FabD1 Reviews

Star Trek: Generations (1994)

Great Christmas movie for grown-ups

[8/10 · 14 June 2023]

As stated in the title to this evaluation, this movie is, first and foremost, a Christmas movie. It was released for the Holidays on November 17th 1994 and there is an explicit reference to Christmas in the plot. In short this movie is to Christmas what the TOS episode 'Catspaw' is to Halloween.

Having said that, there are various styles of Christmas stories, and the story behind this movie is quite dark. And the cinematography is also quite dark, just to underscore this.

Sure, there is plenty of action, but the center of gravity lies elsewhere. The movie is a meditation on time and on death (and thus, on life too). If you are ready for very serious stuff, star trek style, go for it, and you won't regret it. If you prefer 'pure' but intelligent action, go for the next ST movie, 'First Contact'.

I will end this review by pointing to another dark Christmas movie. I am thinking of 'On her Majesty's secret service', which was released on December 18th 1969, and which is the ultimate Bond Christmas story. Naturally, the ST and Bond universes are quite different, to say the least, but both movies are dealing with the same basic themes, albeit from different angles and in a different language.

I could argue on all the above points, but that would introduce spoilers, and I don't want to do that.

I hope review wets your appetite and makes you watch (again?) these very good movies!

Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (2019)

Quentin, have you ever been ashamed of yourself?

[1/10 · 20 December 2019]

OK, where to begin? Naturally, the movie is perfectly conceived, technically brilliant, extremely inventive etc. So, from these points of view alone, the movie deserves a 10, or at least a 9. So, why rate it with a 1? Two reasons. First, this movie is self-indulgent in the extreme. No director except Tarantino could get away with stuff like this. To me, Tarantino brought something new to movies with Reservoir Dogs, and then, he started repeating himself. And I am sorry to say that 'Once upon a time...in Hollywood' brings even less novelty to the table (an object SO loved by Tarantino) than any of his other movies, if possible. And, this is even more unforgivable because the movie does not really projects what it felt to live in 1969. Younger people could not know this, but Tarantino and older people do know. So, it's a cheat within a cheat. Anyway, now to the second unforgivable problem. This movie disrespects people and their suffering. This is not the first time Tarantino does it, remember for example Inglorious Basterds, anyone? But the fact that this latest movie disrespects the suffering of a much smaller number of people than Inglorious Basterds does not make this alright.

So, to me, enough is enough. All can add is this: since Tarantino has the narcissism of stating everywhere that he has pre-determined the number of movies he is going to make and that his director carreer is therefore soon reaching its end, let that career end now. And stop counting two movies (or three?) has a single one. And do not touch Star Trek, please.

Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker (2019)

The best movie in an utterly pointless trilogy

[6/10 · 19 December 2019]

On the positive side, the movie is decently shot and edited, the CGI mostly OK (except one horrible shot), the music is very good (much better than the previous instalments in that trilogy), there are a lot of different landscapes, aliens etc., and the acting ranges from the decent to the very good (Ian McDarmid, Adam Driver, Oscar Isaac, and of course a fourth actor who is just there for a cameo and will remain unnamed here, to keep this review spoiler free).

On the negative side: the frantic pace typical of JJ, the total lack of invention (as in, we are bringing something new to the franchise, or movie making!).

All in all, this movie is a pure product of JJ and of a modern big studio: try and make money by copying relentlessly what others have done before in a better way, and hope the audience follows. To be fair, I think it's JJ's best movie yet. Sometimes, you even vaguely feel the human beings who have made the movie do have a soul, or at least feelings. Ho well...

Prometheus (I) (2012)

Not bad, but disappointing

[6/10 · 30 May 2012]

I saw the movie some 7 hours ago in 3D. Where to begin? The 3D seemed remarkably natural, not forced onto the picture, and that was a real delight. I went to a topnotch theater in Paris, yet ghosting was present all the time. It did distract me often, but I adapted to it. The film is well-done, extremely well-acted by most but the script is a major letdown, and so are, to a lesser degree the sets. i'll focus on the script. First, there is essentially nothing new in it, and the whole feels like pieces of Alien, Star Wars, Star Trek, you name it sewn together simply to earn some extra bucks. Second, and perhaps worse than the rest, the movie is based, not on an extrapolation of what we now know about the appearance of species, but on an assumption which essentially brings us back to pre-Darwin days. The film is thus not science-fiction, but obscurantism-fiction. The writers try to confront the issue head-on, but it does not help much. There are other liberties taken with current scientific knowledge, but I could live with them, were the basic assumption not so blatantly stupid.

So, what are we left with? With a decent escapist movie, but certainly not with a masterpiece, by far. It's not even scary, there's only gore, not terror. Main culprit is the script, but who is more guilty, the guy who writes a bad script, or the director who directs it? I can understand Ridley's desire to revisit sci-fi and the alien franchise, but that was not the right way to do it. He had better left Alien stand alone as his seminal entry in the franchise.

As you may know, there are talks of a sequel to this prequel, and the ending will only confirm these talks are probably well founded.

The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)

Underrated but great James Bond movie

[8/10 · 28 February 2011]

What can I tell you? When I first got acquainted with all Bond movies some 25 years ago (say around 1987), I was quick to consider this movie to be one of the worst film of the series ever. I watched it again and again, and my opinion remained the same for a very very long time. I came back to it recently upon release of the Blu Ray disc, and I must say I am now most impressed with it. I have seen it several times in the last 6 months and it's quickly becoming one of my favorite Bond movies. Why? Because it's extremely well crafted, has beautiful locations and an interesting and fun music. Also, the plot is not completely out of this world and Roger Moore is very good as Bond in this movie. I would dare say it may even be his best Bond performance.

To sum up, I urge you to (re)discover this movie. It's rather subdued in tone, may be abnormally so for a Bond movie. It's definitely no extravaganza like, say, the Spy who loved me or Die another Day, but an attentive viewing of the Man with the Golden Gun should prove very rewarding.

The Proposal (I) (2009)

I did not laugh

[6/10 · 27 September 2009]

Well,

after having seen IMDb's current rating (7.1/10) and taken advice from someone who told me the movie was nothing new but very 'efficient', I finally bought the BD and watched it last night. End result: a very strange experience. It's the first time I don't laugh watching a comedy. I mean, not a single laugh; at best, two or three very timid smiles. Yet the movie kept me rather entertained, despite its obvious derivative and formulaic nature. Is it a good film? I guess so; at least, it's very well made.Is it original? Not in the least? Is it nevertheless different from most comedies? I guess so. As I write these lines, I come to realize that, for me, the movie worked best as a commentary on sexism (Sandra is the boss) and on age difference between partners. In other words, it works as a social commentary on serious and important matters. And I feel it's a courageous and laudable move for Sandra Bullock to have taken the part the plays in the movie. It's also always interesting for me, as a male, to watch a movie for which many if not most creative decisions have been taken by females. I feel it widens my horizon and I like it. The only thing I disliked is the social status the (male!) screenwriter gave to the groom's family or, more precisely, how that status was used as part of the plot. That, I REALLY disliked.

Le me conclude this way: Did I ever believe in the romance between the main characters? No! Am I happy with the ending? No! Would I nevertheless recommend the movie? I don't know! I hope this review, though ambivalent, will help you.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)

Disappointing

[5/10 · 10 December 2008]

Let's be blunt: this is definitely not a good movie; it's not horrid either, it's just somewhere between average and bad. There are quite a few problems. First, with the script, which tries to incorporate all elements of the 1951 movie into a new, updated whole. The end result lacks cohesion and plays more like a sequence of 5 to 10 minutes scenes badly sewn together, the prime objective of each scene being either to introduce an element taken from the original movie or, on the contrary, an idea absent form the1951 original, instead of simply advancing the story. Second, the direction: poor, poor, poor. Third, some of the worst acting I have seen in a mainstream movie for a long time; I found the leads, especially Keanu, quite good but the other actors are decent at best, with Katie Bates delivering a frighteningly catastrophic 'performance'. I was not shocked (positively or negatively) by all the other aspects of the film.

Coming out of the theater, I found myself pondering about this remake and the 1951 original. I find the Robert Wise movie quite good, but not the masterpiece some claim it to be. I was therefore ready to accept a remake and the few new ideas offered by the 2008 movie made me painfully aware that a remake could indeed have been interesting, had it been put in better hands or, if I dare say so, in much better hands. So, to me, it's another sadly missed opportunity.

The Dark Knight (2008)

Over-hyped

[7/10 · 13 August 2008]

My summary says it all. Before commenting any further, I must say that I positively disliked the earlier Batman movie by Nolan. I feel this one is a much better effort. But I still have much to complain about. Good things first: the acting is top notch, by all, and the set and costume designs are great. The music has some extremely strong, and some rather weak points, it's a strange mix. Now the really weak points: Nolan has no idea how to shoot or edit an action scene, and it shows terribly. The other weak point: the script. It's not bad, but it's not good, much too ambitious for its real worth and, at times, exploitative to the worst degree.

So, if you still haven't seen this movie, you can go knowing that you won't loose 2.5 hours of your life, but it's definitely not worth the hype people are making around it.

10,000 BC (2008)

Two hours lost

[4/10 · 17 July 2008]

I tend to enjoy movies by Roland Emerich. I think they can be corny sometimes, but the scripts are usually OK. What happened this time around, I don't know, but this movie is the worst I have seen in a long long time (and I am counting the fourth Indiana Jones installment!). The script is poor, ripping off shamelessly several movies (including Stargate, Apocalypto and, yes, The Searchers) and borders on the ridiculous on more than one occasion. The acting, the sets, the special effects and the music are all well done, and so is the editing, but they can't salvage the overall story arc which is lame and lacks any originality whatsoever. On top of that, seeing our old ancestors speak a slightly strange English with a definitely strange accent does not help at all.

So, avoid this movie.I gave it a 4, but it's only for (some of) the special effects.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Anything goes

[5/10 · 21 May 2008]

In olden days...Indiana Jones was a great and fun hero. His adventures were full of unexpected twists, they were very well edited and the composer (John Williams) was writing great music because he himself had enjoyed immensely the latest movie.

If today...all this were still true, I would have loved this fourth installment. But the fun is gone. I feel the basic fault (readers of Balint beware!) lies with the script. You feel and see how the poor screenwriters have been told that their jobs was to write what Lucas and Spielberg probably assume to be the archetypal Indiana Jone movie, namely...essentially a rehash of the third movie, with a zest of the first two and some very common ado taken from a thousand other movies. And, guess what? It simply does not work; the story ark (no pun intended) is not well conceived, the humor falls flat most of the time, and the characters very often sound or act cliché. The reason: the aim was not to make a good, new and interesting movie but to give the audience what the audience is presumed to love. You know, folks, that's recipe for disaster, and you should all know that. Aren't you professionals?

What else is wrong? Oh, well, the editing ranges from OK to extremely poor, and John Williams was apparently so bored by the movie (who would not be, by the way) that he felt his duty, as a good composer, was to let that boredom be felt in his music.

Let me add that at least the acting was good (Harrison Ford is GREAT) and that Spielberg's directing is technically faultless. In all fairness, I could not judge the cinematography, because I went to see the movie in a big, very famous theater in Paris and, Paris being Paris, the quality of the projection was horrendous. I may update this review if I ever see the movie on BD. I won't comment on the costumes and the sets, they are what you expect; again, nothing new there.

Anyway, I felt cheated at the of the movie. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against franchises, but even the worst Star Trek or James Bond movie is more original and more daring than Indy 4. The comparison with Stallone's recent work is extremely revealing. Stallone succeeded, after a 20 year hiatus, in adding something interesting and new to the Rocky and Rambo characters. Luca/Spielberg do not succeed in adding anything to Indy.

I can only hope that, somehow, a fifth movie is going to be made and that Spielberg and Lucas will get the next one right. And, Harrison, if you read these lines: Keep up the good work, you are the best redeeming virtue of the movie!

All the King's Men (2006)

Extremely powerful drama

[9/10 · 12 April 2007]

I had consulted IMDb before watching this movie and I did not know exactly what to expect. I am SO glad I gave this film a chance. To me, it's one of the best movies I have seen in a long long time. The script is remarkably literate and intelligent, the acting is top notch, cinematography, costumes and set design leave nothing to be desired and the direction is as subtle as one could dream of.

The story starts as a political drama, but ends up as much more; one could see the entire movie, for example, as a meditation on how life unfolds. It's very poetic, as tragic as human condition, but it is never melodramatic.

I am French, so I am certainly not the best of judges as far as local American accents are concerned. Let me just say that I felt Jude Law's accent was perhaps a little too British and that the accent of some other actors (including Sean Penn) was so strong that I was glad I had activated the (english) subtitles on the BD disc.

I cannot recommend this movie too much; really! I wish more of what is offered to us on the big screen were of the same quality.

Eight Below (2006)

Extremely nice and touching movie

[8/10 · 31 December 2006]

I am a 41 year old man who loves action, sci-fi and western movies. I can tell you, it has been a long time since a movie touched me as Eight Below did.

It's a really nice movie, based on a true story, it's very well filmed and handsomely produced, it has great scenery, a very good script and the acting is quite decent too. In my eyes, it's simply a winner. I know Disney movies have the reputation of being somewhat simplistic and kid oriented. This one is not simplistic at all, trust me, and if kids can enjoy Eight below, an adult will do so even more.

Let me add that I was fortunate enough to discover the movie through its US Blu-Ray transfer, which is quite neat too.

Unleashed (2005)

Why did anyone produce that script?

[5/10 · 26 September 2006]

I was expecting a lot from Unleashed, if only because at least three great actors (the three male leads) are involved in it. I ended up more than disappointed. Succintly stated, I feel the script by Luc Besson is horrible, stupid and insulting to the viewer. I don't want to know if he believed in it, or if he just saw it as a cash dispenser, but I honestly don't get how that script got produced.

On the other hand, most actors and the director obviously did their best to salvage the project and, to a certain extent, they succeeded. But only partly so. All in all, the actors show great taste and intelligence and the director is OK, showing also intelligence, but not necessarily taste. No comment on the job done by the rest of the crew.

This is not a horrible movie. But the script is so bad that you will feel insulted, if only by Besson. Do you really need this?

Protocols of Zion (2005)

Chilling look at mankind at its worst

[9/10 · 9 August 2006]

The movie uses the Protocolos of Zion as a pretext to take a 'fresh' look at current Jewish hatred and at its historical roots. The whole tone is not apologetic; I mean, the movie will probably fail to convince any antisemitic person that hating Jews is stupid and wrong. If the movie convinces of anything, it is that antisemitism is currently much more intense and widespread than most people who live in Western societies/countries would like to believe. Put simply, I feel that any decent and/or not too stupid nor brainwashed human being can only be shocked, first by the content of most of the interviews presented in the movie, second by the global world picture which emerges from the impeccable articulation of this material by the film makers.

If you take it seriously, this movie is about humanity at its very worst. In some sense, it reminded me of the visit I undertook to a concentration camp a few years ago. You get disturbed, not only because you see innocent people being accused, molested and sometimes even killed, but also because those who hate Jews are human, just like you, and this means that somehow, somewhere, you are also capable of the same sort of horrible feelings and actions.

I would definitely recommend this movie to anyone, with the possible exception of children. May we all one day understand that we are all the same.

P.S.: One caveat: The zone 1 American DVD is extremely poor: it is widescreen alright, but it is not anamorphic and the transfer is possibly the poorest I have seen in the five years. The supplements are quite interesting, though.

Love in the Afternoon (1957)

Love as a tragedy?

[10/10 · 30 June 2006]

I have known about this movie for a long time but I had never seen it until yesterday. I was expecting a romantic comedy; I should have known better. You walk out from this movie believing that love is indeed the greatest tragedy of all. And, like all great tragedies, it poses as a comedy. I honestly think this is Wilder's message. I won't elaborate here, not to spoil the "fun" for future viewers. But if you follow what I am saying, you will realize that Gary Cooper is actually not miscast at all, and that the ending is not the common cliché it might appear to be.

See this movie, and get ready to weep. You'll never love the same way.

Batman Begins (2005)

Boring and formulaic at best

[3/10 · 10 November 2005]

Oh my! I am a great fan of action movies. Everyone had told me so many good things about 'Batman begins' that I grabbed the (zone 1) DVD as soon as I could get my hands on it and counted the hours which had still to go before the night. I finally sit in front of my screen, ready to immerse myself into a good movie and...find myself yawning after ten minutes. And things go so bad that it's even difficult to just list the problems. Let me try and give you some ideas:

1. Extremely poor plot. 2. Extremely poor script. 3. Bad directing/lighting/editing for ALL action sequences (and some other sequences too). 4. A musical score which is, well, not really a score. 5. Bad acting by everyone but the five actors with a 'name'.

The overall feeling is that you are watching a completely exploitative movie, conceived from the beginning (no pun intended) as a particularly stupid crowd pleaser. The idea seems to have been: put into the movie all the material which has now become standard after a few decades of action movies, do not do anything even remotely original, be as simplistic and formulaic as you can, spend a lot of money in hiring well-known actors, and you'll do fine. The worst part of it all is: apparently, the filmmakers are right, most people did enjoy the movie! Makes me feel desperate. Honest, this movie is BAD, BAD, BAD without even being funny. It's boring, verging on the insulting.

I will not insult Tim Burton or Joel Schumacher by comparing any of their movies to 'Batman begins'.

King Solomon's Mines (1950)

Simply a great movie!

[9/10 · 16 September 2005]

Aaron Copland believed great art goes hand in hand with simplicity. This movie is simple and great. I was browsing on the internet when I discovered some reviews of the R-1 DVD which heavily criticize the movie (and not just the DVD). I gave a quick look at IMDb to discover that, quite amazingly to me, the movie has only a 6.8 rating, that it has only been rated by less than a thousand viewers and that many viewer apparently found it boring. Let me just emphasize what should be obvious: this version of 'King Solomon's Mines' is not an action movie. It is probably best described as an invitation to Africa, combined with a reflexion on various aspects of what it means to be human. It many respects, it foreshadows and complements Clint Eastwood's 'White Hunter, Black Heart'.

Let me mention just one striking 'detail': what's going on on screen is SO fascinating that no music has been added to the various sounds emanating from the country or from the music instruments of the African people themselves. This was a daring move, especially at the time, but it enriched the movie enormously.

I will end this quick review with a piece of advice: Your mind should be as free as possible from everyday's life various troubles if you want to enjoy this movie. Pick up a night when you are already rather relaxed, and immerse yourself gently into the atmosphere created by the filmmakers. You won't regret it.

King Arthur (2004)

Does being lied to feel better when the lie comes from a professional?

[5/10 · 24 August 2005]

Let me start this comment by paying my respects to Clint Eastwood. In his movie "White Hunter, Black Heart", Clint has a very entertaining explanation of what people mean when they refer to "Hollywood" and, more importantly, why this is so. I will not quote the exact text from Clint's movie but only urge everyone who has not seen the film to grab the DVD (or VHS). Anyway, let me sum up my impressions about King Arthur by saying that, as far as production is concerned, it is, for better and for worse, the epitome of what many expect from a typical Hollywood blockbuster- and particularly from one produced by Jerry Bruckheimer. In other words, expect the film to spare no money to hit on you with all the available stupid (and sometimes "dirty") tricks.

The script would not be worth any specially good or bad mention if it did not take itself SO seriously. The worst is perhaps that this new version of the Arthur legend is presented to you on screen as being the first historically accurate one, based on recently found archaeological evidence. I watched the movie on the R1 DVD and I was very surprised that there were perhaps only 15 second of the supplementary material featuring an historian talking about the historical basis for the movie. I therefore did a quick search on the internet and ... SURPRISE! The film is simply a very poor mix of various currently fashionable CONFLICTING reconstructions of the events underlying the King Arthur myth. The recipe that was used for this particular meal could be summed up like this: take a character who lived in the second century, make him live in the sixth and do things no one has ever really done. And replace the final touch of lemon by an apparently perfectly innocent, but completely dishonest on-screen introduction. No to mention many parts of the movies feel like rip-offs from recent and/or not so recent truly great films. To make myself completely clear: I am NOT attacking anyone directly, and particularly not the screenwriter. I am just trying to describe the end product.

The director does all he can to salvage the picture and, to a certain extent, he succeeds remarkably well. So do all actors, with kudos to Clive Owen in the title role.

There is anyway one truly positive aspect of the film. I have never heard of any other movie trying to picture the interaction between the late roman world and the surrounding European cultures. "King Arthur" at least tries to, whatever what might think of the end-result. I'd like to see more movies around this thought-provoking theme.

To sum up, let me say this: If you don't mind being cheated, as long as it is done with professionalism, this movie is for you. If you do mind, well...

Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)

Where the best mingles with the worst

[7/10 · 15 August 2005]

So much has been said or written about Strak Trek Nemesis that you might wonder why another comment may have been felt necessary. The explanation is: I am a (soft) Star Trek fan who, as many, has been disappointed by the movie; but, going out of the theater, I felt myself completely unable to pinpoint exactly what was wrong and what was good. This rather odd feeling stayed in me for three years and I just recently figured out what the strong points and the weak points of the movie were. Since my conclusions do not seem reflected in many comments I have read or heard, I thought it might help someone if I wrote a brief review.

The movie has qualities a plenty but is undermined by both a minor and a major flaw.

The minor flaw: The film presents disturbing parallels with another, very famous Star Trek movie. This, for fans, looks more like piracy than anything else. But oh well...

The major flaw: The "villain" (namely Shinzon) is absolutely, totally miscast. Without revealing too much of the plot, let me just say that the ideal casting would have been a CGI character. Considering this was not an option in 2002 (and it still is not), his lines should at least have been dubbed to restore some credibility to the proceedings. But they were not. The standard DVD edition does not contain any comment or discussion of why this blatantly absurd decision has been made. As I am writing these lines, the R1 Special Edition has not been released yet. We'll see.

Anyway, this casting problem stretches the believability of the whole movie to its breaking point and the whole thing collapses.

Now, if you manage getting over this problem by so to speak correcting mentally the casting in real time (it's a very difficult thing to do, but you can train yourself and get a satisfactory result after some 3 or 4 viewings!), you'll find that the plot and the realization of the movie are both very good, if not great. And Spiner the actor (not Data) is definitely the hero of the movie.

I hope this comments helps you decide whether you wish to see Nemesis or not.

Tall in the Saddle (1944)

A really original and witty movie, perfectly executed

[7/10 · 14 August 2005]

I think this is a top-notch film. First, and perhaps most importantly, this film cannot be categorized as belonging to any particular, well identified genre. Indeed, the film is best described as a very original mix between a Western, a thriller/detective story, a love story and a romantic comedy with strong existentialist overtones. I am not kidding, you have to see it to believe it! All this perfectly integrated in as perfect a script as there ever was.

Second, the movie is very well executed. All actors are quite good, starting with the young Duke, who delivers a very solid and typical performance. The directing is also first-rate, as is the cinematography (as far as be judged from the rather good Laserdisc and DVD transfers); only the editing does perhaps leave something to be desired, but not to the point of preventing appreciating the other qualities of the movie.

I'd like to finish this review by emphasizing that my rating (7/10) is actually pretty conservative and prudent. If I were to go by my heart and forget about my "brain", I would rate this movie a 10/10.

Trust a movie buff and rent or buy "Tall in the Saddle"; you will not be disappointed.

National Treasure (2004)

Slightly dull and disappointing, but sort of nice Disney movie

[6/10 · 18 May 2005]

Good actors bored by a script transformed into sugar to be produced by Disney. Nothing bad; nothing REALLY interesting, except perhaps the original idea. Need I say more? According to IMDb, yes. So I will. The whole venture makes one naturally think to an Indiana Jones adventure, albeit a slightly and strangely weird one, because:

1. It is mainly formatted for children,

2. Except for the first few minutes, all the action is taking place on the East coast of North America,

3. The plot is more predictable than the one of a Bond movie you are seeing for the 4th time!

Since I must still add more lines to my comment for IMDb to accept it, I will briefly review the R1 DVD. The picture and sound are OK, but did not seem fantastic to me. There is an alternate (original) ending, with optional director's commentary, which has some interest. But nothing to really wake you up after the nearly two-hour movie. To end on a positive note: The movie uses historical American Landmarks locations rather nicely.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Please, stop bashing Lucas and enjoy the movie(s)!

[9/10 · 18 May 2005]

I saw the movie this afternoon and, wondering what people were thinking of it, I just give a quick look at the various comments already entered on the IMDb site. I liked the movie and I am therefore glad that most comments are positive. But quite an important number of viewers apparently felt VERY dissatisfied with the movie. My own comment is as much a reaction to these negative opinions as to the movie itself.

I love the original trilogy. I love Episode I, I like Episode II, whose main defect to me is simply the very cheesy special effects (wrong perspective, ...) and I love Episode III. The CGI seems even better than in Episode I, the music is near "perfect" and most of the acting is great (my favorites: Ewan mac Gregor, Ian Mac Darmid and Samuel L. Jackson, of course). And, despite what many people say, the script is VERY well conceived.

The movie has naturally its weak points, but which work has not? Examples of weak points: rushed last 30 minutes, which would deserve some additional 15 minutes (part of them existed, by the way, but it was apparently cut in post-production) and some apparent inconsistencies with Episode VI (and V?), at least in the present form of the OT.

And now to the negative comments. The only people I know personally who have been dissatisfied with the Prequel Trilogy are people who saw the Original Trilogy in the theaters some 25 years ago, transformed it into godlike art by their own childhood (or adulthood) fantasies and who dislike the new movies simply because they are different from the older ones and/or clash with everything these viewers have added to the OT out of their own imaginations.

I just want to ask now: Has ANY of these "disappointed" viewers ever really created anything? Has ANY of them even the slightest idea of what it takes to create out of NOTHING anything even remotely similar to a movie, let alone two trilogies? I seriously doubt so. What Lucas has done is to me quite extraordinary; it is not perfect, but nothing real is. I am not saying the Star Wars movies are the best representatives of the art of cinema, "Sword of doom" is for example a far more artistic movie about a character going on the path of the so-called dark side.(And, by the way, why does not anyone comment on the many similarities between Sword of Doom and Episode III? ). But come on, respect and try to enjoy other people's work! And, naturally, do take the time to meditate on the logic of all 6 movies. It's worth it.

If you violently disagree with my comments, please, forget them, as you might want to forget the PT, and live happy with the movies you love.

A last precision: No, I do not work for Lucas Film and I am in NO way connected with anyone involved in making this or another Star Wars movie!

Peace my friends!

The Terminal (2004)

Possibly Spielberg's worst movie

[1/10 · 17 January 2005]

I have seen most of Spielberg's movies. I loved some, and I felt others were barely OK. But I was embarrassed to watch this one. I think this is his worst movie, by far. Compared to 'The Terminal', 'Minority Report' plays like 'The Third Man'.

The movie is naturally technically perfect. Why was it made? I speculate the movie wants to be a very subtle and noble piece of art concocted to denounce the oppression of a pure but honest European guy by the cold and not humane American administration. The end result is so simplistic and exploitative that I found the movie simply insulting and hateful. The only word which comes to my mind is trash.

As for Tom Hanks' acting, which I usually love, well...no comment. A final note: the character of C. Zeta-Jones ends up fulfilling all clichés about (female) flight personnel; does not that say it all?

Do not degrade yourself by watching this movie.

Thunderbirds (2004)

An enjoyable large-screen translation of the material from the original series

[7/10 · 17 January 2005]

Thunderbirds is not a bad movie. The overall look (set design, costumes, photography) is actually very good and the special effects breathtaking (incredibly better than in most movies which today get raved reviews). The acting, the script and the direction is OK. No special feeling on the editing.

Naturally, the plot by itself is simplistic and unbelievable but, come on, is not that the case for most big budget productions today? I personally find it unbearable when people who have nothing interesting to say try to sell their movies by repeating over and over to the press and future viewers stereotyped expressions like 'character development'; if you share this point, of view, Thunderbirds is a very honest and very entertaining movie. Another provocative remark: do you really think the plots of the Shakespeare plays are 'believable' (I naturally admit they are much richer, to say the least, than the plot of Thunderbirds)?

A final point: for Star Trek fans, it does show that Frakes is importing stuff he learned while filming on the Enterprise bridges. You are free to enjoy it, or hate it.

My rating: 7/10, if you take it for what it is meant to be. I hope this comment helps you.