homie_g Reviews

Star Trek: The Next Generation: 11001001 (1988) Season 1, Episode 14

A 'must see' excellent example of episodic drama

[10/10 · 10 May 2011]

I really have to agree with most of the existing reviews here. I watched this episode the other night and it had everything; mystery, action, suspense, romance and character development. For an episode shot in the 1980s, it still holds up remarkably well in 2011.

If you really sit down and analyze this episode, everything just came together and clicked which includes the directing, editing, acting, music score, camera-work, rhythm, pacing, special effects and story. It has great scale and a cinematic flare to it due in part to the very nice special effects, even if they are re-worked from Star Trek III.

There are some subtle symbolic things I picked up on which may be coincidences. For example, at the end when Picard and Riker get up from the bridge computer station. They get up in exactly the same way and same time, much like how the bynars are paired up. I think this symbolized their interdependency much like the bynars depend on each other in pairs.

The clever use of the holodeck, ship-wide evacuation and auto-destruct were well done. And I am glad they didn't do the clichéd thing about having the auto-destruct tick down until the final seconds. I think that shows maturity in the writing. I loved the final cute moments where Picard takes the conn.

A must see!

Hogan's Heroes (1965–1971)

Clever, Witty and Hilarious

[14 March 2003]

This TV show is set in World War II, and that in itself was a very bold move to base a sitcom in a such a dark period of human history. This show excels for having, for the most part a good and generally non-realised talented cast. The stories are entertaining and have a decent amount of tension yet it most definitely doesn't take itself too seriously.

As a previous comment pointed out this show was one of the first to portray an African-American as an equal to white people which was very bold and positive move for a 1960's show. Star Trek had at the same time given black people and women a status of equality to men when they cast Nichelle Nichols as an African American woman as a main character. So I am very pleased at the fact that the producers took a chance and made this character righfully as an equal.

The theme music is catchy, ok may be slightly annoying but Jerry Fielding did a competent job. I a m not sure who scores the rest of the episodes, it seems they reuse and make music for certain episodes and recycle whenever they can probably due to budget but its edited nicely. You may be able to know that film editor Michael Kahn started his editing career on this show and has edited many of Steven Spielbergs films to the present. This brings up the issue of production quality. Not bad for 1960's standards for a less than 30 minute job, editing is pretty good, music, cinematography is alright. Not fantastic but this the 1960s.

The aforementioned cast are filled with talent. Most notably is the principle cast, Schultz (John Banner), Klink (Werner Klemperer) and Hogan (Bob Crane). This show has had nothing but top notch actors and guest actors. Bob Crane may have dabbled in some undesirable off-camera infamous affairs but he is nevertheless a great actor.

Watch this show if you haven't, some episodes are forgettable, some are great, some are just fantastic.

One of the all time best comedies? I would say most probably so :).

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

The Director's Edition is Bob Wise's definitive vision of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. And what a vision!

[19 February 2003]

This DVD version has improved and restored and made Star Trek: TMP a pleasure to watch rather than a chore. You're less inclined to hit fast-forward in those lengthy scenes. This movie will resonate well with mature-age viewers because the story is not what you would expect from today's action packed cinema. I appreciated the movie more as I got older. Bob Wise explains on the DVD that production was extremely rushed and had no time to preview the film with an audience that would now after 20 years, tell him to tighten the opticals and emphasize characters. This is precisely what he has done in the DVD version and its magnificent.

Aesthetically, the DVD version shows you the best Star Trek: The Motion Picture can possibly look. Film is sharper; color is dead on however there is still a lot of film grain present unfortunately. My guess is they cleaned the original negative up as much as they could but it had deteriorated so much in storage, or was badly preserved. Certainly looks better than my bad pan/scanned VHS copy.

The DVD truly shines with its brand new sound mix. This isn't your standard stereo to 5.1 DVD conversions like they are doing for movies pre 5.1; they have gutted it up and added new stuff. The original release was so rushed that very little in terms of ambient sound and special effects audio elements were done on the sound mix amongst other production elements. For this DVD they went back to the original audiotapes and remixed them digitally.

Goldsmith's score sounded fantastic when it originally came out now sounds even better on the DVD version. It's tremendous, you will hear what your suppose to hear now with the added advantage of 5.1 surround sound. Goldsmith score truly has a chance to soar now by stretching into a clean high fidelity 5.1 environment rather than being squeezed onto a mono or stereo track. Bass kicks in often especially on big musical cues. You'll hear nifty panning and those surrounds and subwoofer will definitely get a workout. In instances they isolate different parts of the orchestra through different speakers, mainly the bass and percussion.

Most onstage dialog was re-recorded afterwards because of onstage noise due to mechanical devices etc; this is now common practice in the industry. The result is cleaner dialog that comes prominently out of your center speaker. The dialog audio is good, but on occasion it shows a mild muffled and tinny quality probably due to age of material or analog technology of the time, nevertheless I guarantee you, the average viewer will like it, I'm just being picky. In short the movie will sound almost as good as if the movie was made recently.

Not only having rebuilt the original audio they have put in more surround elements, like ambient bridge noises and computer voices. Not sure why they changed the `Intruder Alert' voice, I don't mind but I guess it was because they rushed the sound mix in the 70's and chose that voice as a last minute thing. There are other elements that have been changed, for the better I would say.

The DVD contents have been remastered with Wise's overseeing. There are too many subtleties to comment on so shall briefly discuss a few. Before opening credits you are treated to Goldsmiths V'ger/Love theme, a nice touch. Then you hear the bombastic Star Trek Theme. Newly done credits over moving starfield.

First main new special effect is the Vulcan landscape, tilting from sky to the surface. Then cuts to a new matte painting of the beautiful orange sky. Originally Spock shields his eyes and in the reversal, not only is there no sun there is little sky visible. The new matte painting now fits in nicely.

San Francisco sequence has been redone, 3 new matte paintings that better show the futurized city, Golden Gate Bridge and a bigger shuttlebay.

When they get into V'Ger they encounter a weapon heading towards them that is suppose to dissipate, in the original it simply disappears instantly, now we see a new visual that shows it dissipating just before it hits the ship.

Later we see a probe heading towards the ship on the viewscreen and then through some hokey editing it appears on the bridge. This has been replaced with an improved FX shot showing the approach of the entity on an exterior shot.

A new 'Wing Walk' sequence. Breathtaking new CGI's that show the away-team walk from the hull to the V'Ger stage, some using the original live action shots. New FXs for the most part are based on original storyboards. They didn't go overboard with the effects which is good, Bob tells us that they made FX that they could only do in the 1970's, unlike Star Wars whom George Lucas went overkill on new FX when he redid his in the 1990's.

There are trims, some rearrangements of shots for the better. E.g. Ilia/Deckers exchange of looks, Kirk's `Oh My God', his second `Viewer Off.' I suspect they had to edit within Jerry's score, or have to also edit Jerry's score to accommodate the new editing, if so they have done it very well, I couldn't notice. Some lengthy scenes remain in its entirety, e.g. flying up to the enterprise, I don't blame them for not trimming them, some are sentimental.

The 2 DVD's come with a plethora of information. Audio commentaries by the director, 2 special effect's guys, an actor and the composer guide you through the director's edition. Text commentary by Okuda gives even more scene specific info. Disc 2 gives you most of the trims, deleted scenes from the TV and Theatrical release not used in the DVD version and an outtake of an abandoned visual effect. Plus 3 documentaries about the abandoned TV series ST:Phase II, Directors edition DVD and the movie itself. Plus advertisements/trailers plus storyboards.

A MUST BUY FOR FANS! You'll Love It!

Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)

Great story and good performances

[7/10 · 7 February 2003]

In my opinion it doesn't beat Wrath of Kahn but still, excellent performances and interesting plot. Many critics have commented the plot could be viewed as another 'Picard and Data' movie, this is somewhat true but not a core part of the plot.

Special effects, as usual are pretty damn good, from the subtle to the complex. For instance the camera moves quite a bit in the conference lounge despite a moving warp star field. In previous movies and episodes the camera is always 99 percent of the time locked down whenever there is a complex special effect like that. This movies budget helps facilitate those subtle but complex effects that I like to see more of. Another thing I would love to see more is a transporter effect done while the camera is moving, perhaps pan and scan to handheld, normally the camera is locked off. I've actually only scene that done in a Voyager episode called Non Sequitor. If they can pull that off in future movies I will be very impressed, but I really don't see how it's possible to do that (handheld) from a special effect P.O.V, perhaps a complex motion control camera maneuver?.

The battle scenes are done much in the spirit of Wrath of Khan, you see more of the ship being blown up externally and internally, lots of close-ups of control panels etc. Stuart Baird's directing is also notable; his camera angle choices are very good. We see the bridge from different angles all the time, which is good. Some of the previous movies seldom cut to different angles and they default to a master shot that rarely moves (usually a front looking towards the back of the bridge). But movies like Wrath of Khan (If you can't tell already, I love that movie!), we see the ship from different angles, cutting to new crevasses the audience loves to see. I guess I'm rambling; it's enough to say this movie does that well too. Want an example that doesn't do this too well? Star Trek III: Search for Spock. A lot of the bridge scenes are shot from the front looking to the back, but reversals (shots where the camera is looking toward the view screen) are rare. Purposely done? Who knows but a movie should take advantage of cutting to different angles, but that's a different story. Back to Star Trek X: Nemesis.

There are plenty of well-directed action scenes and lots of good-natured humor, OK one or two attempts at humor make you want to cringe but it's all good. I think it was a good idea to get a fresh director, as they did in Wrath of Kahn, who was new to Star Trek. It helps give the movie an unpredictable quality. But having said that Jonathan Frakes did do a good job on Star Trek: First Contact didn't he? But it's always good to hire a new director once in a while when dealing with a myriad of sequels.

One thing against this movie is definitely the cinematography.

There are several instances where a subject is softly out of focus (it might be intentional I doubt it) or a subject leans out of focus or bad follow focusing. But when its viewed on the smaller screen it won't be that noticeable thankfully. If this movie wins an award for cinematography I must be going blind. Note; Sometimes it's not totally the cinematographer's (aka Director of Photography) fault, although he/she should hire the right person. It could be the assistant cameraman (aka focus puller) whom is sometimes responsible to maintain focus on a shot properly.

Music is also up to standards, nothing great mind you but Jerry Goldsmith does have his moments here and there. A good movie score should standout, like James Horner's score for Wrath of Kahn (there I say it again) and lift the movie a few notches, but of course it has to be suitable. Goldsmiths recognizable Enterprise theme that you will be familiar with from TNGs theme music and debuting in Star Trek: The Motion Picture is still there in a similar form and rightfully so. I have mixed feelings about the choice of a composer for Star Trek. Jerry Goldsmith does 'know' Star Trek, he wrote several scores for Trek movies in the past. But I feel if they make another movie, they should now try someone new, the same attitude for a director. Jerry Goldsmith did a fine job on Nemesis and prequels nonetheless. New composers should be considered, after all newcomers to Star Trek like Leonard Rosenman, Cliff Eidelman, James Horner have written good compositions. The producers were probably playing it safe and chose Jerry but variety won't go astray. I will note in my opinion that Star Trek Movies has never had a bad musical score to date and I hope this will continue.

Now this movie didn't really do well in the box-office and its not that it was a bad movie (its a fantastic movie!) It was overshadowed by movies such as Lord of the Rings: Two Towers and other good movies. Similar to the way Star Wars overshadowed the fantastic Star Trek: The Motion Picture in the late 1970's. So watch this movie, its a sure thing.

I must say this in one of my reviews, so I'll say it now. IMDB is a great way of measuring movies popularity much better than Academy awards, Emmys, Oscars etc. IMDB samples regular people like us. Where as the aforementioned awards are judged by a board of people who don't know anything and just judge a movie by the hype and media attention it gets. There are lots of talented people out there that don't get the recognition they should from award shows so I never take these award show opinions to be true. If a movie gets an award and it could be trash, leave the power of criticism and movie opinions to the public that IMDB samples.

Video Voyeur: The Susan Wilson Story (2002 TV Movie)

Compelling

[5/10 · 4 February 2003]

Not a bad film, acting is a little bit on the dull side. But after you watch it, it does make you look at the ceilings of your own house to see if theres anyone watching you. Aside from the compelling story, there isn't too much to say about this film only that it might possible make you a little paranoid, which I believe is its purpose.

The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe (1988)

An Underrated Classic, Captures the imagination.

[7/10 · 9 August 2002]

I am frequently appalled by the denegration (from previous comments, one in particular not sure how many in total) of this series people inflict on it. It may have hand-drawn animations and really bad bluescreen composite effects and lack breathtaking special effects but thats how the 1980's were, they tried and I give them points for trying and it did seem spectacular in that era. Nowadays we have CGI SPX that kicks-ass but lets not denegrate a series because of the limitations of the period, lets appreciate it.

I remember watching this as a child and taping every single episode ofa the BBC (BBC rock for not putting advertisements in) and I was not dissapointed at all, I enjoyed this series. I still have the VHS tapes of them all and shall never record over them.

It is not to be taken too seriously, of course you can tell that some of the animals are played by people and the acting is a bit off but it is after all a children's program. Perhaps it was intentional to have the animals look so obviously like people, to symbolize the duality of men and beast, depends on your interpretation!.

This is a television series not a big budgeted movie, so considering all this, the production has done a great job in reviving the spirit of the book.

As always, movies can hardly replace the book but this one does an adequet job of it especially considering when it was made. Musical title score is above par, the sets constructed do the job and show great creativity, the great direction and crew production quality shows.

I hope they do put all of the Chronicals of Narnia TV series' on DVD (if they haven't already) to preserve its quality. I am sure there are plenty of fans out there who would buy it like me.

I do not want to go into the story (perhaps I should sometime), as with all my reviews I only comment on the impression left behind and production quality. I think children would find it most entertaining however if you do have the opportunity to watch this I suggest you do.

Final thoughts are is that it is a memorable series.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)

The widescreen version is a must see!

[9 December 2001]

Previously I have commented on The Wrath of Khan solely watching it from the editted to TV versions, ie letterboxed versions which I feel is a sad yet necessary compromise to watching a widescreen movie on normal TV aspect ratios. However I'd prefer watching a widescreen presentation on normal TV even if it has the black bars.

Just recently I have had the fortune to tape the Wrath of Khan in its widescreen version, it happened to be a very clean, high quality(in sound and picture) broadcast as oppose to the faded and badly letterboxed broadcasts I have viewed before.

The Wrath of Khan, as I have previously commented is a fantastic space adventure, but the widescreen version is very much so better as it has better framed shots and you can obviously see more action. As I have just learned if you have only watched the TV version you have missed out on about 1/3 of the action.

If you are lucky enough to fin a widescreen version with good quality sound and picture, I implore you to watch The Wrath of Khan it, even if it means having black bars on your TV to accomodate the picture, it is worth it. And this goes for all movies y'all watch, watch the widescreen version first!

Back to the Future (1985)

A well though-out film in which a strong foundation is set the great sequels.

[9/10 · 18 October 2001]

This film is an impressive creation of the incredible adventure of time travel. Many aspects of this film make it work, especially the talents of the great director Robert Zemekis. It is a movie where the new kid on the block of the 80's truly shines with great acting. The other main actors of this movie, eg the Doc, Biff, George, Lorraine were an excellent cast selection.

The musical score for this film by John Williams is as usual, a fantastically composed piece of musical art that fits perfectly in to Back to The Future. The film was excellently edited, contained phenomenal special effects and many great moments. In my opinion a movies main job is to create special moments, and this one had no shortage.

Other aspects of this film made this a success, ie the lighting, set, acting, props(which includes the DeLorean), the several motifs that run through the movie about 'time'(music, clocks, being late for something etc) and many more. The camaraderie between Marty and the Doc in 1985 and 1955 is beautifully contrasted in that they make solid friendships in both time frames.

The audience can tell this movie isn't meant to be a totally series film and that it is also a comedy aswell as science fiction. The deliberate over-acting sometimes visible, ie when the Doc says, "..Next Saturday night were sending you back to the future!," and points straight to the camera shows this, and is appropriate in this comedy. Also when George says, '..And not you or anyone on this planet is going to make me change my mind.." This in addition to the comedy tells the audience that the film she be taken as a light hearted sci-fi comedy.

Robert Zemekis has shown in this film that he is indeed a prolific director. I look forward to writing reviews on his other successes but for y'all who haven't seen this movie it is smash, SO SEE IT.

The Wonder Years (1988–1993)

This show was so good I actually thought it was made in the 60's

[16 November 2000]

This excellent series appropriately named 'The Wonder Years' is an excellent insight into the socio-cultural period of the 60's. Even though this show was created in the late 80's and made till the early 90's I still thought this show was as old as the period it talks about.

The show has done an excellent job in emulating as many aspects from the 60's as possible. I am not from the 60's myself, however from my knowledge of it, I can safely deduce that this is as close to as I can get to experiencing that period. The directing, editing right down to the costumes and hair-styles convey that 60's feel.

The show is unique in the way it is made so that you can hear a monologue or voice-over of what is going on inside Kevin's head, what he is thinking and what he feels as a child as he matures. You see everything from his point of view. You see typical 1960's family life, dominant father figure and a semi submissive yet respectable mother. Each character has been written well, written as well as every story, meaningful and realistic.

In every episode the show injects humour into the script which loosens up the tension you can feel in the family. Anyway I could write an essay about this show and on more aspects why it is so good.

All in all it is a recent classic if you excuse irony. I can not find fault in it. I even like the opening theme music and shots. 9.5 / 10

The Great Escape (1963)

I rate it up their among the other great war Movies, Fantastic!

[9/10 · 4 August 2000]

"The Great Escape" is a combination of great acting, actors, directing, Great Music, and of course the great action sequences. The director John Sturges employed great film techniques. The overall escape spanned over a year I think in real life. However, since this is only a movie length movie, it has successfully captured that whole time without any noticeable gaps. The movie is in color which was somewhat uncommon before 1963, so that is a bonus.

The elaborate set of the P.O.W camp was exemplary. The director did not hesitate to confine the camera views, he tried to capture as much as possible of the camp at times, taking full advantage of the expansive set.

The action sequences were well done. The motorbike scenes well very good. Quick takes of different shots, used a lot of wide shots to capture the surroundings. The music was extremely entertaining. The opening theme and internal music is one of the best I've ever heard. Especially during the action sequences, changes to suit the different people escaping.

One of the good things about this movie is because it doesn't have a happy ending. Not all of the POW's escape, which coincides with reality as this is a true story with some Hollywood additions to spice the movie up. The location of shooting in Europe was very good and added to the aesthetics of the film.

The on-going Cooler King, Steve McQueen added the most humor into the film, making it not so serious. Speaking of McQueen I have to mention the stunts. Excellent motorbike stunts. Another bit of humor was the try-hard Australian and some classic lines in the film.

If there is anything to criticize in the actual shooting of the film is that there were some noticable continuity errors from different shots. For the actual movie, It is much better to see it on DVD as it is very much considerably cleaned up as far as picture and sound quality are concerned.

I can't find anything in the actual plot or story to criticize, but there must be something.

I rate it 9.5/10 Just Absolutely Fantastic.

The Hunt for Red October (1990)

A Well Directed movie

[7 May 2000]

'The Hunt for Red October' is truly a great piece of filmmaking. Excellent direction. The constant moving of the camera, whip pans, sharp focus transitions were tactfully done. It denotes tension in the film. Lighting was extremely good, dark fortresses, hardening Actors facial expressions in the submarine, very powerful.

Alec Baldwin, Sean Connery, Sam Neill, James Earl Jones played their characters exceptionally fluently and well. James Earl Jones was great at his often secretive roles, ie, 'Sneakers', 'Clear and Present Danger' etc. Sir Sean Connery is one of the best actors in the world, and lays it on in this movie. Excellent portrayal of the captain of the Russian submarine.

I was bemused to notice Daniel Davis, the chracter who plays 'Niles' in the American Sitcom, 'The Nanny.' He played his role adequetly too.

A criticism about the movie is that the underwater scenes were not so believable. Visual CG graphics in 1990 were just beginning to grow, however they are adequet for that time it was made.

Musical side was good, chorus singing and opera like music fit in nicely with the movie.

All in all, A great effort! 7.5/10

Earthquake (1974)

Awful, just awful

[6 May 2000]

Every foot of this movie should be burned. I tried to reason that it was made in 1974, and effects back then weren't so good. But I've seen movies made in the 1930's that are better than this piece of junk.

Some unrealistic things are, would anyone go into an elevator during an earthquake? Lean outside a window in a high rise building to take a look? Squirting tomato sauce on the camera lens in the elevator scene really looked awful to denote blood.

I think I could shoot a better movie than this with my 8mm Digital Sony Handycam. To simulate an earthquake, a director must know you can't simply shake the camera about to create the effect. In some shots that's all he did! And the people were clearly standing as if unwavered.

Acting is tolerable. I don't know how Charlton Heston got into this movie, after seeing it he must be ashamed of himself.

Poor effort movie: 4/10

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977)

An almost flawless movie, absolutely magnificent masterpiece

[29 April 2000]

I am writing this comment now thinking no matter what I write here, I can not sum up all its glory.

This is truly a great movie. It was dynamite in 1977 and when I watch it now its still dynamite. George Lucas has produced this movie with the highest of standards. He employs artistic shots for every scene. Close-ups, long shots, high/low angle shots, dolly track shots, follow focus moving shots. The special effects are great even now by our standards. Fantastic direction, continuity is well kept. Despite the mistakes you'll find in the goofs section, the movies awesomeness out weighs it completely.

Given the technology they had back then, excellent blue screen matting was achieved, special effects were spectacular. The lightsabre scenes were great, excellent photographic effects to accomplish that, again Lucas and his team's ingenuity self-demonstrates.

The musical track and sound effects were extremely well done.

The elaborate sets and locations for filming were well built and very well made. Along with the futuristic props, R2 D2, blasters, C 3PO etc. A glimpse of Lucas' imagination.

The actors portrayals of the character were extremely good. Han Solo(my favorite), Chewbacca(what ever it may be), Luke, Leia, and the famous Obi Wan Kenobi, played by Alec Guiness.

The perseverance of George Lucas lead to his Special Edition refits of the film. This already high standard film has been face-lifted to a higher standard. This includes a complete new pigmentation film negative been clean up, thus producing a very good picture quality. Sound mixes, dissolves, wipes, and even new scenes have been added an also on old footage, new things have been added on top. Note the new Mos Eisley additions, creatures etc. Death star explosion, battle scenes added too.

This is movie which I expect you've all scene, if you haven't, something's wrong with you. All the others in the Star Wars movies are'must see' movies aswell!

This movie is the best of the trilogy plus the 'Phantom Menace' I give it a 9.5-10 out of 10.

Star Trek: Generations (1994)

A not so bad produced movie, good directing, acting, but however somewhat unrealistic plot and story

[7 April 2000]

Star Trek Generations is a good movie. It has good direction, excellent lighting photography, ie, look out for the ten forward sun rays beaming into in, the new bridge and its lighting. The acting was excellent, by both captains and especially Data. Also Malcolm McDowell portrayed his role ok.

The idea of a 'nexus' is somewhat inconceivable to exist. However I suppose they chucked into this movie to make the movie. The special effects were exceptional, the set construction and location were ok. The directing was somewhat over done if you get what I mean, there were some seldom unnecessary extremes for a simple shot, however genuinely sound. The aforementioned lighting was well done by the director of photography or lighting director.

I really can't lift this movie up any higher, it was a good big bang start for the next generation cast's introduction to the big screen, but it didn't struck a chord in me. Even the death of one of Star Trek's main icons didn't have that magic as like it did with Spocks death in Star Trek II, however it was somewhat sad.

The movie sort of carried on like on the premise of Star Trek The Motion Picture, a big budget movie, weak plot which really spoiled, no, killed, this movie. It has more things positive on the technical side than on the contents side, acting, story etc.

The fantastic however too long sequence of the ship crashing into the planet was probably the best climax of the movie. The humour in it was not bad.

Overall rating, 7/10

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)

Very good movie, a perfect sign off for the original Star Trek cast

[31 March 2000]

This movie has it all, it has drama, action, special effects you name it. It also has a nice resolving conclusion to the Kirk era of Star Trek, the possibility of peace among Klingons and Humans.

On the technical side the directing is beautifully and masterfully done by Nicholas Meyer. Well edited movie. The director took careful consideration to keep you in suspense, for example, hiding the villain in the background of the light, things like that. The special effects, though not remarkable, as in The Wrath of Khan's in-your-face effects, the effects in this movie generally are good, the battle sequences in this movie are just as good as The Wrath of Khan one.

Again a nice motif is the scripts placement of Shakespeare quotes into the villain, just like Khan in Star Trek II. Speaking of the villain, Chang, here you see excellent acting thanks to the actor Christopher Plummer.

There are a lot of in-line jokes, which adds to that atmosphere of closeness between the characters. Sulu's transfer to a new ship, the Excelsior is sought here. The set construction and pieces are great. The new enterprise bridge looks more military like. The presidential office (may note it is a redone Ten Forward from St, the next generation), the peace talk location, etc.

The end of the movie has a sad feeling towards it, a teary farewell to the crew of the Enterprise, and a clear passing of the torch to the new crew.

A great movie that you must see,

Rating: 9/10

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)

Has some humour, but that's basically it

[31 March 2000]

Star Trek The Final Frontier is probably the worst Trek movie out of them all. The special effects were just OK, but it didn't out-do the predecessor movies.

William Shatner's acting was better than average though, but his directing was just plain awful. This movie had bloopers everywhere. Take note as they are rocketing up the turbo-shaft, the order of decks as they ascend, your at deck 52, then higher you get 42, then 78. Just how many decks does that ship have? And I suppose they build them in any order they feel like? A clear error on part of the director and editor. On a few shots you can even see reflections of the movie camera, like in a monitor display, and some shadows it casts(lighting team fault), a definite NO for cinematography.

Spock's character seemed a little out of place. Singing Row Row Row your boat?, well I suppose it was acceptable. The story/plot was weak, everyone who believes in God, like me, should feel insulted by this movie. Then again that is William Shatners fault as being part of the writing team, he should just stick to TekWar novels.

The set construction was just average. The ships corridors were obviously from the set of the Enterprise D(ST The Next Generation). At least make an attempt to make it look different like in Star Trek VI, its successor.

A few things on the positive side are the light hearted moments and humour that was inserted, Scott bumping his head on a bulkhead. The McCoy and Spock conflicts that continues on. Little things like that, but that is insufficient to carry this movie to be successful

Overall, 5-5.5/10

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)

Excellent well produced movie, great effects, directing, acting, One of The Best Sci-Fi's you'll ever see!

[31 March 2000]

The Wrath of Khan was a complete jump in quality, production and standard from first movie, The Motion Picture. Ricardo Montauban, a classic actor best known for his romantic films in his early years, 1950's. One of the best villains you will ever see in a science fiction movie.

The music was good, however not as good as the predecessor movie's music, but still good. The directing is also very good, great use of focusing techniques, close up's, action sequences well done, the usual high standard that comes from a proficient director like Nicholas Meyer.

The lighting, exterior and interior shots, were well done.

Its a pity that they haven't made a remastered tape, as the movie picture quality has degraded through the years.

William Shatner's acting was extremely real, moving, believable. Among with the other main cast, and unlike the previous movie, this movie brought together that atmosphere that existed in the Original Star trek series.

The dramatic plot that happens towards the end of the movie is indeed, one of the best scenes you will ever see in motion picture history. Proving that Star Trek still has emotion. I can not be more clearer than this unless by giving away the story. Watch it yourself, and you'll be moved by the greatest acting, heart touching scene ever made.

The special effects composed along with George Lucas were excellent, and in the year 2000, I feel they would come very close to our standard today. The better warp entering sequences, battle sequences, and the formation of the new Genesis planet are very good effects. The chase in the nebula, final explosion of the Genesis device are effects for you to watch for.

If your like me, you will love the script for its Shakespeare context which Khan uses effectively throughout the film. I highly recommend you to see this movie if you haven't already, it's one of the best.

Rating: 9.5/10

Star Trek: First Contact (1996)

Excellent, well produced, directed, acted, thoughtout film

[25 March 2000]

Star trek First Contact is truly the best Star Trek film ever made. I would have to say it just barely tips the scales over star trek The Undiscovered Country and the excellent Wrath of Khan. This movie has great direction from Jonathan Frakes, who for once is able to order the captain around in his directors chair. Unlike Leonard Nimoy, Frakes boldly took his initiative to try some daring shots, ie lots of close-ups, hand held type shots, puts him right up their with other Trek movie directors, Nicholas Meyer etc.

The Special Effects were extremely detailed and don't look they have been processed through 256 colour Powermac. The exterior battle shots were hair raising to say the least, just like the Wrath of Khan. Lighting was extremely well done, mostly that dark contrast shone on characters aboard the ship. Costumes and make-up artists have really outdone themselves. It is an almost flawless movie. The acting by Patrick Stewart, James Cromwell and Alfre Woodward was well portrayed. Although the only flaw I can find in this movie is the Borg queen, not having the villain dynamics, chills and cold feelings that past movie villains gave, ie Khan, Chang. Though she was acceptable.

Overall the story, plot was outstanding, always keeping you interested with the happenings on the ship, whilst the away team try to go through with that launch. Some of the story is of course new, the concept of the borg queen, never even thought of in the TNG episode, 'Best of Both Worlds'. Just been hashed together to make a good story, but hey, they tried their best. And after all, it gave us a hell of a movie. 9/10