Opening - spectacular, alternates between silly and bloomin' fantastic. Christopher Lee - wasted. Grievous - underdeveloped. Ian McDiarmid - marvellous. Love story - less embarrassing than feared. Acting - see Love story. Chewbacca's appearance - welcome but wasted. Dialogue - dire-logue. Windu vs Palpatine - tense; climax superb but horrible. Anakin's acceptance of the Dark Side - weak. Order 66 - well realised. Yoda vs Palpatine - better than expected. Obi-Wan vs Anakin - starts incredibly well, loses it, regains it at the end. Birth scenes - touching. Vader's noooooo! and rest of ending - criminally rushed. I'm off to watch the Eurovision Song Contest, where I expect to experience similar highs and lows to those I felt watching ROTS.
Reviews
9 Reviews
Dodgy in parts, but ultimately fun.
8 August 2004
What did happen to the effects work of the 1989 summer films?
Both this and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade suffer from some awful processing work. Of course, the Last Crusade had a very good script to rely on, whereas The Final Frontier has less so. Still, I'd much rather watch this than the crushing bores that are Generations and Insurrection. It has amusing moments, a good villain in Sybok and the old cast still retain all their old charisma. Given the opportunity to stay in and watch this on telly, as I am doing now, or go out and watch recent stuff like Catwoman or Van Helsing, I think it's an easy decision to stay exactly where I am.
Both this and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade suffer from some awful processing work. Of course, the Last Crusade had a very good script to rely on, whereas The Final Frontier has less so. Still, I'd much rather watch this than the crushing bores that are Generations and Insurrection. It has amusing moments, a good villain in Sybok and the old cast still retain all their old charisma. Given the opportunity to stay in and watch this on telly, as I am doing now, or go out and watch recent stuff like Catwoman or Van Helsing, I think it's an easy decision to stay exactly where I am.
Battle Beyond the Stars
(1980)
I'm not going to say much about this film
20 February 2004
other than it's great and everyone should see it. It has a great cast; it's wittily scripted and is pacy enough to hold anyone's attention. I saw it at the cinema back in the early 80s, and I've enjoyed it just as much every time since. I say this often, but it seems the point of a film like this was to be enjoyable as well as to make money. How many modern fantasy pictures can claim that?
The Shape of Things to Come
(1979)
At least Carol Lynley looks nice.
5 February 2004
Warning: Spoilers
If this is the shape of things to come, thank God you live in the 21st Century. This film is perfect for spoofing. Notably bad moments - when the Starstreaker spaceship hits top speed. This is represented by having the cheap model ship veer from the left to the right (while still appearing to be stationary), a slight increase in noise and by having the actors look awed. One of the least impressive effects I have ever seen. The villain's death is worth waiting for too. Resigned to his fate, Palance sits in his chair and waits for the planet to explode around him. During this cataclysmic moment a large piece of ceiling falls on his head. Instead of braining him as you might expect it simply bounces off. Palance looks as surprised as everyone else. Oh, and those robots.....oh dear!
Inseminoid
(1981)
Bonkers!
12 January 2004
The BBC struck a blow for quality programming last Saturday night, showing first the quite dreadful Highlander - Endgame, and then following it with this curiosity. Unfortunately I was far too under the influence to stay awake for the duration of the film. Seeing as this film fell foul of the Video Recordings Act in Britain back in the early 80s, can anyone tell me if the BBC broadcast the film uncut? The one thing that stuck in my mind before I passed into unconsciousness was the use of milk crates in the creation of a futuristic set. Alien used gritty industrial and bio-organic design to portray its vision of the future. Inseminoid used milk crates. Both were made in Britain. Makes you proud!
Spider-Man
(2002)
Not a patch on Hulk
3 December 2003
This was by far the greater financial success of the two. However, if you want satisfying action scenes, a truer emotional impact, and by far a more interesting take on a comic book hero then Hulk is the one to watch. Raimi directs well, and the first half is amusing and uplifting. However the action scenes are disappointing, the poor CGI sticks out like a sore thumb, and the climax is woeful. This ranks well behind the first two Superman films, Batman Returns, Batman itself and possibly Superman III when it comes down to just the fun of it. The first main trailer was good though.
Ghostwatch
(1992 TV Movie)
Ghostwatch
31 July 2003
Considering some of the myths and stories that have been generated by the legendary Halloween 1992 showing of Ghostwatch some disappointment may be felt when actually viewing it long after it was to have its greatest impact. However that is not to detract from what is an original and innovative drama, and one that has retained its ability to scare.
A BBC team are invited to Britain's most haunted house to investigate a malevolent presence terrorising the family that live there, in particular the eldest near-pubescent daughter. As events unfold live from the house an initially sceptical Michael Parkinson and an ever increasingly concerned parapsychologist begin to realise that the BBC is about to score a scoop far greater, and more dangerous, than they had bargained for.
I recall seeing Ghostwatch on its first and only transmission. I had missed the opening Screen One card and titles so what I sat down to I initially believed to be a real investigation into a haunted house. The first university research footage of a poltergeist attack on the two girls made my blood run cold. I remember phoning a friend to see if he was watching. I was shaken. Then I started to realise certain things. The mother and eldest daughter were not convincing. The parapsychologist was clearly an actress. The slightly improvisational interaction between the presenters was clearly a scripted attempt at improvisation. I was disappointed, indeed sufficiently so to change the channel and only occasionally dip back into the programme. I remember the press reports over the following days. I couldn't believe they were referring to the programme I had glimpsed. Then Ghostwatch was buried and forgotten.
Then it came back, released on dvd by the BFI. People started to write about it again, reporting that it still had the power to chill. I had to see it again. I watched it twice this week. The strange thing I realised was that despite the poor acting and the occasionally clichéd script, those people who said it retained its power to scare were absolutely right.
Ghostwatch won't make you jump. It won't turn your stomach and it won't make you scream. Ghostwatch will simply unnerve you. It will make you check things that you see from the corner of your eye again. It will make you wonder what that shape in the corner of your room really is, as you struggle to sleep after viewing the show. It will make you ask whether that really is the sound of the central heating pipes expanding, or contracting, or is it something else.
It's true enough that some of the acting is poor, undermining the verisilimitude of the film. One wishes that the script allowed for more spontaneity from the cast. As it is the actors are quite obviously adhering to a script and their attempts at looking genuinely astonished, scared, unnerved by the events are frequently wooden. Probably the most convincing member of the cast is Craig Charles. His performance is light and therefore he appears the most natural. Sarah Greene does very well for the most part, although once strange events begin to occur it is clear that she is acting scared rather than actually being scared. Michael Parkinson is poor, but his part doesn't help. One simply can't believe that an institution such as he could be so openly cold and dismissive to the plight of the family, as he frequently is (he is particularly unsympathetic at the moment the older girl is found covered in scratches).
So what does work? The staggered revelations about the house and family's history are intriguing and eerie, as is the idea that the accumulation of evil over time in the house and the area has led to a manifestation of hateful malevolence. Sound and video effects are put to excellent use. The occupants of the house are subjected to sudden bumps, crashes and, as more secrets of the house are revealed, the awful wailing of cats. The ghostly voices are creepy in the extreme, particularly the inhuman voice played back on the studio tape recorder. What you hear can be far scarier than what you see and the makers of Ghostwatch play on this with great skill.
The link between house and studio begins to deteriorate late in the show. Picture and sound slow down. The link is lost and regained. The sense that something evil has penetrated the broadcast equipment and begun to transmit itself to homes across the UK is brilliantly done. In the studio more and more callers report strange events at their own homes, events that mirror what is happening in the house. Glass breaks, clocks stop, and dogs start barking at the screen. The parapsychologist realises that the BBC transmission has effectively provided the environment for a national séance. Every home tuned into the programme is now primed for supernatural attack. It's a wonderfully apocalyptic idea and one can imagine how disturbing this must have been for those original viewers who bought the idea that the show was live. As it stood the programme was blamed for several women going into premature labour, for 2 boys requiring treatment for post-traumatic stress, and for the tragic suicide of one young man. One can now understand why the BBC blocked the writer's attempts to have a high-frequency noise, calculated to upset viewers' pets, played on the soundtrack during the show's climax. It could have been the first television show in British history to create civic disorder.
I can't recall the last time a British television programme made such a bold attempt to scare. It's surprising considering the wealth of ghost lore we have to draw on in this country (the UK reportedly has more ghosts per square mile than any other place on earth). It's a testament to Ghostwatch that it has since become a fondly regarded piece of that tradition.
A BBC team are invited to Britain's most haunted house to investigate a malevolent presence terrorising the family that live there, in particular the eldest near-pubescent daughter. As events unfold live from the house an initially sceptical Michael Parkinson and an ever increasingly concerned parapsychologist begin to realise that the BBC is about to score a scoop far greater, and more dangerous, than they had bargained for.
I recall seeing Ghostwatch on its first and only transmission. I had missed the opening Screen One card and titles so what I sat down to I initially believed to be a real investigation into a haunted house. The first university research footage of a poltergeist attack on the two girls made my blood run cold. I remember phoning a friend to see if he was watching. I was shaken. Then I started to realise certain things. The mother and eldest daughter were not convincing. The parapsychologist was clearly an actress. The slightly improvisational interaction between the presenters was clearly a scripted attempt at improvisation. I was disappointed, indeed sufficiently so to change the channel and only occasionally dip back into the programme. I remember the press reports over the following days. I couldn't believe they were referring to the programme I had glimpsed. Then Ghostwatch was buried and forgotten.
Then it came back, released on dvd by the BFI. People started to write about it again, reporting that it still had the power to chill. I had to see it again. I watched it twice this week. The strange thing I realised was that despite the poor acting and the occasionally clichéd script, those people who said it retained its power to scare were absolutely right.
Ghostwatch won't make you jump. It won't turn your stomach and it won't make you scream. Ghostwatch will simply unnerve you. It will make you check things that you see from the corner of your eye again. It will make you wonder what that shape in the corner of your room really is, as you struggle to sleep after viewing the show. It will make you ask whether that really is the sound of the central heating pipes expanding, or contracting, or is it something else.
It's true enough that some of the acting is poor, undermining the verisilimitude of the film. One wishes that the script allowed for more spontaneity from the cast. As it is the actors are quite obviously adhering to a script and their attempts at looking genuinely astonished, scared, unnerved by the events are frequently wooden. Probably the most convincing member of the cast is Craig Charles. His performance is light and therefore he appears the most natural. Sarah Greene does very well for the most part, although once strange events begin to occur it is clear that she is acting scared rather than actually being scared. Michael Parkinson is poor, but his part doesn't help. One simply can't believe that an institution such as he could be so openly cold and dismissive to the plight of the family, as he frequently is (he is particularly unsympathetic at the moment the older girl is found covered in scratches).
So what does work? The staggered revelations about the house and family's history are intriguing and eerie, as is the idea that the accumulation of evil over time in the house and the area has led to a manifestation of hateful malevolence. Sound and video effects are put to excellent use. The occupants of the house are subjected to sudden bumps, crashes and, as more secrets of the house are revealed, the awful wailing of cats. The ghostly voices are creepy in the extreme, particularly the inhuman voice played back on the studio tape recorder. What you hear can be far scarier than what you see and the makers of Ghostwatch play on this with great skill.
The link between house and studio begins to deteriorate late in the show. Picture and sound slow down. The link is lost and regained. The sense that something evil has penetrated the broadcast equipment and begun to transmit itself to homes across the UK is brilliantly done. In the studio more and more callers report strange events at their own homes, events that mirror what is happening in the house. Glass breaks, clocks stop, and dogs start barking at the screen. The parapsychologist realises that the BBC transmission has effectively provided the environment for a national séance. Every home tuned into the programme is now primed for supernatural attack. It's a wonderfully apocalyptic idea and one can imagine how disturbing this must have been for those original viewers who bought the idea that the show was live. As it stood the programme was blamed for several women going into premature labour, for 2 boys requiring treatment for post-traumatic stress, and for the tragic suicide of one young man. One can now understand why the BBC blocked the writer's attempts to have a high-frequency noise, calculated to upset viewers' pets, played on the soundtrack during the show's climax. It could have been the first television show in British history to create civic disorder.
I can't recall the last time a British television programme made such a bold attempt to scare. It's surprising considering the wealth of ghost lore we have to draw on in this country (the UK reportedly has more ghosts per square mile than any other place on earth). It's a testament to Ghostwatch that it has since become a fondly regarded piece of that tradition.
The most underrated of the series
21 July 2003
The Search for Spock is a wonderfully sombre addition to the series. A battered Enterprise crew return to Earth where they learn that Spock's spirit has been stored within McCoy's mind. The crew steal the Enterprise and head for the Genesis planet with the aim of returning Spock's spirit to his body. However a Klingon Bird of Prey lays in wait, its ruthless captain eager to obtain the secrets of Genesis for himself. The third Star Trek film is more thoughtful than most, equally effective in its quieter character focussed moments as it is in its action sequences. The acting is uniformly good, with Shatner and Lloyd for me being the stand-outs. There is much humour to enjoy as well, but the prevailing tone of the film is sombre, the film dealing with the themes of grief and sacrifice throughout. The destruction of the Enterprise is profoundly moving, although one wonders at how quickly and easily Kirk makes the decision to self-destruct the ship. Technically the film is good. The ILM effects of the various ships and spacedock are particularly attractive. James Horner's soundtrack, a slight variation on his Star Trek II theme, is wonderful.
Superman
(1978)
A wonderful film
20 May 2003
I agree with many of the previous reviewers. This really was one of the fore-runners of the fantasy event films that seem so common these days. Unlike modern blockbusters however films like Superman did not fizzle out almost as soon as they opened, but instead seemed to dominate the cinemas for months. Indeed as well as being very much part of its age the first Superman film also helped to define it. It's of a time when Hollywood films, even the big budget fantasy scripts, were still made for an adult audience. The film has a sly, literate script that embraces the mythic qualities of the Superman legend at the same time as it gently mocks some of its more innocent aspects. The first half is stunning: a beautifully shot homage to pastoral life and a sensitive depiction of a young alien's 'growing pains'. The second half is equally good. The seedy, frenetic pace of Metropolis life contrasts sharply with the rural idyll of Superman's upbringing, taking the film out of the 50s and into the cynical 70s. From here on Superman most resembles a hybrid of disaster movie and urban comedy, but it works. The cast is faultless. Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder share true chemistry (in the dvd screen tests you can see that they clicked from the start) and Gene Hackman, sometimes criticised for this performance, makes for a memorably smug yet comic Lex Luthor. Spider-man did very little for me. I liked the first Batman film to a degree, I liked Batman Returns a lot more, whereas Forever and Batman and Robin put me in the mind for jumping off a bridge. I thought X-Men was good and I hear decent things about X-Men 2. I don't think any of them come close to Superman however (or indeed Superman II), either as an adaptation of a treasured comic character or even as good, old-fashioned Hollywood entertainment. I think a lot of people who have not seen this film since they were children and who probably dismiss it now need to see it again.
Tell Your Friends