06-27-2012, 05:12 PM

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter(2012)-7/10
Old 06-27-2012, 10:08 PM
Easy Money - Rodney Dangerfield is really funny and surprisingly Joe Pesci is pretty good in a comic role. The story and some of the other supporting characters weren't so great but Dangerfield can make up for a lot when he's on. 7/10

Made For Each Other with James Stewart and Carole Lombard - The trials of a young couple who marry soon after meeting. Lombard is great in one of her few serious roles. The ending may be a bit predictable but the acting makes up for it. 7/10
Old 06-28-2012, 02:44 AM
Ed Wood: 10/10. These are the type of films that Tim Burton and Johnny Depp should be making together not not Dark Shadows. Lovely film that keeps you engaged in the life of the worst director that show business has ever seen.

Water for Elephants: 7/10. Good film. John Waltz is always the man. Reese Withersppon is my girl so I always love her performances. Robert Pattinson was decent overall. Maybe he just needs good scripts?
Old 06-28-2012, 06:10 AM
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter - **

Very cool first half, but lousy second half. I actually dug the 3D in this movie. I've heard from a lot of people that they thought it was a really bad conversion, but I thought it was well done. Better than Prometheus IMO.
Old 06-28-2012, 11:32 AM
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

To think this this film came out when I was just one year old, just like 'Star Wars' which came out a year before I was born, makes me think.

I'm not a Star Trek fan and never have been although I did always enjoy the films with the original crew, never got into any of the TV series. I always preferred the Star Wars franchise for many reasons but one is because it always looked so superior. The first Trek film really does show the difference between the two franchises, not taking anything away from ST but it always did look more plastic and obviously fake.

The effects in this first film are a mixed bag really, the sequences towards the finale inside 'V'Ger' don't look too bad (nice '2001' type fantasy lighting effects), various ship shots look nice throughout and the costumes although drab don't age too badly. For the most part though this film has aged badly if we're honest about it, I don't wanna keep comparing it to SW but there is a clear difference in quality which still stands to this day.

What I did always like about Trek was the way it tries to be realistic or at least approach things in a realistic fashion. The start of the film is almost done in a Kubrick style with some nice camera work. Not sure if they are merely homaging or copying '2001' but you can see the influences in one sequence as we are treated to grandiose panorama of the Enterprise as she sits in her docking bay accompanied by a stirring Trek instrumental score. I do like the way Wise gave the film a slow pace, lots of character and background building alongside plenty of mission dialog and technical problems that might occur in reality for such a scenario.

The film was criticised for this slow unadventurous style but I like it, its one of the more realistic Trek films and could almost be tagged as 'serious sci-fi'. Another aspect of this film and other Trek films I like is the plot. Seems straight forward enough as the team are sent to intercept a mysterious alien phenomena heading towards earth, but I liked how the plot has its intriguing twist at the end. Its not groundbreaking but it just makes you think a little, right up to the very end your unsure what the hell will happen, how 'Kirk' will save the day and what's the deal behind the alien cloud thing, that's good movie making.

I really don't know why the film had such a hard time upon release. It carries on from the classic TV show with everything you would expect but on a grander scale. The continuity from the TV show to the big screen is handled well I thought although I'm no Trek expert. You have the typical Trek visuals and sounds, the crew handle most of the action from the ships bridge through the good old big screen on the wall, everyone is present and correct doing what they do etc...

Sure its not an in your face phaser fest with hand to hand fights with large lizard men but I for one thought the serious route was a good way to go. The film does feel more of an exploration adventure, it takes its time, slowly builds, lots of space jargon...you don't know what their on about half the time but it just sounds good, I use my 'realism' card again.

Overall the special effects look fuzzy in places, lots of beige colour schemes going on with the ship and crew, plenty of nasty bluescreen evident I'm afraid but its still very enjoyable sci-fi. Star Trek has its own little niche of being semi serious and approaching everything logically but still utilizing just enough fantasy to make it a pleasant ride.
Old 06-28-2012, 01:34 PM
The Woman In Black - 7.5/10
Old 06-28-2012, 04:35 PM
Mirror Mirror - 4/10
Julia Roberts is fucking useless.
Snow White And The Huntsman - 6/10
Old 06-28-2012, 05:58 PM
Jaws: 10/10. This a film I wish I had seen a long time ago. Such a great film. Steven Spielberg is the greatest director of all time. I see why this film is Iconic (I have been on the Jaws ride at Universal Studios Orland a few times).
Old 06-28-2012, 06:19 PM

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World(2012)-7/10
Old 06-28-2012, 09:27 PM
Crime of Passion with Barbara Stanwyck - It's really no secret here that I think Barbara Stanwyck is the best actor in film history and this movie only provides further evidence of that. The standoff between her and Raymond Burr was fantastic. Sterling Hayden wasn't quite as good as the husband content with his place in life but Stanwyck's turn as a scheming wife who will do whatever it takes to get her husband promoted makes this a very good film. 8/10

Experiment Perilous with Hedy Lamarr - A jealous husband tries to convince others his wife is crazy so he can keep her as a virtual prisoner. George Brent is the psychiatrist who is enlisted to diagnose her and he gives a subtle performance as he gradually falls for Lamarr. The end was a little too overly dramatic for my taste but there is still a lot to like here. 7/10
Old 06-28-2012, 09:43 PM


It's hurt by the anthology format making some parts weaker than others, and it rapidly becomes apparent that, mild spoiler:
pretty much every character is a stereotype, and pretty much all of them are just there to die in creative ways.

HOWEVER when this works, holy Mary mother of God, does it work, as a totally insane no compromises horror film. And on those grounds alone it's pretty unmissable.

Old 06-29-2012, 11:19 AM
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)

I never did understand how this film was so much more successful and popular than the first. Quite clearly the film has gone for a slightly more silly plot losing allot of the straight laced sci-fi from the first. I suppose you could say they lost the aspiring '2001' type sequences and went back to the more well known cardboard effects of Star Trek, shame.

Now I realise the slow building straight faced Star Trek we got in the first film was frowned upon but its hard to see what the fans actually wanted in a big screen version. There were complaints that the original was just an outstretched TV episode with fancy visuals, yet this sequel (in my opinion) was even more of an outstretched TV episode with lousy visuals.

I gotta give it to the creative teams behind the film, it was damn brave going ahead with this plot that's for sure. If you look at the facts here...the plot follows on from an episode which was in the old original TV series back in the mid 60's. So already you are possibly excluding most of your target audience as I'm sure many had not seen this episode and possibly not allot of the original series (of course many would have). So technically unless you had seen that episode you would be wondering what on earth happened before hand and feeling somewhat in the dark.

A bold move on the plot methinks, could of gone all wrong there. That aside I think the film looked pretty poor also, the effects looked allot rougher (which is saying something) and in general the grandiose feeling you got in the first film seemed to have been sucked away. What you had left was a quite cheap looking and very generic film, the only thing that looked spruced up were the character uniforms.

For me the franchise went backwards with this outing, it was kinda cool how they explored and expanded an old TV episode but the whole thing is so basic. I liked the slow strategic 'galleon' type starship battle between 'Kirk' and 'Khan' in the nebulae but apart from that there was nothing really that stuck out as a big moment.

Of course a sneering seething Ricardo MontalbŠn really helped the film with his portrayal of the dastardly 'Khan' but he doesn't do much does he. A curious one this, I know its a fan favourite and it saved the Star Trek franchise at the time of release but I just don't see why or how. I guess it was all about less fancy eye candy and a more 'down to earth' gritty Trek adventure.
Old 06-29-2012, 12:58 PM
Underworld - 7.5/10

Last edited by JackassFan; 07-01-2012 at 12:18 PM..
Old 06-29-2012, 01:24 PM
Ted: 9/10. I already posted my review. Best comedy of the year. The jokes land. It is a really good movie.

The Score: 7/10. Decent heist movie. Edward Norton and Robert DeNiro are always bringing their A game.
Old 06-29-2012, 06:52 PM
American Reunion (2012)

I admit that i LOL'd than more I thought I would ... pretty decent ( well it's American Pie so decency is relative ) and funny follow-up/sequel.


Last edited by Dirtyfrog; 06-29-2012 at 06:54 PM..
Old 06-29-2012, 07:24 PM
Surprise Movie at the Edinburgh film festival, had no clue what I was going to be watching when I entered the cinema. It was:


... which was fine. It's a fairly traditional western set in the prohibition era. It has some nice performances from Tom Hardy and Guy Pearce, who is suitably unhinged as the villain, but it's predictable and how much you like it may depend on how much you care for Shia LaBeouf as the protagonist. Did laugh at the fact that despite being a period film, they managed to get product placements for Coke, Ford and Motorola in there.


Last edited by JCR; 06-29-2012 at 07:27 PM..
Old 06-29-2012, 07:54 PM

Taken as a whole, the story is unoriginal and rife with hippy comedy clichťs. But taken piecemeal, there is some killer funny shit in this that had me laughing pretty much nonstop. The hilarious dialogue, the well-matched Rudd and Aniston team, and a predictably inspired and creative mish-mash of Apatow personalities (plus the iconic Alan Alda, in case you needed more credibility) makes some of the filmís lesser qualities stand out, well, less. Ruddís memorable redneck mirror monologue, the newsroom cameo from director David Wain and his Stella cohorts (a scene that didnít just kill me, it slaughtered me with its YouTube parody gimmick), and any time Justin Therouxís retro-age guru was onscreen are easily worth a watch. But okay, itís an Apatow-branded production, so youíre probably looking for more than great standalone comedy bits, and maybe itís just me, but this just didnít have it. It felt flat when it wasnít being funny, where the theme of upper middle-class malaise and the search for personal meaning and fulfillment frequently falls by the wayside to make room for, say, a joke about a car that randomly ends up in the middle of a lake. But itís fucking funny! ... But still. Iíd watch this again in a heartbeat, but I doubt itíll engage me any more than the first time.

-> 7/10
Old 06-29-2012, 10:05 PM

Bland, mostly boring snoozefest that takes FOREVER to reintroduce half the cast. Also, I don't need to be reminded as many times as this that they are "older", and highschoolers are now "kids". The relationship issues between every single one of these guys is shallow, unimportant and horribly uninteresting.
The only person (again) that seems to be worth my time is Stifler. In fact, he actually kind of DOES grow up a bit in this movie, and it's the only person that does anything in the way of expanding themself emotionally. I couldn't even look at Tara Reid - and like so many times before she mumbles so badly all that comes out are a series of gutteral consonants that I can't make out.

Stifler was pretty funny in parts; Jim (Jason Biggs) is just full of unfunny and atrocious "awkward moment" scenes that go on forever and just plain are NOT funny; Oz and Heather have zero chemistry and I don't see what he sees in her, especially after so many years passing (they have no future together; it's just a shallow fling that wants to have meaning because neither one has found meaning within their lives yet); Finch is just stupid and I wish he got run over by a truck.

It's bad enough that the principle cast didn't have a reason to be in this movie, it's even more pathetic that other characters (Nadia, etc...) have barely even a minute of screen time and there is ZERO reason to have them in the movie except to be a part of the "reunion" in the movie. Argh.

I had a couple laughs - seriously - but not enough to coat over the misery of a soulless, energy-sucking display of sad-sack TV style storytelling.
Old 06-29-2012, 10:24 PM
The Ides of March - A solid political thriller with a lot of good performances especially from Philip Seymour Hoffman. I didn't like Evan Rachel Wood but that's the only part of the story that was anything less than excellent. 8/10
Old 06-29-2012, 11:10 PM
Originally Posted by JCR View Post
Surprise Movie at the Edinburgh film festival, had no clue what I was going to be watching when I entered the cinema. It was:


... which was fine. It's a fairly traditional western set in the prohibition era. It has some nice performances from Tom Hardy and Guy Pearce, who is suitably unhinged as the villain, but it's predictable and how much you like it may depend on how much you care for Shia LaBeouf as the protagonist. Did laugh at the fact that despite being a period film, they managed to get product placements for Coke, Ford and Motorola in there.

Pretty jealous of you right now, hopefully the nz film festival surprises us with this or killing them softly...or the master...sigh wishful thinking.
Old 06-30-2012, 12:13 AM
Ted is great, especially if you like Family Guy. I personally think Family Guy is hit-and-miss, and while this film is hit-and-miss sometimes with its overindulgence of pop culture references, it's mostly a hysterical film made even better by a bear that you kinda forget is even a bear. He's not just a foul-mouthed teddy and the film doesn't rely on that, because I think his dialogue would be just as funny if he were human. Anyways, I had a really fun time. B+
Old 06-30-2012, 01:29 AM
Just gave Kingdom of Heaven a rewatch, it is a great movie especially the directors cut I am surprised it doesn't get more love. I would probably give it a solid 8/10.
Old 06-30-2012, 03:18 AM
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)

To this day it still seems a funny choice to have cast Chris Lloyd as a Klingon. Such a wiry guy with a weak parched voice and definitely more of a comedic actor. I'm not sure he pulled it off really, I can see his his other amusing film characters shining through every time he's in shot hehe and he's not really very threatening. There isn't really any reason for him to be involved either, he's just there, in space, for no reason and decides to go after the 'Genesis' data, no background a tall.

So despite a slightly weak villain the main plus point is that the continuity carries on nicely from the second film with everyone present and correct accept the character of 'Saavik' (no longer Alley), of course the plot carries on nicely also. It actually feels very much like a huge film cut in two (this and 'Khan') or back to back filming, not much difference between the two.

The story does feel rather contrived with a major U-turn, 'Spock' had been killed off in a grand heroic manner to end the film franchise. The second film did well (unexpectedly?) so they had to think of a way to bring him back to life so the franchise could be milked further haha. This does equal much spiritual Vulcan jiggery pokery which is interesting but at the same time a bit heavy and tends to drag the sci-fi down into another realm or genre even. Personally I didn't like that side of the story, it just doesn't seem to work for me and its all too convenient.

I have always thought that the story behind 'David' being 'Kirk's' son was never really explored properly either. We discover this revelation in 'Khan' but its so subdued I would of thought we might get more in this third film, but no. Even in death 'kirk's' son gets no real epic send off, the whole thing from start to finish is glossed over pretty lazily really, oh well.

Everything else within the film is pretty much the standard look and feel of the second film simply carried on, nothing much to rave about really, its all quite average. Effects are still rather poor to be frank, the starship sequences look a touch neater this time but the planet surface of 'Genesis' has some nasty obvious set work accompanied by some even worse destruction effects as the planet disintegrates. 'Kirk' and company even remain in the same uniforms for this continuing adventure!. Both the second and third films have one other plus point in their favour and that was Horner and his instrumental score. The first film lacked a good score but this is fixed with gusto by Horner as he provides much needed emotion and vigor to the films. That was one reason the first film seemed a bit limp at times.

Its all a bit hokey in all honesty, almost like a young teens comicbook film. It does seem like this story idea could simply be a small chapter in the Trek universe that could of been explained within a TV episode, there really isn't any outstanding movie moments a tall. Speaking of hokey...don't you just love seeing Shatner in fist fights, the finale fight between 'Kirk' and 'Kruge' really was pretty dire to say the least haha. Talk about fluffy theatrical fisticuffs! never at any point does it look real or remotely intense, lets face it neither actors are the athletic fighting type. Absolutely terrible yet probably close to the real Star Trek of the mid 60's, I did enjoy that scene.

The whole film feels very much like a 'made for TV' movie and only slightly less cheaper looking than the second. The acting is wooden but that is part of the charm admittedly, we expect that, but the film just doesn't have any cinematic impact what so ever. Funnily enough this film does also feel closer to its TV origins than the semi serious sci-fi of the original (as did 'Khan'), I put that down to the low values of pretty much everything, 'cardboard effects'.

End of the day you just can't go wrong with a good old fashioned adventure with the old crew of the Enterprise. This film is probably a bit worse than 'Khan' but it still manages to be fun in a very silly quirky way whilst remaining faithful to original source material. Can't deny its always a good romp.

Keep an eye out for the small cameo by Miguel Ferrer as a crew member onboard the Excelsior
Old 06-30-2012, 05:03 AM

Ken Russell's best movie, and quite a strange, cerebral editor's nightmare for 1980. I thought it was pretty fucking fantastic, with a crazy and outrageous-but-plausible premise that capitalizes on insane theoretical physics and several styles of philosophy in order to stretch itself into a loony sci-fi.

I was intending to sit down for 20 minutes and come back later, but I couldn't stop watching. Outstanding pace, especially for the time of release. The only thing I thought went too long was the whole "chasing the wild dogs" sequence. In fact, if that was taken out entirely, it could have even heightened the mystery and tension, playing better on the idea of "is he crazy? Is he making a breakthrough?"

Either way, it was a great flick that holds up well even today.

By far the best performance was by Charles Haid. He was great!

Last edited by KcMsterpce; 06-30-2012 at 05:06 AM..
Old 06-30-2012, 05:32 AM
Altered States is a dope fucking movie! Glad you liked it, man. When I first saw it, the hallucinogenic imagery freaked me the fuck out. Imagine the audiences back when the film was just released. Hoooooly shit.
Old 06-30-2012, 06:58 AM
Altered States is the best horror movie for stoners ever made.

Old 06-30-2012, 09:09 AM

One For The Money
Old 06-30-2012, 09:41 AM
Ted - 8/10 or ****/***** stars

Ted is not only one of the best comedies I've seen in the last decade, but it's also the best work of Seth MacFarlane's career (thus far). My only question is: What the hell took MacFarlane so long to make a feature-length film?! Ted, of course, is centered around a foul-mouthed, pot-smoking, degenerate stuffed teddy bear, who is magically brought to life on-screen via brilliant voice work by MacFarlane and stunning CGI. Although the titular character is a work of CGI wizardry, the chemistry shared between said character and Mark Wahlberg, who is surprisingly funny here, is the highlight of the entire film. Not to mention their unlikely, yet loving "bromance" is completely believable. In addition to MacFarlane and Wahlberg, the cast includes Mila Kunis, Giovanni Ribisi (I'm so happy MacFarlane found a role for him, because he is such a criminally underrated actor), Joel McHale, and several cameos, all of whom have their moments to serve up laughs. As a comedy, Ted is uproariously, consistently and unapologetically funny in its raunchiness, stupidity, razor-sharp wit, and vast array of pop-culture references (some are easy to point out, while others are obscure). Just when you think Ted is about to slow down and become dull, MacFarlane finds a way to put the characters in another hilariously over-the-top situation, which keeps the film well-paced. MacFarlane also does something else here, something that blindsided me: The tender, heartfelt moments in the third and final act, which are shockingly effective and touching, elevating the film above the average raunchy comedy. What MacFarlane has accomplished with Ted is quite impressive, and if and when his television shows end, there will be a successful career waiting for him in the film industry.

Note: I actually wanted to assign Ted a 9/10, but I'm going to wait to see how the film holds up with a second and possibly third viewing.

Old 06-30-2012, 11:53 AM
Sherlock Holmes - 8.5/10
Underworld: Evolution - 7/10

Last edited by JackassFan; 07-01-2012 at 12:19 PM..
Old 06-30-2012, 07:11 PM

Brave 3D European Premiere

Hmm. Maybe not one of Pixars best, it was funny and entertaining, but I think the lack of a proper villain hurt it. No doubt the Scottish tourist board will be delighted. There should have been a Trainspotting style "It's shite being Scottish" speech in it. That'd have been good.

Old 06-30-2012, 08:53 PM

Last time I saw this it was opening weekend. I have owned the Alien Anthology on DVD and on blu ray, but every time I plan to watch the whole set, I stop at Alien3.
I think I can garner it a 5/10 now because I knew what to expect, and even some of the scenes that angered me to no end the first time around I was able to accept with a slight laugh - such as the end, and Ripley going like "I'm sorry" as the "innocent eyes" are being sucked away, or the scene a little bit before that when the baby and the queen are all giving puppy-dog eyes and shit. HILARIOUS! SOOOOO FUNNY! The soundtrack makes it even better! What I like even more is how the baby is all sweet and gentle and then decides to fucking slice whatever it is looking at forlornly in half.
Never mind the creature design. It's like pumpkinhead-meets-doberman-meets the bathtub lady in THE SHINING.
Yes, it's a disaster. Half the cast feels misplaced, Jeunet is not the choice for director, and sad to say but the screenplay could have used some work. Put it all together, though, and it's a movie that seems to have something going for it somewhere, but never quite finds a way to make ends meet.


One of my all-time favorites. I could go on and on and on about it, so I'll stop instead.

Originally Posted by Digifruitella View Post
Altered States is a dope fucking movie! Glad you liked it, man. When I first saw it, the hallucinogenic imagery freaked me the fuck out. Imagine the audiences back when the film was just released. Hoooooly shit.
Yes, it was pretty fucking awesome. I last saw it when I was like, 5 years old so obviously it was a little over my head. I just thought the colorful woman at the end was cool looking.
Old 06-30-2012, 09:20 PM
A Dangerous Method - This was a decent film but nothing more. I did like Keira Knightley for once but the story was sort of boring and just seemed like a lot of psychobabble for much of the film. 5/10

We Need to Talk About Kevin - Not a bad film but I thought Beautiful Boy - which dealt with similar subject matter but in a different way - was better. I'm not all that fond of either Tilda Swinton or John C. Reilly at least in his dramatic roles. The story itself was good although I would have preferred if it was told in a more linear fashion. 6/10
Old 06-30-2012, 10:23 PM

Williams' performance is great, but it's a film that provides nothing worth watching unless you're a big fan of Monroe.

Old 07-01-2012, 12:08 AM
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (8/10)
Pulp Fiction (9/10)
Dazed and Confused (8/10)
Old 07-01-2012, 02:24 AM
Originally Posted by JCR View Post

Is it just me or do i have a hard time taking Shia Lebouf seriously in his gangster pose on that cover.

Not judging a movie i haven't seen ( and for all i know if could be great ) but this has to be the less threatning main character ever.
Old 07-01-2012, 02:32 AM
Originally Posted by Dirtyfrog View Post
Is it just me or do i have a hard time taking Shia Lebouf seriously in his gangster pose on that cover.

Not judging a movie i haven't seen ( and for all i know if could be great ) but this has to be the less threatning main character ever.
Lol, I thought the same way, so you're not really alone in that thinking! Reminds me of photos of whiteboys acting gangsta, that's exactly how this looks only in film form and in the 20's
Old 07-01-2012, 12:18 PM
Underworld Awakening - 6/10
Old 07-01-2012, 12:48 PM
Originally Posted by Dirtyfrog View Post
Is it just me or do i have a hard time taking Shia Lebouf seriously in his gangster pose on that cover.

Not judging a movie i haven't seen ( and for all i know if could be great ) but this has to be the less threatning main character ever.
Well like I said, how much you care for it may well depend on how much you can stand him; it's some what odd to see him surrounded by Tom Hardy, Guy Pearce, Jessica Chastain and Gary Oldman and having to keep up with them, I thought it was fine though.

Fans of on screen violence maybe pleased with it, it's a hard mpaa R, probable 18 in the UK, there are a couple of moments that will make you flinch, usually involving crazy "fuckin' nance" Guy Pearce.
Old 07-01-2012, 12:52 PM
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)

This was the first Star Trek movie I saw at the cinema, and to top that I think I saw it whilst in the US of A too

So the story continues from where it left of in 'The Search for Spock' with Nimoy again at the helm. What can one say about this Trek outing, it certainly took a different route and clearly went for a more comedic approach. Was this the right approach? well maybe, I can't deny that the film is very entertaining with some well crafted family fun moments that make all the veteran actors even more endearing in their now historical roles.

How can anyone fail to love these guys? quite literately old age pensioners in space and still saving the earth, what a team!. So yes a big kudos for the alternate direction and some lovely amusing moments which can't fail to make you smile.

On the other hand did this film really do much to bolster Star Treks sci-fi rankings within the hall of fame/classics?. I'm not so sure really, we all know Star Trek has that little niche of semi serious logical sci-fi mixed with blatant fantasy but for me this plot just took one step too far. There is really only so far you can go before you have to step back and say 'hold on'.

Earth is in trouble (again) so the ageing crew simply decide to use a 'time warp' into the past to casually pick up some humpback whales and bounce back to the their present before anyone knew they were there. Now is it me or is this premise just a tad beyond the realms of a reasonably sensible film? the last film saw a character resurrected and now they can jump through time to fix problems, these guys can't be beaten!.
The story is an ingenious creation (but they do tend to come across allot of unknown energy sapping...problems), a good message about the environment and endangered species but for me the time travel thing just never sat well, its too convenient and renders the Enterprise crew almost insurmountable in any given situation.

That aside its a completely new breathe of fresh air to have the film set almost entirely on a planet surface, especially our own. This does infact render special effects almost obsolete for the film, almost. There are still many nasty bluescreen shots, standard obvious sets and some hideous whale footage crowbarred in but also the odd nice starship model, usual Trek look really.

I can see why this did well upon release as its a fun film with a good message and happy ending, its Star Trek all over. For me the plot has gone from generic in the last two films to completely outlandish in this film, much suspension of disbelief required here. Much like the previous two films I neither overly dislike or overly like this fourth effort. I enjoyed it for what's it worth and of course knew what to expect, but compare these Trek films to other sci-fi and they do look quite childish.
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump