The Film Thread

[fightoffyour]

2 hours ago, mykeyb said:

Watched it over the weekend, wouldn't rush to watch it again. Visually very nice but that's about it.

It's a bit far fetched

[hogso]

I'm sure no one will remember, or care, but ages ago (I really mean ages) I posted a list of 'essential' Star Trek TNG, DS9 and VOY episodes in anticipation of watching Picard. 

Guess what, I never watched Picard.

I now have a hankering to, though, so I returned to that list, and made my way through to the end of TNG. The next thing on the list is Star Trek Generations. 

I figured I'd rewatch the TOS movies first though. I did so with the first two over the weekend. So, have at it;

 

~*~*~*~*~*~Hogso's thoughts about Star Trek : The Motion Picture ~*~*~*~*~*~

There's a couple of really good things about this movie. One, is the introduction of what would go on to be the title theme for TNG, and leitmotif used time and again in the series,  becoming quite iconic in time.

The other is it's pretty unique standing as one of the very final big budget, big screen movies of the 70s. It was released in cinemas in December 1979. Let's just consider 1979 sci fi movies alone for a start - a year in which Alien, Mad Max, Moonraker (there's loads of sci fi in it, come one), Phantasm, Disney's The Black Hole, and more besides, were released. The look of TMP is just fascinating to me, and it's standing in time, if not cinematic history, I find kind of fascinating. I'm not really a 'Trekkie', although I would say I like Star Trek, so I don't really care that the uniforms look like dresses. It also takes a lot of inspiration from earlier 70s sci fi. It positively screams Close Encounters, Star Wars, Solaris, and of course the biggest inspiration being 1968's 2001 A Space Odyssey. It isn't exactly a bad thing that it wears those inspirations on it's sleeve,  because some of those sequences look great, in fact a lot of them do, but there's a big problem...

The film runs for over 2 hours, and I can only imagine that the execs at Paramount lost their minds and decided not to employ a competent editor. Or maybe one at all. Either that or they didn't care much about their money and kept throwing dollars at the production, and they wanted it to show. The film indulges itself to the nth degree with lingering shots of characters, sets, and above all else, the special effects. I don't think I've ever seen another film like it. I really don't think it's an exaggeration to suggest that 45 minutes of the run time could have been trimmed, without detriment to the story, such as it is. It's so bad that it genuinely becomes boring, a phrase I don't use lightly, as I don't generally become bored when watching films, as odd as that may sound. 

The story has some intrigue to it, but the pay off to the 'mystery' is all kinds of dumb, even by Star Trek standards. And to anyone who may have watched this without prior knowledge of Star Trek, god only knows what they must have thought. 

It did OK at the box office, thankfully, because if it had lost any money, they never would have made another one, and thank god they did, because...

 

~*~*~*~*~*~Hogso's thoughts about Star Trek II : The Wrath of Khan ~*~*~*~*~*~

I appreciate that this will sound like hyperbolic nonsense, but I have to say - I think this film is perfect, and consequently, comfortably one of my favourite films of all time. 

Released a little over 2 years after the first TOS movie, in order to formulate it's standing in time, which I found such an interesting thing to consider for TMP, I'll consider the same for WoK. Released in June 1982, you probably don't need to be much of a film buff for the cogs to whirr when you think of this genre, and that year - in the US in June alone Blade Runner, The Thing, Poltergeist, and ET were released. That's kind of unbelievable, so I did my research to check those dates, and it does seem to be correct for general release. If you delve a little deeper and look at 1982 as a whole, it's completely bonkers to me. Must be something to do with my age and tastes, I guess, but I can't imagine looking at a single month of present day cinema releases with such reverence. 

Like a lot of those films, WoK feels bombastic, action packed, in a complete reversal when compared to TMP it almost feels too short, and indeed a Director's Cut does exist. The film was directed and written by two no name guys, one of which I will name, who went on to do basically nothing else. It's a surprise then that the story keeps pace well, there's some excellent scenes from both a writing and directing POV, and although there's a couple of examples of what could be accusations of deus ex machina (which is a funny turn of phrase given what the macguffin of the film is) I'm more than happy to suspend my disbelief, as this is a sci fi story after all.

Or is it? Well, yeah, but no - it's Moby Dick and A Tale of Two Cities (in space). Much like TMP wore it's influences on it's sleeve when it came to the use of special effects, which was to the detriment of the film, WoK does the same here  with it's primary influences, but with the outcome being that it's elevated in to something that transcends a mere Star Trek film. It not only becomes a fascinating tale of vengeance, but those influences bestow upon the actors license to really go for it. And there's no better example in this film, than of course, Ricardo Montalbon, who is obscenely good in the role he reprises of Khan.

The movie is essentially a sequel 'Space Seed', an episode from the first series of TOS, which when watched in isolation isn't really anything special, although Montalbon's performance is good, as it stands out in that episode too (yes, I also rewatched that before rewatching WoK). It's not required viewing though, the viewer is given everything they need to understand why Khan is so hell bent on vengeance against Kirk. As soon as he is on screen, there's a presence which is completely absorbing, you're right there with him. It's even more remarkable then, that he and his prey share barely any screen time.

The rest of the performances are fine generally, there's a young Kirsty Alley amongst the supporting cast who is OK, and more or less it's more of the same elsewhere. With one exception, I'd suggest. William Shatner is at times his meme-able 'best' here, and yes there's some of that hammy-ness (wouldn't be Kirk without it), but there are more than a few times when he delivers some genuinely emotive, and touching, lines of dialogue.

Director Nicholas Meyer (told you I'd get back to him) didn't want any part of where the story was to go next, and declined to helm the next movie, and I don't blame him. The reason was the resurrection of Spock which is set up to be allowed to happen in WoK, with the story going that he 'allowed' certain scenes to be included which allowed this continuity to occur. I don't really believe that, he was told and let it happen - but what I will say is that his direction in this film, regardless of what followed, allowed the infamous Spock death scene, which is a terrific sequence all around - for one main reason, and for anyone reading this that likes this film and is thinking 'why hasn't he mentioned that yet?', I'll get there very shortly - my point is, I don't think knowing what happens in the next film cheapens the ending of WoK at all, it's a genuinely emotive and impactful moment regardless. I can only imagine how it went down with fans upon release.

So all of that makes a good movie, actually a really good movie, so why would I even dream of calling it perfect? It's James Horner's score, of course. It's a staggering achievement, there's quite a lot of cross over between this and his score for Aliens which I also admire, but this was the original and best. The battle sequences, the quieter moments, and especially the urgency and then emotion of the Spock death sequence are all fantastic. He went on to have a great career - right up there with the very best for me - but how he didn't receive any academy nominations for this is beyond me. Perhaps there were feelings that it was just a silly sci fi film, or 'it's only a Star Trek movie', and those are the reasons it didn't get any serious awards. For me though, those two things remind me of just how good it is, because it started with a handicap, frankly, but I'd suggest it endures as a great movie to this day.

It did incredibly well at the box office, breaking first day records at the time, and set up what was to become a whole series of Star Trek films, with these characters and themes being revisited as recently as 2013 with the second of three 'reboot' films. 

The monetary success of WoK would be both a blessing and route of despair for fans, based on what was to follow, but more on that next time...all I'll say for now is I think there's a lot of traction in the old 'odd numbered movies bad, even numbered movies good' that fans often remark.

[Phil Silvers]

1080p copies of Prisoners of the ghostland 2021 doing the rounds..... Nic Cage fans, talking to you.

ps..... Sofia Boutella in it too.

[Phil Silvers]

15 minutes ago, hogso said:

I'm sure no one will remember, or care, but ages ago (I really mean ages) I posted a list of 'essential' Star Trek TNG, DS9 and VOY episodes in anticipation of watching Picard. 

Guess what, I never watched Picard.

I now have a hankering to, though, so I returned to that list, and made my way through to the end of TNG. The next thing on the list is Star Trek Generations. 

I figured I'd rewatch the TOS movies first though. I did so with the first two over the weekend. So, have at it;

 

~*~*~*~*~*~Hogso's thoughts about Star Trek : The Motion Picture ~*~*~*~*~*~

There's a couple of really good things about this movie. One, is the introduction of what would go on to be the title theme for TNG, and leitmotif used time and again in the series,  becoming quite iconic in time.

The other is it's pretty unique standing as one of the very final big budget, big screen movies of the 70s. It was released in cinemas in December 1979. Let's just consider 1979 sci fi movies alone for a start - a year in which Alien, Mad Max, Moonraker (there's loads of sci fi in it, come one), Phantasm, Disney's The Black Hole, and more besides, were released. The look of TMP is just fascinating to me, and it's standing in time, if not cinematic history, I find kind of fascinating. I'm not really a 'Trekkie', although I would say I like Star Trek, so I don't really care that the uniforms look like dresses. It also takes a lot of inspiration from earlier 70s sci fi. It positively screams Close Encounters, Star Wars, Solaris, and of course the biggest inspiration being 1968's 2001 A Space Odyssey. It isn't exactly a bad thing that it wears those inspirations on it's sleeve,  because some of those sequences look great, in fact a lot of them do, but there's a big problem...

The film runs for over 2 hours, and I can only imagine that the execs at Paramount lost their minds and decided not to employ a competent editor. Or maybe one at all. Either that or they didn't care much about their money and kept throwing dollars at the production, and they wanted it to show. The film indulges itself to the nth degree with lingering shots of characters, sets, and above all else, the special effects. I don't think I've ever seen another film like it. I really don't think it's an exaggeration to suggest that 45 minutes of the run time could have been trimmed, without detriment to the story, such as it is. It's so bad that it genuinely becomes boring, a phrase I don't use lightly, as I don't generally become bored when watching films, as odd as that may sound. 

The story has some intrigue to it, but the pay off to the 'mystery' is all kinds of dumb, even by Star Trek standards. And to anyone who may have watched this without prior knowledge of Star Trek, god only knows what they must have thought. 

It did OK at the box office, thankfully, because if it had lost any money, they never would have made another one, and thank god they did, because...

 

~*~*~*~*~*~Hogso's thoughts about Star Trek II : The Wrath of Khan ~*~*~*~*~*~

I appreciate that this will sound like hyperbolic nonsense, but I have to say - I think this film is perfect, and consequently, comfortably one of my favourite films of all time. 

Released a little over 2 years after the first TOS movie, in order to formulate it's standing in time, which I found such an interesting thing to consider for TMP, I'll consider the same for WoK. Released in June 1982, you probably don't need to be much of a film buff for the cogs to whirr when you think of this genre, and that year - in the US in June alone Blade Runner, The Thing, Poltergeist, and ET were released. That's kind of unbelievable, so I did my research to check those dates, and it does seem to be correct for general release. If you delve a little deeper and look at 1982 as a whole, it's completely bonkers to me. Must be something to do with my age and tastes, I guess, but I can't imagine looking at a single month of present day cinema releases with such reverence. 

Like a lot of those films, WoK feels bombastic, action packed, in a complete reversal when compared to TMP it almost feels too short, and indeed a Director's Cut does exist. The film was directed and written by two no name guys, one of which I will name, who went on to do basically nothing else. It's a surprise then that the story keeps pace well, there's some excellent scenes from both a writing and directing POV, and although there's a couple of examples of what could be accusations of deus ex machina (which is a funny turn of phrase given what the macguffin of the film is) I'm more than happy to suspend my disbelief, as this is a sci fi story after all.

Or is it? Well, yeah, but no - it's Moby Dick and A Tale of Two Cities (in space). Much like TMP wore it's influences on it's sleeve when it came to the use of special effects, which was to the detriment of the film, WoK does the same here  with it's primary influences, but with the outcome being that it's elevated in to something that transcends a mere Star Trek film. It not only becomes a fascinating tale of vengeance, but those influences bestow upon the actors license to really go for it. And there's no better example in this film, than of course, Ricardo Montalbon, who is obscenely good in the role he reprises of Khan.

The movie is essentially a sequel 'Space Seed', an episode from the first series of TOS, which when watched in isolation isn't really anything special, although Montalbon's performance is good, as it stands out in that episode too (yes, I also rewatched that before rewatching WoK). It's not required viewing though, the viewer is given everything they need to understand why Khan is so hell bent on vengeance against Kirk. As soon as he is on screen, there's a presence which is completely absorbing, you're right there with him. It's even more remarkable then, that he and his prey share barely any screen time.

The rest of the performances are fine generally, there's a young Kirsty Alley amongst the supporting cast who is OK, and more or less it's more of the same elsewhere. With one exception, I'd suggest. William Shatner is at times his meme-able 'best' here, and yes there's some of that hammy-ness (wouldn't be Kirk without it), but there are more than a few times when he delivers some genuinely emotive, and touching, lines of dialogue.

Director Nicholas Meyer (told you I'd get back to him) didn't want any part of where the story was to go next, and declined to helm the next movie, and I don't blame him. The reason was the resurrection of Spock which is set up to be allowed to happen in WoK, with the story going that he 'allowed' certain scenes to be included which allowed this continuity to occur. I don't really believe that, he was told and let it happen - but what I will say is that his direction in this film, regardless of what followed, allowed the infamous Spock death scene, which is a terrific sequence all around - for one main reason, and for anyone reading this that likes this film and is thinking 'why hasn't he mentioned that yet?', I'll get there very shortly - my point is, I don't think knowing what happens in the next film cheapens the ending of WoK at all, it's a genuinely emotive and impactful moment regardless. I can only imagine how it went down with fans upon release.

So all of that makes a good movie, actually a really good movie, so why would I even dream of calling it perfect? It's James Horner's score, of course. It's a staggering achievement, there's quite a lot of cross over between this and his score for Aliens which I also admire, but this was the original and best. The battle sequences, the quieter moments, and especially the urgency and then emotion of the Spock death sequence are all fantastic. He went on to have a great career - right up there with the very best for me - but how he didn't receive any academy nominations for this is beyond me. Perhaps there were feelings that it was just a silly sci fi film, or 'it's only a Star Trek movie', and those are the reasons it didn't get any serious awards. For me though, those two things remind me of just how good it is, because it started with a handicap, frankly, but I'd suggest it endures as a great movie to this day.

It did incredibly well at the box office, breaking first day records at the time, and set up what was to become a whole series of Star Trek films, with these characters and themes being revisited as recently as 2013 with the second of three 'reboot' films. 

The monetary success of WoK would be both a blessing and route of despair for fans, based on what was to follow, but more on that next time...all I'll say for now is I think there's a lot of traction in the old 'odd numbered movies bad, even numbered movies good' that fans often remark.

Thanks, good read. Look forward to the rest. Like you I'm no trekkie but I really like the original series and movies. TNG was decent too back in the day. Never watched much of any of the rest, wanted so hard for Discovery and Picard to be good but they didn't work for me, in fact I detest Discovery.

Do you follow Oliver Harper on YouTube? He is a big 80/90s fanboy, his retrospective reviews are superb. I'll leave a link to WoK just incase you haven't seen it. Cheers.

 

[tinker]

Decent copy of No Time to Die is on the high seas 

[Designer1]

Wrath of Khan is a masterpiece imo.

I'm not a fan of the original series tbh and all the other movies left me a bit cold (3 was pretty good iirc) but that movie is just brilliant. Perfect story, music, villain, pace, writing and dialogue and one of Shatners best (and least OTT) performances. 

[Follyfoot]

1 hour ago, Designer1 said:

Wrath of Khan is a masterpiece imo.

I'm not a fan of the original series tbh and all the other movies left me a bit cold (3 was pretty good iirc) but that movie is just brilliant. Perfect story, music, villain, pace, writing and dialogue and one of Shatners best (and least OTT) performances. 

Was Khan the same bloke who was in Dynasty 

[sne]

15 minutes ago, Follyfoot said:

Was Khan the same bloke who was in Dynasty 

Nah, that was Linda Evans, same hair thou

[Jon]

16 minutes ago, Follyfoot said:

Was Khan the same bloke who was in Dynasty 

Yep

[Seat68]

13 hours ago, tinker said:

Decent copy of No Time to Die is on the high seas 

Excellent. If I can distract a 5 year old with something to keep him quiet, this is my Saturday viewing. 

[tinker]

1 hour ago, Seat68 said:

Excellent. If I can distract a 5 year old with something to keep him quiet, this is my Saturday viewing. 

My Mrs don't like bond films so it's one for when I'm on afternoons 

[Rolta]

3 hours ago, Seat68 said:

Excellent. If I can distract a 5 year old with something to keep him quiet, this is my Saturday viewing. 

I watched it last night, and I'd say it was a bit brutal for a five year old! Maybe that's just me, but that was a really murdery Bond film, a far cry from old school Bond.

Not the topic, but I thought it was very very average.

Edited November 10, 2021 by Rolta

[Seat68]

9 minutes ago, Rolta said:

I watched it last night, and I'd say it was a bit brutal for a five year old! Maybe that's just me, but that was a really murdery Bond film, a far cry from old school Bond.

Not the topic, but I thought it was very very average.

The distraction will be for him to allow me to watch the film. Here play with this open tin of paint whilst grandad watches a film. 

[GarethRDR]

18 hours ago, hogso said:

So all of that makes a good movie, actually a really good movie, so why would I even dream of calling it perfect? It's James Horner's score, of course. It's a staggering achievement, there's quite a lot of cross over between this and his score for Aliens which I also admire, but this was the original and best.

One of my favourite bits of triv, that is.  Think it was time constraints but Horner essentially had to recycle entire passages from his WoK score.  Particularly evident during the crescendos in "Futile Escape".

 

[GarethRDR]

Also Khan would have had Kirk beat, if only the captain's chair on the Reliant was made of RICH.... CORINTHIAN... LEATHER.

[HanoiVillan]

On 07/11/2021 at 21:51, Mark Albrighton said:

Over four years on, you bringing this to our attention is still a highlight, Alex. 

I still wonder who had the bigger trailer out of 50 Cent and Brenda Blethyn.
 

 

On 07/11/2021 at 22:38, Xela said:

Like a 21st century Citizen Kane. 

Wait a second . . .  was Brenda Blethyn the love interest? 

[HanoiVillan]

 

[Xela]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

 

Wait a second . . .  was Brenda Blethyn the love interest? 

She was the slaaaaaag on the side! 

[HanoiVillan]

35 minutes ago, Xela said:

She was the slaaaaaag on the side! 

I knew it, always said she was the type

[Stevo985]

Saw this last night. Really very good indeed.

Oscar Isaac is absolutely fantastic.