IMDB-User-4801 Reviews

Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)

No lasting value

[4/10 · 3 April 2011]

I was actually led to a book written by Michael Piller about the process of writing the screenplay for 'Insurrection', in a kind of internet garden-path approach which began with Harry S. Plinckett's review of 'Insurrection'.

From watching the Plinckett review of 'Insurrection', one gets the idea that 'Insurrection' was written in a single afternoon by someone with little writing credential. For this reason I have found 'Fade In' a fascinating read, though partly in that kind of perverse sense in which you might watch the supplemental material included on a DVD of a movie you didn't enjoy--commentaries, "Making Of" featurettes, etc. Who was behind this; what went wrong; why did they spend all this time and money on such a mediocre film? I was surprised to learn that the screen writer, Michael Piller, is actually a veteran screenwriter (at least on television) where he wrote many classic ST:TNG episodes. It appears that he was much more restrained here than he ever was for a TV episode. The screenplay went through hundreds of drafts and tweaks, including significant executive meddling given the comparatively higher investment for a movie. It does seem as though the movie would have been better if he'd been granted greater creative control.

There were also some budgetary restraints, which sometimes dictated the story elements. However, I wouldn't say that these justify the story here being sub-par. 'Serenity' was made on a smaller budget and is still a much better sci-fi movie.

After watching the Plinckett review, the sheer number of glaring plot holes in 'Insurrection' does call into question whether Piller really knew what he was doing. I noticed that many of Plinckett's criticisms were actually the very same concerns that had been raised while the script was still being written. Paramount raised all of the following questions:

• How is the Baku race just 600 people, do they have children, and why haven't they died off from inbreeding? (question from Paramount executives)

• Why is Starfleet bending to the demands of weird aliens, why are the aliens employing the help of Starfleet? They appear to possess much advanced technology. The Enterprise was poorly matched against their fleet. They probably could have deployed the Collector without ever having gotten Starfleet involved or even registered on Starfleet's radar: they indicated that this was a fairly out-of-the-way planet, and it was surrounded in some kind of sensor-jamming ion storm.

It seems from 'Fade In' that Piller wanted to write 'Insurrection' as a short, sweet Picard story, with themes of love, regrowth, rejuvenation, old & young. But at each step, he was thwarted by executives who told him that he needed less dialogue, faster pacing, more action, cool weapons, and a big space battle involving a large explosion. Many viewers, including Plickett, complained about how Picard's behavior veers widely from TV Picard; however, Piller had intended this precise change in Picard's outlook on life to be the film's primary arc, his "hero's journey" as Piller stated it. Earlier versions of the screenplay devoted much dialogue to establishing this change in Picard; however, Piller was forced to minimize this dialogue and much of what *was* filmed of these scenes was later cut. I think that Piller was trying to veer the film into a character-building direction, while everyone else involved was trying to veer it into a big-dumb-action-movie direction, and so the tone of the resultant product is very confused because Piller essentially just can't really write film-grade action.

Overall a very dull effort, with nothing of lasting value to Star Trek. Aesthetically, both new alien races are duller than dull, with the Baku not even possessing a single distinctive non-human trait. Their clothing and village set pieces show zero creative effort. Although this was intended as a spiritual companion to "The Search For Spock" and "The Journey Home," people will continue to discuss the latter two movies for decades to come; nothing in 'Insurrection' has similar lasting value.

Kickassia (2010 Video)

A waste of time

[2/10 · 2 April 2011]

I have read a wide range of viewpoints on this movie, and honestly I find both the strongly negative arguments and the strongly positive arguments somewhat compelling in their own ways; however, I'd grant greater purchase to the negative views, and here is why.

On the one hand, you have a series of highly disjoint and awkwardly assembled set pieces, with characters numbering in the double digits, but none of them having a personality in any way distinct from any other character. They are all very mean-spirited and tend to speak only in a shouting voice, complete with exaggerated arm gestures and painfully contorted facial expressions, and there isn't really a single character for the audience to like and connect with. I guess that Brad Jones (the Cinema Snob) is somewhat likable, but his role is quite small, to where you couldn't really classify him as a protagonist in any respect. Every single character is a greedy sociopath bent on domination and constantly scheming. That could make for a good dark comedy, in the right hands, but it falls apart here because there's no goal or cause for the audience to care about. Now Doug's in the president's chair--okay, now Spoony's in charge--oh, no wait, now Lindsay is running things. None of these is a meaningful transition, since Doug, Spoony, and Lindsay are all basically the same character--a scheming sociopath. Meanwhile, all conflicts are played out in the same exact manner: long fight scenes consisting in the worst fight choreography I have ever witnessed, including in community theater. Also, the characters all evidently have infinite hit points and never sustain injuries and occasionally display never-before-so-much-as-hinted super powers, so there is no drama to these scenes. Spoony and Doug Walker apparently both possess force lightning, while Sage has super- strength (or something).

On the other hand, one can tell that a lot of effort went into making this movie. But that's the problem in many ways, because one wonders *why* they went to so much effort for such a weak screenplay. I mean, they all flew to Nevada and rented rooms at a hotel in Reno. Benzaie came all the way from France. They composed a score, stitched together a couple costumes, and even hired the "president" of a micronation to provide his home and lend his acting ... talent? The effort is all very transparent, and it's almost as though the movie tries to convince you it's good solely on account of this effort; the problem is that I cannot discern any true creative spark beneath the heaps of detritus. I don't think that Doug Walker woke up one morning to be whacked in the head by his muse with artistic inspiration, resulting in this film. Rather, it looks as though he squeezed out a corporate product with a checklist of elements, like a weird low-budget version of the Star Wars prequels. The fact that it's low budget doesn't negate that the movie is essentially a money-making vehicle and hardly an artistic product. I'm not sure whether Doug and Rob Walker ever had a coherent vision for what they wanted 'Kickassia' to be. The tone is really confused, constantly veering between light slapstick and heavy black comedy.

That said, there are some positive factors. I wouldn't go so far as to describe the tech aspects as *adequate* but obviously someone was paying attention to giving the movie at least a slight veneer of respectability. (The special effects, though, which appear to all be post-production Adobe After-Effects, look terrible. Cummon, you couldn't buy a couple firecrackers and bottle rockets in *Nevada* and done some real, tangible special effects? It's like the most lawless state in the nation!) And it was kind of a funny tone shift when Santa Christ is shot, bringing the action to a sudden halt. I would say the scene is good only because it's the only time that a physical confrontation actually has consequences.

The Eagle Has Landed (1976)

Skip the first hour

[7/10 · 7 March 2011]

This movie gets off to one slow start. On top of polluting an otherwise good film with redundant characters from the Nazi high command having endless conversations, it is difficult to understand their dialogue, as it is delivered in a kind of thick German accent -- and our edition has NO SUBTITLES. My friends and I literally paused the movie after about forty-five minutes and discussed just giving up and watching something else. We decided that we would wait until we got to Michael Caine and Donald Sutherland. I'm glad that we did.

Let me go ahead and say that a distracting issue with this movie is that the Germans all speak English. Most unfortunate, they do so with different English accents. Donald Sutherland's character is an Irish German, and he has an Irish accent! What were they thinking?

But as most other reviewers have noted, the second half is exceptional. The young American sergeant is honestly one of the most accurate portrayals of an American soldier that I have ever seen on screen. The American stereotype general is, on the other hand ... a stereotype. He's a bit unrealistic and overused.

Michael Caine is, as always, splendid. It is great to watch a younger Mr. Caine in film. To witness his poise and delivery in this film, back when he was in his physical prime, is a memorable experience.

Honestly, skip up until you get to the scene with Donald Sutherland: the rest is completely useless prattle. Except for the scene on the railroad (with Michael Caine) -- that one is pretty good too.

Law & Order: Release (2006) Season 17, Episode 8

Boring investigation followed by predictable courtroom antics

[4/10 · 3 March 2011]

This episode is strange for reading like a Law & Order: SVU episode. Evidently the Mothership writers wanted to try their hand at a sex crime plot. As is common in with most SVU episodes, they gussy up a banal sex-crime plot with brief glimpses at footage of nude or scantily clad women, in the increasingly perverse pursuit of pushing further the line that divides 4 p.m. TNT broadcasts and 2 a.m. Cinemax programming.

A young man is found murdered in a film trailer for what is essentially a lawsuit-friendly version of Girls Gone Wild, and a single bloody fingerprint found at the scene matches none of the records. Everyone denies having seen anything, and security footage proves that they are lying. From a shaky ID obtained from a bartender, they determine that the killer was a probably young blonde woman. One suspect stands out as unusually academically focused in comparison to the other blondes whom the detectives interview. She declines their request for a fingerprint sample, but she is then tricked by Det. Cassady who feigns mistakenly handing her two business cards. I can excuse the suspect, Nicole, for not watching enough Law & Order to recognize this rather common ploy, but the writers ham-headedly assume that the viewers don't watch Law & Order, either: under the assumption that the viewer is a moron, Det. Cassady blurts out Det. Green that now it's only a matter of getting the business card to the lab for fingerprint analysis. Okay, except anyone who's ever filed a police report would know that police use matte cards, because they often need to write the case number down on the card for your reference. Matte cards are better for writing on, but glossies would be a lot better for retaining a print.

They arrest Nicole, and she confesses to the murder. She said that the show's producer blackmailed her into having sex with him in order to withhold nude footage of her that she'd consented to when she was drunk, on vacation. After having sex with her, he told her that he was changing the deal, and that now she had to have sex with his friend. He left to get his friend. When the friend came in, she panicked, bludgeoned him to death, and escaped through the window. Nicole pleas to manslaughter with the agreement to testify against the producer, whom they decide to charge with felony-murder. This was actually an unexpected turn, because had this been an SVU episode, I am sure that charges against Nicole would have been dropped, as it sounded as though she was defending herself against gang rape. Part of the logic for charging her seemed to rest on the fact that she had an opportunity to leave the trailer voluntarily in-between her encounters with the two men. However there was not very much time in-between encounters. She would have needed to first put her clothes back on, she was clearly traumatized, and her encounter with the second man could easily be construed as rape.

During Nicole's testimony, in one of the most preposterous court-room displays on this side of SVU, the producer's attorney shows to the jury the original Girls Gone Wild video of Nicole drunkenly consenting to being taped and then fully disrobing. Just because the plot is SVU doesn't mean you need to follow SVU's lead in abandoning all notion of reality -- and taste. Although this damaged Nicole's credibility as a prosecution witness, the mother of another young woman comes forward, who was apparently subjected by the film's producer to an ordeal exactly like Nicole's.

Several times during this episode, they explained the logic behind what is admittedly a legal peculiarity, felony-murder. I suppose that this was for the viewer's benefit, but right before the jury's decision the producer, for about the fourteenth time this episode, was like, "How can I be convicted of murder if I didn't commit the murder?" That has already twice been explained -- and then they explained it again. I guess they ran out of questionably pornographic material so they needed some good ol' filler. He declines a plea offer for rape minus the murder, and the jury comes back with a murder conviction. The end.

The series was on an obvious decline during this period, and it's surprising that they bounced back later with two strong closing seasons. While Law & Order had traditionally featured the occasional allusion to real-life headlines, during this period they formed the story of virtually every single episode around a rather obvious link to headlines. I guess that they thought viewers were too stupid to follow a story not crafted around some headline.

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit: Baggage (2009) Season 10, Episode 18

Poorly written and generally unengaging story

[5/10 · 26 May 2010]

This episode has a poorly conceived procedural investigation and a throwaway drama. As usual with Law & Order, they try to gussy up a boring episode with gratuitous shots of murder victims and soon-to-be- murdered victims and some random self-inflicted gore posed by the initial false lead.

After the cold open, we learn that the killer's MO matches that of another recent murder. Enter a new, never-before-seen, apparently rival special victims unit consisting of a loner detective and his boss. The newcomers inform the team that the murders match the MOs of three additional murders in New York in recent months. This doesn't make sense, as the whole premise of the show is that there is a single elite squad "known as the special victims unit", not two rival squads competing for cases and childishly keeping secret their respective findings.

After the false lead they do one of those DNA tests where they put in the order to the M.E. at 10:30 a.m., and no sooner do they come back to lunch than they have up on their giant LCDs the drivers license photos of all the male offspring related to the "donors" of all the black pubic hairs they'd managed to uncover at crime scenes. Naturally, after a couple face-to-face interviews they are able to narrow it down to one single person (why so quickly do they dismiss the farmer from North Carolina?), and in a tease we see the perp about to commit another rape- murder when it turns out to be a sting operation. They arrest him, but because he has an alibi for one of the murders the judge allows him to go free. I'm sorry, did he not assault the undercover police officer just 15 minutes (11.5 without commercials) earlier? Does that no longer count as a crime? I suspect the writers were experiencing short-term memory lapses.

Thanks to these lapses, however, the writers gleefully show the perp in action on a real delivery. Stabler and Tutuola come in just in time to see a nude teenager lying hot-tied on her coffee table. Stabler attempts to rescue the dignity of the near-victim by placing his jacket over her, quickly realizing his stupidity as the jacket is not really designed with that function in mind and provides only a partial veil at best. Honestly, you find somebody hog-tied and give them your jacket? Meanwhile, the rival detective of the week kicks the perp a few times in the stomach, but then Stabler--always one to rough-handle anyone he considers a suspect--stops him (probably so that he can get a few kicks in later, when there won't be any witnesses about). Oh, and remember all that talk about what a professional the suspect supposedly is, never leaving fingerprints, etc.? He's bare-handed in this scene.

We are asked to care about our guest star, and while I admit that his character was well thought out, he would have been a more appropriate character as an arc spanning more than one episode. He does have a discernible character arc, as he becomes more cooperative with coworkers throughout this episode, but it's quite a lot for the viewer to take in. It seems as if the writers are working at cross-purposes, trying to make us care about this other detective while trying to distract us from that subplot by dropping juicy details about one victim's rectal cavity and another's secret life as a lesbian.

Overall, this is just another mid-season episode out there for viewers who care less about the procedural aspects of the show and more about the lascivious sex crimes.

Mom at Sixteen (2005 TV Movie)

Heart-felt with a great cast, engaging style

[8/10 · 25 February 2010]

I had some issues with what I felt were this movie's attempts at achieving emotional extremes through completely unrealistic portrayals of high school students, but overall I felt that the movie's many engaging elements outweigh those negatives. There were also some questionable elements which I think are positive but can't really decide. I'll start with the positive.

The film generally employs a hand-held style of cinematography, which I think was a good idea; however, if you are watching it online as I was, this can blend with occasional choppiness to make it look like your whole computer screen is jerking back and forth. You can do hand-held without going the full Blair Witch!

Danielle Panabaker, who plays the lead character Jacey, is exceptional. She really gets into the character, and her performance is compelling throughout. I like the way that Jacey wears glasses at home and contacts when going out -- I don't think I've seen a movie take that much attention to detail. And I don't think I've ever seen actors in her age range sell sex as well as she does in Jacey's brief romantic encounter with Brad. Also, I liked the scene in which she just kind of confusedly visits her teacher. We've all had days like that, where we wind up at the house of a trusted acquaintance, don't really know what we're doing there, and maybe wind up falling asleep on their couch. Clearly a lot of thought went into this screenplay.

The film employs kind of a gradual-reveal style of exposition, in which we don't definitively learn that Charley is Jacey's baby until about a quarter of the way in. It was perhaps hinted at, but it came across as a genuine surprise--somewhat rare today in movies--that we start 5 months into the baby's life.

The slow reveal also applies to the introduction of Brad to the film, which occurs maybe halfway through. What I found interesting was that the film had, up until this point, portrayed Jacey as intelligent and mature for her age. She hadn't really done anything to bother the viewer. But from Brad, we learn that she 1) hadn't spoken to him in several months, 2) nor had she told him about her pregnancy. It serves as a reminder that Jacey, though precocious, is only 16 and capable of erring.

The idea of Jayce's atypical loss of infallibility is emphasized too in the story, by Macey. Moving now into semi-negative territory, I found Macey's going-wild subplot to be more than a little strange, but I guess that the purpose was to show the influence that Jayce's irresponsible behavior had on her younger sister. Anyone with younger siblings may appreciate that subplot, even if its depiction was a little over-the- top.

It was refreshing to see Jane Krakowski in a role outside of 30 Rock. I generally liked her performance, except for her outburst in the first scene at her home, which seemed so overly dramatic that I could easily imagine it being a 30 Rock soap parody with Jenna Maroney cast as a character.

But then there was the high school. Now, things got off to a good start, and I do have to give the movie credit for showing rather than telling: as Jayce first walks the halls of her new school, the camera pans to show the very revealing clothing worn by many girls. After this, however, they dispensed with realism and went a very generically unrealistic route. You can't walk into the restrooms at this school without seeing people either smoking or having sex, making no effort to conceal either act. A dress code is often mentioned but never adhered to. In real life, a dress code violation means that you get into trouble; repeated violations lead to serious disciplinary action. Finger-length shorts, for example, isn't just a recommended guideline: it's a rule, the breaking of which can result in being kicked out of school. For this reason, students generally avoid breaking dress code; when occasional violations occur, they try to be inconspicuous about it, so as to avoid getting in trouble. Paradoxically, it seemed as if the screenwriters could accurately write individual high schoolers (Jacey) but not groups of high schoolers. (A standing ovation? Really??)

Most egregiously unrealistic, there was the the student body's reaction to news that Jayce is a teenage mother. At first, I thought that I was watching either a dream sequence or a Jayce's exaggerated internal paranoia, where everyone was conspicuously and audibly talking about her and, later, THROWING FOOD AT HER. Where did that come from? At what high school do kids start throwing food at someone just because she is a teenage mother? Answer: none. Even less believable considering that Jayce is beautiful and intelligent. I would think that her main problem would be receiving too much positive attention, being courted by lots of guys and worked into women's cliques and power struggles, a la Twilight or Mean Girls. Juno was a bit similar in this regard, as we had to believe that someone as smart, funny, and hot as Ellen Page's character would have only one close friend. Anyway, this was one extreme that I felt was contrived. but like I said, overall a great movie. 8/10 on a general scale, but 9.5/10 as far as made-for-TV movies go.