krj Reviews

Pirates of Silicon Valley (1999 TV Movie)

Fine, but it brings nothing new

[5/10 · 21 June 1999]

The real problem with this movie is that it brings nothing new to the saga. People already familiar with most of the story won't find any shocking revelations here: Paul Allen did most of the work developing BASIC (with Gates as typist); Gates and Co. bought DOS (beginning a fine Microsoft tradition of never developing anything from scratch) and resold it; Jobs steals the GUI from Xerox, and Gates steals it from Jobs.

The script is bland, but towards the end, Gates is given a fairly good speech, the point of which is true: Jobs stole the GUI, too--he just wanted to be the *first* to steal it.

Still, I recommend the film. Why? The filmmakers achieve a stunning resonance between images of Jobs standing in front of a projection screen in 1984 running Apple's "Big Brother" commercial" and Jobs standing in front of the projection screen in 1997 announcing the deal with Microsoft...with Bill Gates looking down at him. For me, that resonance made the two hours worthwhile. It's really an excellent image.

Taste of Cherry (1997)

Moving allegory

[8/10 · 17 June 1999]

I was prepared to dislike this film. Instead, I wound up fascinated. The state can't help Mr. Badii, the church can't help him...and even though nature, in the form of Mr. Bagheri, tries, we do not know if it succeeds. Absolutely fascinating. It shows that a director doesn't need $200,000,000 and a raft of special effects and explosions to make a good film.

As for the shot-on-video ending, it's entirely possible that it's there to appease the Iranian censors. "Look! Here's Mr. Badii! Alive and well. It's just a movie!" Another subtle commentary on the state of affairs in Iran today, I'll wager. At least, that's how I chose to see it.

It seems to me that the title reflects Douglas Adams' techniques for flying--fall, and then distract yourself so that you don't hit the ground. It's not that the taste of cherry makes life worth living, per se, it's that simple things can distract you from your cares.

This movie was well-shot, well-directed, well-acted, and well-written. Highly recommended.

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)

Weak, but not the worst Trek film

[27 May 1999]

I was 18 when this movie came out, and I was a much bigger Star Trek fan then than I am now. I was very, very disappointed in it then--because I was watching with the hypersensitive eye of the Star Trek fan, rather than the eye of a film aficionado. Now that I'm older and wiser, I see that this movie, although weak, is not the worst Star Trek movie ever made.

I'm going to admit, first and foremost, that I think William Shatner is an incredible actor. He's able to sell us Kirk in a way that, for me, Patrick Stewart has never been able to sell Picard. Second, I'm going to admit that I thought that "Next Generation" was a seven-year string of duds. The characters were boring, the actors lifeless and insipid, the writing lacking.

Back to "The Final Frontier". Purely in terms of story, this was easily the most revelatory film in the series, next to "The Wrath of Khan". We get to learn a lot about Spock, McCoy, and Kirk in the scene where Sybok shows them--or, in Kirk's case, is not allowed to show--moments from their personal histories.

It's difficult to sit through this movie; it really isn't very exciting or engaging. It does have its moments--the aforementioned scene being one of them, the brig scene being another, the confrontation with "God" being a third--and those moments are easily worth the price of a rental from your local video store.

In short, if you're a fan of the true, real Star Trek, and you haven't seen this movie because you've been told it's the worst one, see it anyway. (Look at it this way: your favorite band probably has an album or two that is weaker than its other albums, but which for you is still better than anything by a band you don't like. For me, it's "Test For Echo" by Rush. I'd listen to that before, say, the Backstreet Boys any day.) Yes, it has its "insider" moments (specifically, the scenes bookending the movie), but it is far, FAR better in that regard than the dull, insipid "Star Trek: Insurrection". Watch "The Final Frontier" with an open mind, and you'll probably come to the conclusion, as I did when I rewatched it a couple of times recently, that while they should have stopped making movies after "The Wrath of Khan", this isn't the worst Trek movie by a long shot.

On the other hand, if you're the kind of person who LOVED "The Voyage Home", and who thinks that "The Next Generation" was the best show on television, you'll probably want to give this one a miss and rent the adventures of Captain Baldy and First Officer Potsie instead.

(For the record, the worst Trek film is in fact the lifeless "Star Trek: Insurrection", which has a horribly large collection of little fanboy moments and showcases horrible performances from Stewart and Brent Spiner.)

Hawaii (1966)

Dull, unsympathetic, lifeless

[1/10 · 20 May 1999]

This movie is unwatchable. The characters are unsympathetic and boring. I found its depiction of Hawaiian history...well, "interesting" would be the charitable way to put it, I suppose. If you like to watch movies for the pretty pictures, this will probably be right up your alley. There are certainly pretty pictures in abundance. However, if you want something more than insufferable boors (the haoles) and cartoonish stereotypes (the Hawaiians), if you want a movie that has a plot that won't make you fall asleep, go somewhere else.

"We must convert these simple folk" and "I don't want these heathens touching my wife" got real old real fast.

For a much better movie about Hawaii, check out "Picture Bride". It's about a later period, but very well made, effective, and affecting. "Hawaii", the movie, is not worth wasting three hours of your life.