Total Recall...

That movie is still great; I am talking about the original, of course; sometime next week I plan on seeing the infamous 2012 remake, but I figured it was time to see the original again, and to give it a better review on Letterboxd. That review can be read by looking below at what I posted on Letterboxd earlier tonight:

This is a movie I've seen a decent amount of times; in fact, I had up a brief review of it from a few years ago when I first joined Letterboxd. I figured it was time to see it again and give the film a better review. Besides, I am thinking it will be next week that I see the Director's Cut of the much-maligned remake, and that will make comparison easier for me.

I imagine everyone is familiar with the bare bones plot of how Arnold has to get his ass to Mars as he had his memory wiped and he's actually fighting against Ronny Cox and his minions in order to expose a huge discovery and to save the poor denizens of the planet. Yet to me the best part of the movie isn't all the great one-liners still remembered today or Arnold's exaggerated facial expressions or his famed yelling in pain noises, or even all the great ultra-violence. Rather, it's the ambiguity and how the film leaves it up to the viewer to decide what is real and what isn't.

It can certainly be believed that Arnold as Hauser has his memory wiped and set up on Earth so he's an average Joe (or in this case, an average Douglas, as in Douglas Quaid) married to Sharon Stone, only to have those memories of Mars and after a failed implanting of memories at the Total Recall office, goes on a wild adventure where he returns to Mars and helps lead the resistance. Yet, it is very well possible that everything which you see after he sits down is the secret agent adventure he paid to have put in his mind and nothing more. Maybe he went crazy after going to Recall, and heck, maybe he died after Recall and we are looking at his dying memories... there are several ways to look at it and from what the movie presents throughout, all of them are not out of the question. As a mutal mentioned in his review of this, bad things happen to a few people that get on Quaid's case in "real life", so that is evidence of "it was all a dream."

That makes the movie rewatchable and it is certainly more thoughtful and intelligent than a typical Schwarzenegger picture; having a talented director like Paul Vorhoeven behind the camera and loosely adapting the Phillip K. Dick story “We Can Remember It for You Wholesale” will do that for you. And all that is in a motion picture where a woman with three breasts appears.

In addition, Jerry Goldsmith provides a memorable score, all the practical effects are great to see and many of them are still effective and believable today, the cast all does a solid job (to bring up one example, it is no surprise seeing both Ronny Cox and Michael Ironside do a swell job playing bad guys, as they are always great when they play bad guys) and I imagine this blows the 2012 remake out of the water. Still, I'll try to be fair with that.

Star Trek Beyond

Star Trek Beyond (2016)

84% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 191 reviews)

Runtime: 122 minutes

Directed by: Justin Lin

Starring: The typical crew, plus people like Idris Elba, Sofia Boutella and Joe Taslim

From: Paramount

I saw this movie last night, and I am glad it was something I enjoyed, as I really don't like Star Trek Into Darkness. Below in my Letterboxd review, I explain why I felt that way:

I've mentioned it in other reviews but to be brief, while I am not a hardcore Trekkie (or Trekker) I watched The Original Series as a kid and saw the first six movies in the franchise at least once and usually a handful of times each. The 2009 reboot I enjoyed despite some faults but Into Darkness was pretty bad, an illogical mess that represented the worst of modern Hollywood blockbusters. Despite a new director and new writers, I wasn't sure what I would think of this. Thankfully, despite it being ridiculous-some moments probably won't hold up to scrutiny-the all too common trend of some action scenes not being done as well as they should, and some moments I'll just describe as “polarizing”-especially with one moment in particular, I imagine a segment won't laugh in disbelief like I did and instead it'll leave them fuming-the picture was something I still thought was fun and entertaining.

Thankfully this was a 180 from Into Darkness even when it came to spoilers; while I thought Into Darkness would still be a bad movie even if I hadn't had some key things spoiled beforehand, I am glad I went into this cold aside from halfway paying attention to the trailers... which of course were misleading, but that's a problem with too many trailers in recent years; they either reveal too much or inaccurately present a movie all for the sake of getting a customer's cash no matter what; it's gross but a giant rant about it will have to come at another time. I won't spoil anything myself so I'll just briefly mention that it's a story about the Enterprise exploring uncharted areas and trying to foster peace among all the sentient species they come across. They experience trouble, led by Idris Elba, and there's a young lady who wears white paint... why she does so is never really explained, come to think of it...

Like I said, this movie is fun. There's a sense of adventure in exploring alien (in every sense of the word) new worlds & between that and a positive outlook (quite different from the dour Into Darkness) it seems appropriate when you compare it to The Original Series. The villains, both in the way they operate and why Elba (as Krall) acts the way they are are different from the norm and aren't the same old same old, which is a relief these days. All the main people on the Starship Enterprise get a decent amount of time (including the late Anton Yelchin as Chekov) so those characters have their moments to shine. As for the new people introduced here, it is nice to see that there's further diversity aside from the diversity that the franchise always had since The Original Series; they include an Indonesian martial artist-actor, a black man from the UK, and a woman born in Algeria. Unfortunately, such a multi-ethnic and multi-racial cast in a big Hollywood movie is exceedingly rare.

The movie happens to look nice too so I am glad I watched it on a giant screen; the 3D image was at times too dark... then again that's an issue with every 3D movie, really. It was nicely directed aside from my complaints about some of the action; I really dug the musical score from Michael Giacchino; the actual songs you hear in the film... I'll just say that I did not stick around to the part of the end credits where the Rihanna song Sledgehammer played. Besides the fact that I think Rihanna makes terrible music & is a pretty repugnant and gross human being, I don't even have to hear the song to know the Peter Gabriel Sledgehammer is a million times better. Yes, I did see the “nice tribute to both Leonard Nimoy and Anton Yelchin” part of the credits, which is something that everyone should see.

I am glad that a supernerd fan of the franchise in Simon Pegg got to work on the script as it helps make it not seem like such a soulless and brainless Hollywood pile of crap that we get too often these days. While it may not be liked by some hardcore fans, at least it was a motion picture I found to be better than expected and simply a good time.

A Sonny Chiba Doubleheader

The Streetfighter (Gekitotsu Satsujin Ken) (1974)

Runtime: 91 minutes

Directed by: Shigehiro Ozawa

Starring: The great Sonny Chiba, Goichi Yamada, Yutaka Nakajima, Tony Cetera, Masafumi Suzuki

From: Toei

Return of the Streetfighter (Satsujin Ken 2) (1974)

Runtime: 85 minutes

Directed by: Shigehiro Ozawa

Starring: The great Sonny Chiba, Yoko Ichiji, Masashi Ishibashi, Claude Gagnon, Hiroshi Tanaka

From: Toei

Yes, I saw both these movies as they were both on Turner Classic Movies late last night. First, my review of the original:

I had a late night last night; on TCM Underground they showed this then Return of the Streetfighter; as I hadn't seen the sequel before and only saw the first movie once a long time ago, it was a perfect double bill for me.

The movie is about “Terry” (TCM had the dubbed version; I guess that added to the grindhouse feel; the great Sonny Chiba) protecting a rich heiress from what the dub says is “the Mafia and the Yakuza”, but it's actually a collection of over the top scenes where things get very violent & bloody and Chiba's martial arts is far from elegant-in fact, it's rather brutal-but it is effective in every way. W/ a bumbling sidekick known in the dub as RATNOSE, Terry tries to protect that young lady while dealing with such things as a family feud popping up at an inopportune time, a blind swordsman who wasn't Zatoichi, and racism because Terry is half Japanese and half Chinese.

The film's ridiculous and Terry forcing himself upon women looks rather bad in this day & age, but otherwise this rough and tough character (who does have a few poignant moments) is quite entertaining as he lays waste to many different people yet isn't invulnerable and at times takes a beating himself. It should be no surprise that the one thing I remembered about the movie from the one viewing many years ago was when he, ahem, castrated someone. With all the graphic violence and Chiba making all sorts of exaggerated faces it's no surprise this became a cult classic.

Now, the first sequel (not sounding the Sister Streetfighter spinoff):

Right after TCM Underground showed The Streetfighter, they played this film, which I had never seen before; I had to stay up real late to check it out. While it's a little lesser than the original, it is something I am still glad I saw.

Things aren't too different from the first movie: he once again deals with the Mafia and the Yakuza; as someone else here said, the leader of the Mafia looks like a young bearded hippie. He also deals with the cops, but that's a sideplot. Unfortunately, there's plenty of padding to make this feature length; there are some ancillary characters we follow for stretches at a time and several minutes is at an academy where we see people being trained in the martial arts and the English dub version nicely tells us what the particular breathing exercise is and says what all the weapons are, even for the obvious ones like 'samurai sword” and “nunchaku”; still, it's the thought that counts.

That said, it is a fun movie to watch as you get more of what you expect: over the top moments throughout, wacky facial expressions from Chiba, and graphic violence; oh, are there ever memorable moments that you can't possibly forget. “Terry” even gets a romantic scene of sorts, although that turns sour. It was a perfectly fine wacky martial arts picture, in other words.

Book Of Shadows: Blair Witch 2

Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 (2000)

Runtime: 90 minutes

Directed by: Joe Berlinger

Starring: Kim Director, Jeffrey Donovan, Erica Leerhsen, Tristine Skyler, Stephanie Barker Turner

From: Artisan

This is actually a first-time watch, as I had never seen this infamous movie before due to its toxic reputation. Well, even if there are some people out there who want to be hipsters and champion this for being “so underrated”, this is indeed as bad as its reputation says it is. I explain why in my Letterboxd review below: 

After the big news of last night, this seemed appropriate to see... now, I actually heard rumors not that long ago about how Adam Wingard's The Woods was actually a sequel to The Blair Witch Project (it's why I saw that movie again recently) yet hearing that those whispers were true still raised my eyebrows. As I dig the people involved, I have very high hopes for the movie. As for this picture in particular, I never saw it before as I only heard the worst things about it. Yet, as of late I've actually come across some positive reviews and people saying that the movie should be reappraised. After seeing this... I have to agree with the majority.

I imagine many of you know why this is infamous; unlike the original this is presented as a traditional film, although in its world the Blair Witch Project is a film that happened, and it's all fake. We follow a bunch of unlikable asshats as they participate in a guided tour of the region and the tour is led by a REALLY unlikable asshat, and weird things start happening. Now, some of the ideas presented are fine in theory... I am talking about such things as how publicity wasn't always welcome in the real life town of Burkittsville, Maryland (even though most of The Blair Witch Project wasn't actually filmed in that tiny town), how there were different groups of people tramping all across the woods, and how some exploited the publicity from the first movie. However, most of it wasn't well done and instead came off as ham-fisted. The same goes for the stereotypes of the characters (arguing couple, stoner D-bag, Wiccan woman with a persecution complex, goth girl who is apparently psychic) we have to deal with.

I know that after the original cut was filmed, the dreaded “studio interference” happened and I feel bad that director Joe Berlinger had that happen to him. It certainly explains why the movie is a gigantic mess all around and even taking into account the main plot point of how everyone suffers a mental breakdown, things don't make a lot of sense. I imagine the original version wouldn't have such bad music (for the most part) throughout, despite the presence of some talented acts... and NICKELBACK. Yet, studio interference can't explain away how all the characters are pretty loathsome and you don't like them even a small amount, or the pretty bad acting from everyone or some of the horrid dialogue. They didn't successfully polish a turd, but it's still a turd. Honestly, a reason why I don't have it rated even lower is that I got some solid unintentional laughs of this pile of crap.

At least Blair Witch has a real low hurdle to jump over in order to be better than Book of Shadows.

District 9

This is a movie I saw once before, back when it first came out almost 7 years ago... yes, 7. I don't believe it either. I imagine some won't believe that I didn't like the movie then and I still don't like it now, but 'tis true. I reviewed it back in the early days of my blog, so I'll just copy and paste below what I said about seeing it again on Letterboxd:

I haven't seen this movie since watching it on the big screen late August of 2009 before I gave it a second viewing last night, but back then I was a rare person who didn't like it and boy did some people on a messageboard not like hearing such an opinion. They just acted like asshats, but it's all good, as they (I have no memory of what their handles even were) were just giant man-babies and their rude actions meant nothing to me. It certainly did not change my opinion. During Amazon Prime Day earlier this month, the Blu-ray set of all three Neill Blomkamp movies went on sale for only 10 dollars and change; I decided to do that as it was hardly more than renting all three of those films from Amazon and streaming them.

Watching this again last night... sorry folks, but I still don't like it. Honestly, even rating this as 2 stars is being awfully generous on my part. I don't need to recap the plot as I am sure most know it already. The fact that this is actually an allegory about Apartheid, I figured it out rather quickly. It doesn't mean that I find the movie to be logical when it's done via an alien ship being stuck over South Africa and weird-looking bipedal creatures are supposed to represent black people. A second viewing made me realize all the glaring plot holes this has. I won't list all of them as I don't want to give out massive spoilers here... but the big one to me: how exactly did those creatures with those massively popular weapons end up living in a hellhole slum? Why didn't they destroy humanity? It makes no sense!

It's even worse than how those aliens and humans are able to understand each others languages, why the aliens have human names (back in '09, people gave me crap for having the gall to note how stupid it was for the lead alien to be known as Christopher Johnson), or various dumb moments resulting from this being a ham-fisted allegory. I've talked before about my biggest issue with modern filmmaking is how too many big movies are completely illogical, and this includes people that most people (including on Letterboxd) love but left me cold. Gone Girl is one huge example of that. An ugly mean-spirited tone is another big problem I have (Gone Girl also fits in that category); sadly, I think the movie has both of those things in spades.

Really, what makes this even watchable for me is how good the movie looks and how the special effects worked then (and still work now) when the movie only cost 30 million dollars to make... at least that's what “they” have always claimed. It's a whole rant I won't get into when it comes to why movies are so expensive these days; it shouldn't be that way, and I'll leave it at that. I noted at the time and it's been proven by big movies and those smaller ones that skip a wide theatrical release or are only made for discs/streaming, it is cost-effective and you get a lot of bang for your buck.

I wish I could love this like most do; it did not cost a fortune to make and the core idea is original... at least when they don't rip off superior movies like Alien Nation or Cronenberg's version of The Fly, which are movies I'd rather watch again than possibly see this a third time. This picture just doesn't work for me. It doesn't make me thrilled to see Elysium or Chappie sometime in the future, as unlike with this, both those flicks are incredibly polarizing.

Marihuana

Marihuana (1936)

Runtime: 57 minutes

Directed by: Dwain Esper

Starring: Harley Wood, Hugh McArthur, Pat Carlyle, Paul Ellis, Dorothy Dehn

From: Roadshow Attractions

This is another pot-based exploitation film from the 1930's. It is not as famous as Reefer Madness but I say it's just as hilariously bad. My explanation of why is below: 

I figured that since I recently reviewed Reefer Madness here, it only made sense to see the other 1936 movie involving marijuana. This isn't as popular or infamous as Reefer, but those two are meant to be seen together as both are similar in terms of unintentional hilarity. I had watched this once before, but that was like in 2003, so my memories were faint. And the guy who distributed Reefer (Dwain Esper) directed this, from a script written by his wife.

This is sleazier than RM; the opening credits has a background painting of three women, one of them topless. What an opening crawl that was, being racist against “the Asiatic countries” for being the origin of ganja and not being educated enough to stop that area's addiction to narcotics. I won't even get started on how wrong such a statement is. Then again, almost in the middle of the picture, there are several fully nude women seen. In addition, there's a gag where a drunk is spilling his beer in a nightclub and it's made to look like he's pissing right at the bar. Remember that films like these at the time went out on tour across the United States under the guise of being “educational”.

Anyhow, this is ridiculous claptrap about how some more teenage squares get roped into smoking the chronic and it immediately causes problems. In this case, there's skinny-dipping, a drowning, and the lead girl-for some reason named BURMA-becomes pregnant. From there, a lot of melodramatic things happen, including a kidnapping and the dealing of heroin. It's all so laughable, and aside from all the giggling, not an accurate depiction of what bud is like. At least the picture is less than an hour long.

Red Sun

Red Sun (Soleil Rouge) (1971)

Runtime: 111 minutes

Directed by: Terence Young

Starring: The incredible duo of Charles Bronson and Toshiro Mifune; there's also Ursula Andress, Alain Delon, and Capucine

From: Several different European countries

Charles Bronson and Toshiro Mifune starring in a movie together? Yes please! I talk all about it below via what I copied and pasted from Letterboxd: 

This was another movie this month that I watched on Turner Classic Movies. To me this is something well worth watching. It's directed by Terence Young and features the likes of Ursula Andress, Capucine, Alain Deleon, Anthony Dawson and Luc Merenda. Plus, Maurice Jarre did the Spaghetti Western score to this Spaghetti Western film... and oh yeah, the two stars comprise what has to be one of the manliest duos-and certainly one of the most awesome duos-in cinematic history, as they are Charles Bronson and Toshiro Mifine.

The film is about a gang that Bronson is in which holds up a train which just happens to be carrying a ceremonial sword destined for President Grant. The gang turns against Bronson so he and Mifune form a relationship after initially not trusting each other; they are forced to team up, you see. Yeah, the movie Shanghai Noon wasn't all that original with its plot. Oh, and Andress is eventually unwittingly dragged along too. In addition, Bronson's character is Link, but he isn't looking for the Triforce and he isn't going after Ganon.

To me, this ends up being as awesome as it sounded on paper. The action scenes are entertaining, the scenic Spanish views are nice, and while improbable at times it is just a lot of fun to watch. Thankfully the two stars are made out to be equal and at times Old Toshiro is shown to be superior; plus, there's such wackiness as Bronson eating sushi and other stereotypical Japanese food, and Mifune using his samurai weapons against such people as bandits and Comanche Indians. That helps make this stand out from the typical Western; it certainly is a standard one, right down to the casual racial stereotypes and the misogyny. As that's what I expected going in, I ignored those problematic things and overall this is a pretty cool Western well worth seeing.

Reefer Madness

Reefer Madness (1936)

Runtime: the version I saw was 66 minutes long

Directed by: Louis Gasnier

Starring: Dorothy Short, Kenneth Craig, Lillian Miles, Dave O'Brien, Thelma White

From: George A. Hirliman Productions

This cult classic is something that I have seen before but it was about time I reviewed it here. It's great in terms of unintentional laughs. My Letterboxd review is below: 

This is a movie I've seen a few times before and was in fact on TCM Underground late last Saturday night but as it is easily found via public domain, I decided to wait until today to watch it on YouTube. The rating is due to film quality and how accurate it is to how marijuana actually is (to echo the thoughts of another person on Letterboxd, the movie treats it like it's comparable to the effects of bath salts), although it has some great unintentional chuckles.

The movie was originally made by a church group to show how bad weed is, but the infamous exploitation filmmaker Dwain Esper purchased the film and added some “scandalous” things so it'd be perfect for the exploitation scene. I won't go on and on about how fascinating that scene is; I'll just mention it's something long gone from the modern filmmaking world. Way back then, you could go on tour with a print of something that is under the guise of being “educational” but is actually supposed to be sleazy and titillating, far removed from the Hays Code that governed official movies in the United States at the time. In the future I'll try to look more into that scene, how people went across the country w/ prints in the trunks of their car, and all the characters involved; Esper was a colorful figure but he wasn't the only one by any means.

As for the film, it's a laughable tale where an unmarried couple living together ropes in teenagers to come over and smoke dope. Those square kids turn sinful and do such things as dance to jazz music-oh, the horror! Several people get killed along the way. This picture's version of cannabis has some different effects from actual weed; in the movie, it makes you all hopped up full of energy and makes you do things like hang out with a bunch of young men if you are a woman... and makes you kill your family with an ax! See what I mean about the “bath salts” comparison? At least they got the “constant laughter” part right... hey, I know people who are big fans of ganja, I've seen its effects before, and it basically makes people relaxed and mellow.

I won't get into how the chronic was demonized in the 1930's by means of propaganda and made to be worse than it was. I'll just say that films like this helped perpetuate those fears about the drug back then. No matter your opinion of THC, in the years after it was released it became a camp classic; New Line Cinema was able to stay afloat in its early years by showing this on college campuses back in the groovy 1960's. Eighty years after the picture was first released, in this era where more and more states are decriminalizing the bud and sick people are more able to use it, Reefer Madness is something that we can all laugh about.

The Infiltrator

The Infiltrator (2016)

65% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 94 reviews)

Runtime: 127 minutes

Directed by: Brad Furman

Starring: Bryan Cranston, John Leguizamo, Benjamin Bratt, Diane Kruger, Yul Vazquez

From: Broad Green Pictures

I went and saw this movie on the big screen Thursday night. Not a lot of people have gone and seen this movie in the United States, which I think is unfortunate because while not everyone loves this, I think the film deserves better. My review-as always-is below:

Before Thursday night-when I saw this on the big screen-it was just a few days beforehand that I even knew this movie existed. I only heard small bits and pieces of the true story of Robert Mazur, who in the late 1980's went undercover for the U.S. Customs Service and infiltrated the drug trade of the infamous Pablo Escobar; with his work a major bust happened and it even brought down a giant-yet corrupt-bank. I haven't read Mazur's book of the same name that this is based upon but in the future I will.*

Admittedly, this is probably tailor-made for me. I am interested in hearing about such things as the 80's drug trade in Florida, it being set in 80's Florida is pretty rad, and I enjoy seeing something from a cast as strong as this has. I've never seen Breaking Bad** but from other things I've seen in the past yet haven't reviewed here, I know that Bryan Cranston is a fantastic actor and he did a great job here. The rest of the cast worked well with their roles, from John Leguizamo to Amy Ryan and Diane Kruger as people who help out Mazur to enemies such as Benjamin Bratt and Yul Vazquez. As some of those people had to be undercover, it was interesting seeing those dual roles.

The case starts off in Tampa, Florida, so it was nice for me to recognize some locations as I've been in Tampa many times. I laughed when one scene was set at the Odyssey 2001 strip club; no, I haven't been inside (really, I haven't!)... I've just driven by it and along with Mons Venus is one of the most famous strip clubs in the Tampa area. I don't think Odyssey 2001 was actually open in the late 1980's but that may be nitpicking. The movie also filmed in other locations across the globe, in cities where I am not familiar with the adult entertainment.

I understand why some were not big fans of this movie and some of the storytelling could be criticized. I won't go as hard on that or even people saying that this was “tedious”, which I disagree with; I'll just say I hope reading the book will clear up some things. To me, I still enjoyed this movie a lot despite a legit criticism or two. I know I was in for a good time when the opening scene happened, and Cranston entered in another undercover role, and between the popular 80's song playing, his facial hair and incredible jacket he was wearing, it was awesome. The musical choices was too on the nose one time but otherwise I dug all the songs that were used; I especially appreciated the Cymande.

While the story as presented isn't an entirely original or innovative one and it's told in a traditional manner, it doesn't mean I wasn't always entertained by the incredible true story that was told. As Mazur and Cranston were the executive producers, I'll presume that the plot was accurate to the book and that what was said in the book was accurate. I know this was never destined to be a hit; I still hope it does OK at the box office.

* I will not call out anyone by name but not too long ago I saw a mutual in a review say that “movies are always better than books.” I love film but c'mon now; I'll just say I respectfully disagree and move on.

** I know, I know. One day I'll watch the show, I promise.

The Magnificent Seven

The Magnificent Seven (1960)

Runtime: 128 minutes

Directed by: John Sturges

Starring: The titular seven, plus people like Eli Wallach

From: MGM

It's about time I saw this movie again so I could review it for the site. After all, a remake is coming out in a few months... a remake I say is not needed but don't get me started on the whole remake/reboot plague going on in the entertainment field. My review is below:

Wednesday night I watched this film on Turner Classic Movies; of course I had seen it a few times before, but this was my first viewing in HD and that was a great way to see it; this was filmed in Mexico and there's typically plenty of gorgeous scenery in the background.

I am sure everyone knows how this is a remake of Seven Samurai and how this story is about some residents of a poor Mexican town paying seven gunmen to come down and protect them against a ruthless gang that comes each year to steal goods from them, so I'll get to talking about the movie itself. To me it has among the most badass of casts ever: Brynner, McQueen, Bronson, Coburn, Vaughn, Wallach... also, the titular seven are all interesting characters in that they're all different and have their own fears & faults. It's not just them teaching the townspeople to defend themselves against the gang... oh no, the townspeople teach things to the seven as well.

To me that's the important thing of the movie, even above the always enthralling story, the exciting action scenes/shootouts, the performances, the direction, the cinematography, how you care about all the heroes, and even the incredible score from Elmer Bernstein, although that is a very important part of making this work as well as it does. I say that along with making the heroes not infallible (not all 7 make it to the when The End pops up on the screen), it's that they learn from the people of that town, who are not made to be feeble or incompetent and instead it's a relationship that benefits everyone. This isn't an all-time classic like Seven Samurai but that's an almost impossible feat and I'll just love this for what it is.

Springtime In The Sierras

Springtime in the Sierras (1947)

Runtime: 75 minutes

Directed by: William Witney

Starring: Roy Rogers (w/ his horse Trigger), Jane Frazee, Andy Devine, Stephanie Bachelor, Harold Landon

From: Republic

This is my first movie starring Roy Rogers. Talk about someone who was a big star in the United States from the late 30's through the 1950's. This isn't a must-see motion picture but it was still interesting to watch. I write about it below via my Letterboxd review: 

Late last afternoon on Turner Classic Movies I watched this movie with a parent. The big reason is that (to give a general clue to everyone as to how old my parents are... which they may not want known) both mom and dad watched Westerns as kids in the 1950's and 1960's, both on the big screen and on television. That includes The Roy Rogers Show. I figured it would be appropriate to finally see a motion picture with him.

It is a typical Republic Pictures B Western film, meaning it's about average. It was formulaic stuff, mainly to produce something to show on the big screen, and high art or thought-provoking scripts wasn't a priority. That is OK as Heaven knows people-like Rogers-became very popular from appearing in such things. This particular story is about animal poachers and how a young man Roy knows got wrapped up in that gang... which in a twist is led by a woman. There are several songs sung and the unmistakable Andy Devine (w/ the incredible name of COOKIE BULLFINCHER) does comedy, only some of which is successful. The movie is about as subtle with its fat jokes concerning Devine's girth and mass as it is with its pro-animal message; there's even a pet squirrel named Snoopy.

This movie is rather black and white; I don't mean literally (it's in color). What I mean is that this is the sort of picture where you can spot a bad guy after looking at them for only a few seconds. At least I can say that this was watchable. I have no means of comparison as this is my first Roy, but I can say that this at least has some decent action scenes (including stuff done with Roy's famous horse Trigger) and more than one long brawl between Rogers and someone else. It's not hard to see why Rogers was wildly popular back then, as he was good-looking, was fit to be a cowboy hero, could sing and do action scenes.

I imagine I'll stumble upon some other movies w/ the “King of the Cowboys” to watch in the future. At least this was not something I regretted seeing.

Devil's Doorway

Devil's Doorway (1950)

Runtime: 84 minutes

Directed by: Anthony Mann

Starring: Robert Taylor, Louis Calhern, Paula Raymond, Marshall Thompson, James Mitchell

From: MGM

Why this movie isn't better known, I am not sure; it's not great, but it's still something nicely done from a famous director which tries to deliver a message. I explain it all below: 

Yep, this is something else I found out about via a messageboard discussion; before then I had never heard of the movie before, despite it being directed by a famous director in Anthony Mann. As it's only found online in a disc you can order from Warner Archive, I figured I should check it out on Turner Classic Movies.

The plot is something that revolves around social commentary and Lord, such talking points as “discrimination” and “prejudices” ever still relevant in 2016, unfortunately. A Native American returns to his town in the West right after the Civil War ends and despite being honored as a hero for his deeds on the battlefield, that meant nothing back home due to him being “an Injun'”. He experiences a lot of discrimination-the main point of contention is that he cannot legally own a piece of land due to his race-and he steadfastly is against that and isn't much for compromise, so it should be no surprise that there's a wave of trouble about to come and it's on the horizon.

As it's 1950's, the Native American lead is actually played by noted non Native American Robert Taylor and that redface thing is unfortunate. But, I know how things were back then and Taylor was swell in the role so I can't complain too loudly. The cast as a whole I can't complain about when it comes to performances.

As expected, it certainly was well-directed by Mann and things aren't quite black and white. While not a hit at the time, it's gotten more recognition for trying to be mature about such a subject and present it even if the movie is not always an easy watch due to its subject matter and all the horrible things that happen to Lance Poole, the lead character. It is a bold movie for having such a viewpoint (as controversial as race is still now in 2016, think how things were in 1950) and having the heroes be not only a band of Native Americans but also a white female lawyer, all through the expected Western trappings, where there's great Colorado scenery and entertaining action scenes.

It's a shame the movie is still not better known despite it being from a highly respected director. It is effective as a different sort of Western, with a haunting ending.

The Blair Witch Project

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

Runtime: 81 minutes

Directed by: Daniel Myrick/Eduardo Sanchez

Starring: Heather Donahue, Joshua Leonard, Michael C. Williams

From: Haxan Films

Yes, it was about time I saw this movie again so I could review it online. I talk all about this infamous polarizing movie below via my Letterboxd review:

Before I get into the review proper, I have to note the obvious that when this movie first came out the summer of '99, due to my name I did hear comments about the movie and me; there were mild things from people I knew, but as I was never a popular kid in high school, I had haters and I heard “brilliant” comments along the lines of “The Blair Witch is your mom!” I do wish the movie would have had a title character with a different name...

This is a movie I've seen more than once before, but as typical with me, the last viewing was a long time ago. You guessed it, it was a messageboard discussion that inspired me to finally give it a revisit. It's a rare movie that I thought differently about each time I saw it; I do understand those that never cared for it. After all, when I saw it on the big screen w/ a sold out crowd back in 1999, most of them did not seem too happy once it ended. I don't know if it was the whole “motion sickness” thing either; I just know that it happened to a few people I know who watched it theatrically. I can't be helped but colored by how the movie scene is now compared to then, where found footage has long been a thing people are tired of and at least to me, this movie looks great when you compare it to most entries in that category.

I am sure everyone knows the plot of how three young inexperienced filmmakers investigate a local Maryland legend known as the Blair Witch and things quickly grow wrong. The two young men and a woman seem like real life characters and the filmmakers were rough on them so that there could be authenticity, and putting them through hell worked. You do feel bad for them, even if they can act stupid or like A-holes to each other. I have heard people complain that they were laughably not prepared for their trek... to me that was the point, that they were foolhardy and should have learned to read the maps they were using beforehand, or have a map that includes the location where they left their vehicle.

As is, everyone can relate to being terrified of being lost in the woods and experiencing weird things or hearing things you can't explain. And the final few minutes are greatly effective. The setting of 1994 is appropriate for such a tale, a world without GPS that everyone could use, and not even cell phones were common in those days. As their plight gets worse and worse, you feel it due to the performances, a sense of helplessness being more and more dominant.

What a simpler time 1999 was; I say that as Artisan went all out to try and make people think this was legit (even to the point of making a great documentary for cable TV that purported the events of this picture to be true) and there were a number of people who were initially fooled. I am glad I gave this another viewing, as now I finally fully appreciate how through a simple premise and all extraneous BS except the remote woods and that trio, through spooky happenings seen in the daytime and scary sounds at night, created something truly unsettling.

Godzilla vs. Mothra: The Battle For Earth

Godzilla vs. Mothra: The Battle for Earth (Gojira vs. Mosura) (1992)

Runtime: 102 minutes

Directed by: Takao Okawara

Starring: Tetsuya Bessho, Satomi Kobayashi, Takehiro Murata, Saburo Shinoda, Akiji Kobayashi

From: Toho

Finally, I have watched another Godzilla picture. It's been a long while. Thankfully this was something I enjoyed. I write all about it below:

I recently looked at my Lists and realized that aside from doing a new review of King Kong vs. Godzilla because I was able to see the original Toho cut so I could compare it with the American cut, I haven't watched a Godzilla picture in over a year. I figured it was long overdue for me to do a review of one, and this happens to be a movie I had never seen before.

In this timeline the franchise uses (where the only movies that are canon are the original, The Return of Godzilla, Godzilla vs. Biollante, and Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah), Mothra is making its debut so they borrow quite a bit from the original Mothra film back in the early 60's and they take a little from 1964's Mothra. A meteor strikes the Earth and causes a lot of problems, including reawakening The Big G. Mothra is discovered and those tiny Japanese twins are taken to Tokyo, making Mothra PISSED. There's also the critter either known as Battra or Black Mothra; both names are awesome. That revolves around the favorite conspiracy theory of some, which is how many thousands of years ago there was a more advanced civilization on Earth than what we presently have now, but it got destroyed. Anyhow, all three kaiju do battle with each other and we get plenty of men in rubber suits or puppets tromping around with each other or destroying nicely constructed miniature sets.

The movie is on the wacky side. After all, certain scenes from the Indiana Jones franchise are lifted and an important male character you first see dress like Indy and basically is Indy... if Dr. Jones was a jerk who was only a thief and not an archaeologist. As it's the early 90's, Not Indy is a divorced dad who doesn't pay alimony (naturally, he has a cute young daughter) and he is forced to work with his ex. In addition, this is really something from the late 80's and early 90's as they are not subtle at all about delivering a pro environmental message.

Sure, you could carp about various little niggles and the focus is more on the two Mothra creatures than on Godzilla; I say that this is still entertaining. Akira Takarada appears (one of the six films in the franchise you get to see him in) and it's always nice to hear a score from Akira Ifukube. I promise that it won't be another year before I discuss another Gojira picture.

Dirty Harry

Dirty Harry (1971)

Runtime: 102 minutes

Directed by: Don Siegel

Starring: Clint Eastwood, Andrew Robinson, Harry Guardino, Reni Santoni, John Vernon

From: Warner Bros.

I can thank some people on a messageboard for discussing the entire series and finally inspiring me to see this for the first time in many years. I still rate it highly. You can read my Letterboxd review below if you wish: 

While perhaps with the events going on in the United States in the past week this isn't the perfect time to watch a film with such a lead character, the impetus behind me seeing this for the first time in many years is that a recent messageboard discussion was all about the entire franchise and I remembered not seeing any of those films in a really long time so I figured this was the time to do so.

I imagine most know the plot of how loose cannon cop Dirty Harry Callahan of the San Francisco Police Department goes after a deranged hippie known as the Scorpio Killer who starts killing for the simple reason that he wants the city to give him a lot of cash. So I'll mention how this movie is still incredibly influential. It's a huge reason why we got the poliziotteschi genre, not to mention all the other copy cats. People still know what you're talking about when you use the stereotype that a police officer “is like Dirty Harry”. The “do you feel lucky” speech (not “do you feel lucky, punk?”, as many people have misremembered it) is a part of pop culture. This created several tropes in the cop genre still used today, such as the experienced cop who does not want a new rookie partner, not to mention the whole “loose cannon cop” thing.

With all that said and several of the elements here not feeling as fresh as they did back in 1971, this is still a thrilling and exciting movie to watch. While it certainly can be argued that Dirty Harry's ignoring of the laws in order to capture the killer comes across as different now than it did back then, I know it's a product of its time and back then, people wanted an escapist movie where they can cheer an awful human being get his just desserts, and they did make the Scorpio Killer a dangerous criminal who needed to be stopped. Callahan is definitely politically incorrect, yet he does this so he can get the job done as a police officer, hating how things seem to be restrained by such thing as red tape and bureaucracy. The cast does a nice job as a whole, but it is Eastwood as the title character and Andrew Robinson as Scorpio who are the standouts.

It's an exciting and thrilling picture nicely directed & put together where we get to see plenty of lovely San Francisco and it's backed by a groovy score from Lalo Schifrin... to me that's a winning formula. It's great entertainment and it's easy to see why Dirty Harry became an iconic figure.

Ride Lonesome

Ride Lonesome (1959)

Runtime: 73 minutes

Directed by: Budd Boetticher

Starring: Randolph Scott, Karen Steele, Pernell Roberts, James Best, James Coburn, Lee Van Cleef

From: Columbia

Yep, I saw another collaboration between Boetticher and Scott; spoiler warning, I also enjoyed this a lot. Read all about it below: 

Late last afternoon Turner Classic Movies showed this Budd Boetticher/Randolph Scott Western and as I just saw the first collaboration between the pair the previous night, I figured I'd check out the second movie in the Ranown Cycle, which is the seven films they did together and it was Boetticher's production company.

The plot sounds simple enough: Scott is the greatly named Ben Brigade, a bounty hunter who captures James Best (he actually giggles at times like the Rosco P. Coltrane character he played years later), a real heel who loves shooting people in the back. He not only has to deal with Best's brother Lee Van Cleef and others looking to free him, he meets up gunmen Pernell Roberts and James Coburn (his first film) and Barbara Steele is a woman stranded alone. They all head to Santa Cruz to try and collect the bounty, encountering such things as “Injuns'” (that was the way they were portrayed) along the way. As I figured, Randolph plays a grim and gruff character, yet he still has his own code of honor he abides by.

I figured I'd enjoy this film considering all the talented faces in the main cast and I was correct. All did a nice job. I was not familiar with Barbara Steele but she did a nice job too as a tough lady. It was nice seeing these characters interact with each other, and there's mystery over the motives are of Roberts and Coburn; they certainly would want that bounty also. Then again, Brigade has secrets himself. All this takes place in the very scenic California desert.

In a lean and mean 73 minutes, things are stripped down where we get a gripping tale of revenge with little fat or extraneous things getting in the way; as others have said, an economical film this is.

Seven Men From Now

Seven Men From Now (1956)

Runtime: 78 minutes

Directed by: Budd Boetticher

Starring: Randolph Scott, Gail Russell (no relation), Lee Marvin, Walter Reed, John Larch

From: Warner Bros.

Here is something I don't review or just plain see enough of: Westerns. This is one I am glad I saw. I explain it all in my Letterboxd review below: 

This is not only my first time using the free Paramount Vault YouTube channel, this is my first Budd Boetticher film; from a messageboard, I know someone who is a big fan of the director and has enjoyed pimping his work. Finally, I sat down and checked one out. I can say that the Paramount Vault channel is something I approve of as watching it via a YouTube app on my Blu player on a big screen TV, the picture looked nice an I had no problems with streaming this first collaboration between Boetticher and Randolph Scott; they did seven movies altogether.

The plot sounds simple enough: Scott is an ex-sheriff who is on the hunt for seven men as they were the ones who committed a robbery and during said robbery they murdered his wife. But it is more complex than that: he meets up with such people as former adversaries Lee Marvin and Don Barry, and a couple heading to California (Walter Reed and Gail Russell... no relation). It was very compelling watching all those characters interact with each other; that is a big part of the movie, those characters having time to establish who they are and both Marvin and Barry are “grey hats” in not being evil yet not being heroes either. But don't worry there is enough violence/shootouts during Scott's attempt at retribution if that is your thing.

Scott was in his late 50's when he made this movie. He was a tall tanned handsome man who looked weathered and wearied yet quite experienced; in short, he was a great fit as a classic older cowboy who you know is a pro at his job. The rest of a cast does a swell job but to me it was Old Randolph and Marvin who were the standouts. They both have scenes where their characters do amazing things and those actors delivered with their performances. Scott's character definitely a noble hero that is easy to root for, even if at times he has a gruff manner. Interesting is that with the couple of Reed and Russell, it is the woman who is the more dominant personality and the one who you trust to take charge of things. All this takes place on a backdrop of beautiful California desert scenery.

This was made by John Wayne's Batjac production company, as it was originally going to star The Duke. But The Searchers came along so he did that instead. That is how the fruitful collaboration between Scott and Boetticher began. At the time those films weren't box office hits but now they have a lot more respect. With this in particular, in only 78 minutes something very compelling was presented. As this can be seen free of charge, I recommend this for those that enjoy the genre, or just wish to see more from the genre.

The Deer Hunter

The Deer Hunter (1978)

Runtime: 184 minutes

Directed by: Michael Cimino (RIP)

Starring: Robert De Niro, Christopher Walken, John Cazale, John Savage, Meryl Streep

From: Universal/EMI

This wasn't the cheeriest movie to watch on the 4th of July. That is OK, as it is a great movie, something I am glad I watched on Blu. I just should have done so while the director was still alive. I explain why below in my Letterboxd review: 

I figured that while this isn't the cheeriest movie about the USA to watch on the night of the 4th of July (even if it ends on a rendition of God Bless America), I figured I should see this due to how Michael Cimino passed away just a few days ago. When I reviewed Heaven's Gate the first of this year, I mentioned how it was a quality movie that he did... at the expense of the rest of his career due to the outrageous way he acted while filming it. He had problems with the movies he did after Heaven's Gate but I don't want to spend anytime there or talk about how he was a hermit for much of his later life or how he appeared to be addicted to plastic surgery, considering how different he looked in his later life compared to his filmmaking heyday. I'll just mention that between the start of his career and HG, he was involved with some quality motion pictures, including this one.

This is about some Russian-American steelworkers in Pennsylvania, late 1960's. One of them is about to marry right before a few of them go off to Vietnam. It's a long first act getting to know these people, but it's important as we have to become familiar with these characters, what they believe and how they act. Then we spend time in Vietnam and while I don't know how realistic it is to what actually happened over there, it is brutally effective and it definitely left its scars on everyone there. After the war, we see the ramifications of the atrocities of war.

The town in Pennsylvania is a blue collar one, and those guys are blue collar in nature. They are young and all of them have their share of immaturity, although Michael (De Niro) is the most serious one. By the end, all of them grow up in various ways. The first hour is the marriage ceremony and combo wedding reception/going away party, and the main characters drink plenty of Rolling Rock and other sorts of alcohol; they get plastered drunk and even with the serious moments the tone is on the light side. Boy do things change once the Vietnam stuff starts. For the rest of the picture, things are quite dark and somber, yet greatly compelling, as everyone has to deal with serious situations. People probably know the movie best for the Russian Roulette sequence involving Mike, Nick and Steven; well, Russian Roulette played more a role in the plot than I expected.

Considering it was the late 70's and the cast included people like De Niro, Walken, Streep, Cazale, and Dzundza, and behind the camera were people like Cimino and the great cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond, it is no wonder that this turned out great. Even the non-actor who was cast as a steel worker because he actually was a steel worker (Chuck Aspegren as Axel) was good with what he had to do; they played to his strengths and much of his dialogue was dropping an F bomb. John Cazle, despite dying of cancer at the time, he was great and it was quite the coda to I know that Cimino had troubles with the release of this movie due to it being 184 minutes and other factors; thankfully it was released as is and it got a lot of deserved acclaim.

I understand those that don't care for this due to it being 3 hours long, its tone, or how it wasn't the most flattering portrayal of the Vietnamese. I say that this is a classic film well worth seeing for the film fan, especially considering the director just passed away a few days ago. At least for me, I'll never think of songs like Can't Take My Eyes Off You or Midnight Train to Georgia the same ever again. Also, color me amazed that there's an actual country song called Dropkick Me, Jesus, Through The Goal Posts of Life.

Speedway

Speedway (1968)

Runtime: 94 minutes

Directed by: Norman Taurog

Starring: Elvis, Nancy Sinatra, Bill Bixby, Gale Gordon, William Schallert

From: MGM

I saw this late last night as what is more American to talk about on the 4th of July than Elvis and stock car racing? Well, this is pretty bad (even in comparison to the rest of Presley's output) and I explain why below:

Recently I realized that it's been too long since I've seen an Elvis movie; why not see one so I could review it on the 4th of July? I mean, Mr. Presley is definitely American... in both good and bad ways. So is the subject of this movie, which is stock car racing, as in NASCAR. In fact, for the few people reading this who happen to be fans of old school NASCAR, such legends as Richard Petty, Buddy Baker and Cale Yarborough briefly appear. Unfortunately, I just wish this would have been better.

The plot: Elvis is a star racecr driver and for some reason he's not only with a real son of a bitch friend in Bill Bixby (who forces himself on women... and it's played for laughs. Yeah) who not only is incredibly annoying, he does a piss-poor job of managing Elvis' money (and he also has a gambling problem) to the point that he owes a lot of back taxes... which for what I know may be true to real life when it comes to The King and Col. Tom Parker. But yes, Kenny Donford (played by Bixby) is the dirt worst... I mean, just the worst. Oh, and Nancy Sinatra is in this... as an inspector for the IRS; hey, why are you laughing? It's true, she was supposed to work as an agent for the American government that collects everyone's taxes.

While there were some inspired bits, groovy late 60's sets/clothing and songs that are passable, overall this is just not good. If Elvis would have run over his pal Kenny Donford with his car or at least have murdered him for being such a heinous human being that had a negative impact on the lives of almost a dozen people, I would rate this higher. But as he doesn't, this rating is appropriate. Not even the charisma of Elvis or his character helping out people down on their luck could save this, as that awful character is an anchor on the picture. The fact that too much of the humor is really not funny doesn't help matter either.

Sisters

Sisters (1973)

Runtime: 93 minutes

Directed by: Brian De Palma

Starring: Margot Kidder, Jennifer Salt, Charles Durning, William Finley, Lisle Wilson

From: AIP

This is something I watched on Turner Classic Movies late last night. Some people on a messageboard recommended it; it's not great and there are movies from the director I rate higher... I still don't regret checking this out. My Letterboxd review is below:

This is a movie that I watched on TCM late last night. There are several ways to see this film but I figured a viewing that way would work best for me. As I know some people who give it a lot of praise, it was something I eventually did want to see. Even knowing De Palma's other movies, I was still surprised by this.

First off, the Peeping Tom's game show, I just about howled with laughter as I never could have predicted such a thing. It certainly is satirical of how game shows were even back then. It was more sleazy and trashy than I expected. I imagine that by now people know the main hook of how Margot Kidder played conjoined (I understand that Siamese twins is a frowned upon term these days) twins only recently separated, one normal and one pretty crazy. It's a Hitchcockian murder mystery-the director's love of Sir Alfred is another detail that people around here should know-where Jennifer Salt is a reporter who witnessed someone get killed and she has to try and convince people of it. Further elements include a lot of split-screen, a jealous ex-husband, a birthday cake, and a piece of furniture.

This is quite ridiculous for sure and it isn't De Palma at his best... but I know this was early on in his career, he would go on to better things and this is still something I enjoyed. The Hitchcock influences are rather thick and plentiful, which was fine by me. He even hired noted Hitch composer Bernard Herrmann to do a violin-heavy score. What helps is that both Kidder and Salt do a great job with their roles, and it was nice to see familiar faces like Charles Durning too.

I am not sure what Old Brian was doing there with the ending but aside from that I can't really complain about this film. I did think that the minor character known as “Dr. Pierre Milius” was a nice tip of the cap to his pal John.

The Adventures Of Robin Hood

The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)

Runtime: 102 minutes

Directed by: Michael Curtiz... and William Keighley

Starring: Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, Basil Rathbone, Claude Rains, Patric Knowles

From: Warner Bros.

In short, this is a classic movie I had seen a few times before, but the last viewing was years ago. I figured it was time to finally review it here, especially considering that de Havilland is now 100 years old. The Letterboxd review is below: 

I had seen this movie a few times before, albeit the last viewing being a long time ago. As it was on TCM last night I figured it was time to give it a viewing. Plus, it was appropriate to see a movie with the lovely Olivia De Havillland, who is now 100 years old; someone from the Golden Age of Hollywood still around today is a commendable feat, as there aren't many who fit in such a category. The whole feud with her sister Joan Fontaine is unfortunate (I haven't really looked into what it was about; recent, De Havilland referred to Fontaine as “Dragon Lady”, so there's no love lost) but as a whole I have no complaints with her.

As for Errol Flynn, I know that my mother through a combo of old theatrical showings and television saw at least a few of his movies and ever since she has been a fan. I won't say for how many decades she's been a fan, lest I give a general idea of her age. Considering that he was a dashing and handsome man, no surprise that he was a big Hollywood star for almost a decade, before scandal and such rumors (some probably true) about such things as drug abuse and dalliances with underaged women. But I did not focus on that as I rewatched this movie. Instead I noted how charming Errol was as the lead and how he had obvious chemistry with Olivia; no wonder they famously appeared together in a total of eight movies.

As for this picture, it's the standard Robin Hood legend with the expected Hollywood touches. All the characters you expect are there, like Friar Tuck, Prince John, and Little John... YYYYEEEAHHHH, WWHHHATTT? The sets are all lavish as are the outdoor locations, it looks great in Technicolor and many different colors of the rainbow are shown throughout. It's a talented cast with actors like Basil Rathbone and Claude Rains, but it is Flynn and De Havilland who were the standouts. It is a classic tale where you have very entertaining action scenes featuring such things as swordplay and the bow & arrow; you can't get more appropriate for such a legendary tale and not to sound cliché but this seems like the sort of thing you could have only gotten back in the days of old.

Star Trek Into Darkness...

is a worse fan than I first realized it when I saw the movie on the big screen back in May of '13. I talk about the '09 movie and Into Darkness here right after I saw STID. I'll copy and paste below my new thoughts on STID after watching it late last night:

I realize that with all the high reviews this movie has here (on Letterboxd), many will disagree with my opinion. That is OK with me; after all I am the A-hole who did not like such films as Fury Road, Gone Girl or The Lego Movie. It's not something I want to be known for, but I am being honest here. While I am frankly baffled by the high scores it has everyone (from Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb and the like) I am not afraid to be honest here and agree with those few people who recognize all the issues with this... including J.J. Abrams himself, who recently admitted that the script is atrocious and is an abomination, to paraphrase a bit.

Now, when it comes to this movie, I haven't seen it since I watched it on the big screen back in May of '13. I wasn't a big fan but when I originally reviewed it at the time I gave some short thoughts and rated it average. Watching it a second time, my original rating was me being too kind. If I was one of those people I'd do a spoiler-filled review where I'd list like 100 different things with this movie that make zero sense. But other people on other sites have done similar things, so I'll just try to explain without being too loquacious why I think this is a pretty bad motion picture.

Right away things left me flummoxed trying to explain it. I had completely forgotten about the stupidity of the Enterprise hiding in an ocean for no reason, then those memories came flooding back to me and I remembered how I thought it was dumb back in 2013. On that planet Nilbog-or whatever it was called-why exactly was Spock noting the Prime Directive of not interfering with the development of a primitive alien species as Kirk and Bones were running away from the natives... when Spock was trying to save those natives from being destroyed by a volcano? From there, the plot is a convoluted mess. Having a Byzantine story is OK with me and all; when you try to figure out why characters do certain things and how events in the plot happen and it all falls apart, that is when I say it's a convoluted mess.

Breaking it down will take way too long so I'll just say it's utter nonsense. Some things I can highlight include the gratuitous shot of Alice Eve in her underwear (it comes off as gross) and how Spock & Uhura have relationship problems that end up being a lame plot device. Then there's the character that Benedict Cumberbatch plays... to be honest, even with how The Force Awakens turned out, I still don't think too highly of J.J. Abrams. The whole “all my movies MUST have a dopey mystery angle” thing has always just been so stupid to me and it was stupid here. Although, him playing a certain character still leaves a bad taste in my mouth as what an insult it was as that take on the character pales in comparison to the awesome original. I mean, it doesn't seem like the same character at all. Then again, it can be argued that this doesn't really seem like a Star Trek picture. If that character had just been a random superman named, say, “Bob Smith”, it's still be a badly done villain. Before I saw it theatrically I unfortunately got spoiled not only about Cumberbatch's character but also how another character was a bad guy; while that still irks me, even if I wasn't spoiled I would feel the exact same way about this.

The worst part of this: how they allude and downright bastardize many famous moments from the franchise, and just do it badly. The way that they treat Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is especially insulting. Talk about ruining iconic moments, especially with an all time bad and stupid deus ex machina which basically means that no one can ever really die in the Star Trek universe. Just atrocious all around. The capable cast trying their best and the movie looking real nice visually can only do so much.

This is a great example of why modern big budget filmmaking is something that I tend to avoid as a lot of it is just too stupid, too insulting, too illogical to my intelligence to be enjoyable. I really hope that Star Trek Beyond (which I thankfully have not had spoiled at all; I barely even know what it's about, which is the way I prefer it) is better than this drivel.