Amph What was the last movie you saw?

I thought The Expendables 2 was the best one in the trilogy, and had more quality to it than the other two. I love this scene:

 

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

Apparently this is often thought of as the worst Trek movie ever, and it has been said that it nearly killed the franchise. While it may have nearly killed the franchise, I cannot agree that it is the worst Trek movie after slogging through III and IV.

The phrase "the final frontier" is sort of sacred in Star Trek, it's been around, it gets used in a way that fans often describe as "mystical"; it has a sort of holy, hallowed importance. It is kinda to Trek what "may the Force be with you" is to Star Wars, if MTFBWY was an idea that was also a thing that can be conceptualized and made real. So, sorta like MTFBWY combined with the Whills and the Son of Suns.

What is the final frontier? Well, "space", according to the holy Trek intro. Is there nothing beyond it? Is it truly the final frontier to be explored?

It's an idea that had to be tackled in Trek at some point. It's something that Roddenberry himself wanted to tackle, he had a script called The God Thing that was meant to be a Trek movie but never got made. Well, it's possible Shatner stole the idea out from under him when he got his chance to direct here. He's also said that he came up with it while watching Jim and Tammy Fay Bakker scam people on television.

I could cover this movie in broad strokes, but I think I'd miss something in my defense, so I won't. So, let's get to it, shall we?

Plot: The Final Frontier. Spock's heretofore unknown outcast half brother Sybok seeks God at the center of the galaxy, which is blocked by a seemingly impenetrable barrier.

The movie begins on a desolate, desert planet, because we in the west often associate religion with such places.

Immediately, I noticed a welcome difference in tone, in the music, the sound, and the material. It's serious. This was welcome after III and IV. It's interesting to note that Sybok is not treated as a villain in the opening scene; he's presented heroically, and not even the accompanying theme contradicts it. Sybok even first appears riding a horse...with a horn. A unicorn.

It's good to have Goldsmith and his definitive Star Trek music back.

After Star Wars, no desert planet is complete without a wretched hive of scum and villainy, right? Well, TFF has a decent one, complete with billiards and a dancing feline alien. It's a bit cliche and has Shatner's gaudy sensibility to it, but I like it. Inside the cantina, Federation ambassador David Warner is smoking a cigarette. It seems like the decline of smoking should have been anticipated.

Immediately the film begins to develop and personalize its non-trio crew. It's good to see them given more attention after being largely forgotten in I and II, and in TOS in general.

I love the new sleeveless Klingon costumes, makes them look like Mongol pirates or something. They even got female bodybuilder Spice Williams to show off her muscles as a female Klingon warrior, an idea I love and would love to see again at some point. These Klingons are looking to make a name for themselves and they happen upon Kirk's mission. Kirk is referred to as a sort of Red Baron for the Klingons, a worthy opponent that can make you famous. This is a pretty cool idea, too.

Unfortunately, the brown sweater costumes for the main cast serve only to show their age. To be rude, they reveal saggy man boobs. It hardly matters, just not the most flattering choice.

Speaking of which...can you handle this? I don't think you can handle this. I don't think you're ready for this.

Okay, let's do this. The fan dance. Yes, it's pretty bad, but I'm going to defend it, anyway.


Move your body up and down
Make your booty touch the ground

First, if you remember, Uhura used to sing on TOS. It was her thing.

Second, she looks good, those are some Beyonce-class legs for a 56 year old. Nichelle was a professional singer and dancer and worked hard for this scene; she was furious to learn that her voice had been dubbed out.

It gave Nichelle something to do, a reason to work, and its one of her few memorable scenes (notoriously, unfortunately). The scene itself is ridiculous and incompetently directed, but I can easily see this scene playing out much better under different circumstances and with competent direction. There was a legitimately sexy Uhura dance scene to be had here, with the right situation, the right camera work and right choreography, but Shatner blew it. It wasn't Nichelle's fault, she brought the goods, Shatner just failed to show them off properly. (It was partially intentional, using the wrinkly face and white hair of an older woman as a sort of butterface sight gag, which I detest...and which drags down my defense.)

I really love it when older performers show they still have it, it's inspiring. I loved hearing that the actress who played Oola came back for the SE and re-filmed the dance scenes twenty years later, looking so good you couldn't tell the difference.

So that's my defense, FWIW. Yes, it's ridiculous, but Nichelle still looked good. There's plenty to criticize, but don't scorn it simply because Nichelle was old. Don't shame her for being old, bro. A lot of the scorn I see for the scene features a lot of ageism, which isn't necessary, the scene is plenty terrible without ageist judgments.

So much for V's more serious approach.

The crew raids Sybok's base to rescue hostages, and it's a bit of an 80s action sequence. It's a commando raid, with a gatling gun and everything. You can see Shatner's influence here, it's not very Trek, but it's fun. Spock nerve pinches a horse. Meh, Arnold would have punched it.

I was going to say the comedy is less...overtly comical, more off the cuff, more by-the-way than over the top silliness. It's more 80s action one liners than camp. I was enjoying this, until Scotty knocked himself out hitting his head in the Enterprise's maintenance tunnels. Scotty has gotten so dopey and senile. So much for the change in comedy.



Alright, let's get down to the meat and potatoes.

Sybok isn't quite the villain you might have expected him to be. He's non-violent and doesn't really do anything to harm anyone. His quest is to literally find God, and all he needs is a starship. He's not out to blow anything up, or take over the galaxy. It's not as dramatic, I guess, but I really appreciate that he's not just another power mad, psychopathic villain.

It's fun to ponder whether Sybok is really some sort of healing guru or a con man, the movie leaves it up in the air a bit. When he approaches people, he sorta stares at them and draws them in. Is this some sort of genuine special connection he is able to make with people, or is he like Dracula hypnotizing his victims? "Your pain runs deep". It's a great pseudo mystical catchphrase for a con man. Is he really empathizing with them, or is he a con man suckering people in like a "psychic" preying on people's weaknesses?

We don't see what happens when he shares in a person's pain...until he confronts our trio. He shows McCoy the memory of his dying father in a scene that is absolutely disturbing. When he first approaches McCoy about his pain, McCoy backs off in fear, and dismisses it as a trick. It's great. The instinctive fear at the subject even being broached causes him to step back, and he dismisses it reflexively to protect himself, like so many people who use skepticism as a defense mechanism. When McCoy realizes it's "real", he cries "Oh my god, don't do this to me!" It's sheer terror. We see a short, but devastating look at the pain of McCoy, a doctor, pulling the plug on his suffering father, and the agony of cruel fate as a cure is discovered not long after. It's an effective handling of euthanasia (a controversial subject that could have easily blown up in their face) that re-defines the character, makes you re-think his entire life.

Is Sybok confronting the pain of McCoy's life to help him get past it and reach enlightenment...or is he preying on his vulnerability?

We also see Spock's birth, and the seeming disgust on his father's face as he dismisses his newly born child as "so human". It's always painful to be hated for the way you were born, and Spock has always struggled with his half human nature.

Kirk dismisses all of this as magic tricks by a con man, and refuses to go through it, holding on to his pain as a vital part of his life's continuity, of who he is. "I don't want my pain taken away! I need my pain!"

The relationship between Spock and Sybok is played with subtlety and reality. It's not over the top melodrama. It's not angst. Spock is not angry at Sybok, he does not hate him, he is not embarrassed by him. He's simply sad that they are on opposite sides. Sybok is almost an adventurer, asking Spock to go on a hero's journey with him...but Spock simply isn't interested. Spock's had his journey. Sybok is still looking for the answers in God, but Spock has already found his answers in his life with his friends on the Enterprise. They're simply not on the same page, and there's something tragic about it. It's not some raging hatred, it's not a matter of revenge, it's not the wrath of Sybok, it's just two brothers who have gone in different directions. Showing him his pain did not work on Spock, he had already dealt with it.

It's a nice development to show that Kirk holds on to his mistakes, to his pain, as vital, formative learning lessons, and that Spock has reckoned with and accepted his nature. "I am not the outcast boy you left behind those many years ago". It's good that they're actually developing instead of stuck grappling with the same issues forever.

When they approach the barrier at the galaxy's center, Sybok reveals that this was a "vision" given to him by God. Kirk calls him mad. Sybok is not so completely driven that he can't recognize the possibility that maybe he is. "Am I? We'll see". He hasn't become totally consumed by this to the point of believing it without doubt, he's going to put it to the test. They could have had him be a believer to the point of delusion, but he still entertains doubts. It adds a subtle rationality to the character.

Sybok declares the barrier to be an illusion, that there is no danger. The idea is that everyone was simply too afraid to try to pass through it, and Mr Show Me Your Pain has been freed of fear. Chekov can get no reading on the barrier. Is it real, or not? You'd think Starfleet explorers would have been brave enough to find out, especially since the "danger" does not show up scientifically, but obviously Sybok being the first willing to make a leap of faith is set up well.

When they get to God's home planet (lol) of Sha Ka Ree, they are accompanied by Goldman's Unicorn theme from Legend...it looks just about what you would expect, a place of holy significance. Desert, striking pillars of rock, etc. (Another piece of trivia: Sha Ka Ree was named after Sean Connery, who was wanted to play the role of Sybok, but he was busy being Indiana Jones' dad. What might have been?)

"God", who chooses to represent himself to humans as the silly stereotypical conception of God as an old white man with a beard, shows up and asks for a starship...and of course Shatner's Kirk is the skeptical one, coming up with an obvious but devastating question: What does God need with a starship? This kind of skepticism at the obvious absurdity of the All Mighty needing something so petty is the pithy epitome of atheistic disbelief in some of the more ridiculous aspects of modern western monotheism.

God's petty, capricious nature reveals him for the sham he is, in another common atheistic criticism of God: he's violent and cruel.

Now that he sees him for what he is, Sybok realizes his arrogant folly, is desperate for forgiveness, and is sorta redeemed when he sacrifices himself. He looks at God's image of himself, "I couldn't help but notice your pain. It runs deep." Whose? The phony God's, or Sybok's?

This atheistic treatment of God is simple and shallow, but amusing if you're sympathetic to that sort of thing. It's disappointing that the Final Frontier is apparently a planet with some sort of alien pretending to be God imprisoned on it, but it still gave us one of the most memorable quotes in Star Trek history.

Despite his status as Spock's brother being a canon ass pull, Sybok is a wonderfully subtle character. He's a more a misguided heroic antagonist than a villain.

A wonderfully subtle antagonist, one genuinely hard hitting sequence of our trio's pain, and a pithy but shallow commentary on God are dragged down by Shatner's poor direction, a few cringe-worthy scenes and cool but extraneous Klingon villains. It's too bad something as important to the franchise as The Final Frontier didn't turn out to be as epic and excellent as it should have been. Still, I give this movie 4 starships out of 5.

I give Nichelle Nichols' legs a 10! A ******* 10!


As for the ongoing God counter, well, it's kinda pointless in a movie that mocks God as it does, but Bones refers to Kirk's rock climbing as "god damn irresponsible" and cries "Oh my God, don't do this to me!" in a genuinely powerful emotional moment, and after Spock lets Sybok take his weapon, Kirk suggests he should knock Spock on his "god damn ass". FWIW, at this point.

Sorry this is so long, a lot of my commentary is really obvious stuff, but for some reason I really wanted to defend this movie.

 

Does anyone want to swap seats?

 

(this server)

 

wonder woman
so finally got around to watching it and in one word the movie is awesome. gadot brings everything that makes the character come to life and everytime i think of the character from now on will be purely as her. the chemistry between her and chris pine was great and i hope they find a way to bring him back in the enevitable sequel. dc finally has its star attraction and bullet point over marvel and they hit the movie out of the park.

only criticism would be the end battle with aries the cgi could of been a bit better but that doesnt take away from the ride of the movie

best superhero movie since the dark knight 10/10

 

I don't think Star Trek V is necessarily a bad movie, it's just inferior to most of the other ST movies. It's not as fun as Voyage Home and not as adventurous as Undiscovered Country. On paper the movie sounds great, with a few really interesting ideas, but it misfires both in terms of the performances and the direction. I'd still watch it over the later TNG movies and Search for Spock though.

 

Yeah, William Shatner's original idea was basically Dante's Inferno in space. That is an awesome idea for a Star Trek movie. The way he tells it, the original premise was substantially watered down during the script development phase and became heavily compromised as a result. As I've said before, its not a particularly good movie, but it does have some really good Kirk/Spock/Bones character moments, like the camp fire scene and Bones' flashback with Sybok. Its not quite as good as Nemesis, but it's definitely better than Insurrection.

 

well, i'll be damned, a marsh melon

 

Aside from Uhura's fan dance and Scotty hitting his head, the characters behaved the way we've come to expect them to. It also kind of sets up the detente between the Federation and the Klingons in TUC, since the movie ended with Enterprise hosting a formal function for the Klingons and the Romulans, also the Klingon and the Romulan ambassadors both owe Kirk a solid. Insurrection had Klingon zits and Data telling boob jokes.

 

I watched "The Great Wall" on the back of an airplane seat. Really not that terrible.

 

TFF felt like a film, just not a very good one. Insurrection felt like a TNG episode from season one. That and the fact its bracketed between First Contact and Nemesis, both of which also feel much more cinematic accentuates its awfulness.

 

I'm not gonna lie, I was really scratching my head over that.

 

Atomic Blonde (2017)

A fast, furious(a), brutal, and somewhat relentless action flick sporting a predictably great performance from Charlize Theron and also James McAvoy. It's not as relentlessly paced as John Wick Chapter Two (and the director of this made the first JW film) and it does drag a lot in the middle, also underuses a lot of the supporting cast, but do stay for the incredible and breath taking 15 minute single take fight/car chase sequence towards the end.

The Dark Tower (2017)

Well....it's not good. But...it's not the worst film I've seen this year. I wouldn't even say it's in the top ten. I won't be putting it on the Arsefest List for now, but things can change. It's an abortion of an adaption (and do piss off, name rhymes with Spuliet, if you're going to correct me by saying it's a sequel to the series or some equally insanely stupid bull**** that the Sony Pictures studio heads decided to do for some bizarre reason). It's idiotic, gleefully idiotic at times, but it's short and feels short. Ironic, since the running time pissed everyone off. I can't hate it since I was more let down by Valerian this summer than this one.

 

All Klingons are wannabe tough guys looking for glory, from a certain pov. Yes, this is a young guy looking to make a name for himself during a time when Klingons and the Federation are actually pursuing peace....so he's trying to make a name for himself during peace time when there are no battles to fight. So you get some wannabe hot shot making trouble when the old men are sitting down to talk. I wouldn't say it's reductive as much as reflective of the state of the Klingon Empire at the time.

These are kids out for glory, looking to capitalize on Kirk's reputation. They are talked down and made to apologize (yep, like a parent disciplining a child, and this is indeed an awful, awful ending) by an old legend. It's openly acknowledged, that makes it part of the continuity of the universe.

Lloyd's Kruge is very obviously trying so very hard to be Mr Hardass Klingon, yet the movie isn't aware of how heavy handed it is. That makes it insufferable for me.

But, really, these particular Klingons in TFF are hardly even in the movie. They are completely extraneous and tacked on. They shouldn't be in the movie at all. When I said "cool", I meant the sleeveless uniforms and the fact they cast a bodybuilder (which is a very 80s action casting), that's all.

I hardly care about FX work at all, especially at this point in the series. The effects in III and IV are terrible, too. I forgave them of that entirely and didn't bother mentioning it.

This is an actual shot from IV:


That's an actual shot from the movie, not just concept art.

If I took the effects from III, IV and V into consideration, they'd all fail based on their effects alone.

 

Fully understandable

 

It's good thing that effect shot wasn't designed to be freeze framed and relies on the motion of the people in the bottom of the frame to focus the audience while their brains model a viable 3D object from the outline of the ship and the perspective of the rest of the picture. And that it is on screen only for the few seconds that it is necessary to establish the location and the scenery.

Kind of like all matte painting shots of that type. Like this one, for example.

 

You're spectacularly wrong, and it's demonstrable just by looking at the two pics. So, thanks for defeating your argument for me. If you can't see the difference between the two, there's no point arguing.

 

There's a difference in that the painting takes up a smaller portion of the screen and the effectg they are going for with the same technique is not exactly the same.

Take away the figures in the foreground and the same issues of (partially) being a 2D painting begin to emerge once your eye has had a chance to linger.

Nothing can be "proved" by a still image of an effect used in a motion picture.

Here's another painting that "proves" how equally awful the effects were in ROTJ. Funny how you have an entirely different experience of the painting when you watch it used in the film.

 

I'll take the differences you just described and your need to change the reality of the shots in order to make a hypothetical comparison as you admitting to being wrong.

lol, you're talking to me as if I didn't just watch The Voyage Home the other day, when that shot stood out like a sore thumb. There's a reason I remembered that shot and referenced it, but do go on lecturing me about the difference between a motion picture and a frozen still when I just got done watching that motion picture.

Also, thank you for posting another picture of Star Wars' superior shots to demonstrate the inferiority of the one I posted from The Voyage Home. You continue to make my argument for me without realizing it. Again, all one has to do is look at them.

 

The only reason there I'm identifying a difference is because they are not directly comparable in terms of the desired outcome. But the technique and the inherent issues that become more or less apparent depending on how it is used, or if you just look at it as a still image, is exactly the same.

All three pictures look like a painting or at least partially a painting. They don't look photographs and they don't look life effects.

I'm not challenging your impression of the quality or otherwise of the shot as seen in the film. That's subjective. So the fact that you don't like the effect has nothing to do with me and is not proven or otherwise by anything I say because what you like or don't like is not an "argument" at all.

I am challenging the presentation of a still image as if it communicates your impression of the film's effects.

I am presenting a painting from ROTJ which is exactly as it appears as a shot in the film (with a gap for the foreground motion which actually provides the effect) which is arguably of a similar un-photrealistic nature to the AVH painting to demonstrate the futility of presenting a still image to "prove" anything to do with the viability or otherwise of a moving image.

 

What Have You Done To Solange? (1972) - Probably the best non Dario Argento giallo made, this (then) timely look at an abortion gone very wrong and the revenge that results from that incident, has something most Argento films lack: characterization and lots of it.

Saucy Italian/Physical Education teacher Enrico likes to flirt and have affairs with his college age students, much to his German teaching wife's dismay. On would what be a romantic rowboat excursion, Elizabeth -the young lass Enrico is trying to deflower- sees part of a murder in progress (someone in black, the flash of a knife) on the shore. Annoyed, Enrico goes along with her claims, accidentally becoming a suspect of the murder when he a) drops a pen and b) is photographed at the scene. His wife and peers at this All Girls religious college are NOT amused.

Eager to clear his name and make good with his wife, faculty and Elizabeth, Enrico becomes the armchair detective as more of his students suddenly die in the same horrible way (the knife is plunged into the young lady's nether regions resulting in instant death.) Naturally, there are plenty of red herrings and Elizabeth also dies along the way; another victim snuffed out as a result of that botched abortion. Ultimately, justice is served (as is the case with giallos, which is partly why I watch them), and more importantly, Enrico and his wife patch things up when she realizes he never had sex with Elizabeth.

Thankfully, director Massimo Dallamano knew not to show the murders in full (either stopping short as the killer does the deed, or an X-Ray image to reveal exactly what happened); the director coasts on the British setting though (this could have easily been filmed in Italy and been just as effective.) Yet for these quibbles, it's a solid movie and still holds up. This also feels somewhat more realistic given the killer's rationale than most giallos by Argento, Sergio Martino, Mario Bava and Lucio Fulci. Fabio Testi (as Enrico) is particularly good, as is, Cristine Galbo (Elizabeth.) I am not as much of a fan as of this as I once was though I do respect it because of the strong story and characters. The older I get, the more fantastic or strange I prefer my giallos to be (not surprising since I avoid most real world movies etc. anyway.) I'd rather be completely swept away in a surreal story that makes the 70s look as artificial as they could be than something that could actually happen.