Change Your Image
stuartie_holland
Reviews
Star Trek: Picard (2020)
Polarises opinions, but I love it.
There are a lot of very negative reviews on here, but it's not really a surprise since this is a show that will polarise opinions. I love it however, for several reasons.
Firstly, it IS Star Trek. It's not the camp, 60s Trek of Shatner and Nimoy but it follows the other series pretty well. Earth has been bombarded by the Borg, then there was the Dominion War in DS9. That series, for me some of the best Star Trek has to offer, was pretty dark and Picard follows on from that. It continues the themes of what sentient life is from the TNG episodes involving Data like Measure of a Man and his "daughter" Lal and the Voyager episodes about the Doctor and the rights of holograms. It has the Borg and the Romulans, the two biggest and baddest TNG bad guys in it. There are plenty of nods to the original series and those that follow like having Maddox, Seven of Nine, Hugh, the Tal Shiar et al all involved and it suits the way the modern viewer watches TV, wanting a continual storyline with character development and jeopardy rather than the episodic "alien of the week" way that stories had to be told in the days of syndication. I guess if you prefer that single, hour-long episodic melodrama then classic Trek is more to your taste than this.
In terms of storyline, there is a long game to be played out and there are a lot of little set piece action scenes as well as plenty of opportunities for Sir Patrick Stewart to show his class by bringing a sensitivity and sense of age to the character we all love in Jean-Luc Picard. His age has caught up with him and he can't physically cope with the demands of the task but the old dreamer still thinks he has one last mission in him and will do everything he can to preserve the memory of his friend Data. I'm struggling to see how anyone can hate this show so much.
Yes, there is swearing but coming from the UK it's always hilarious to me when US dramas have characters who DON'T swear (especially police procedurals, shows about drug dealers and the mafia etc) simply because of an outdated moral "code" on their network TV. Of course people in Star Trek didn't swear in the old TV shows but not being on network TV allows for a more realistic way of presenting the frustrations, hopes, fears and everything else than trying to avoid some naughty words. Yes, it's lefty, with its message about helping refugees and pointing out that a military organisation might not have the same interests as the general population or the more optimistic dreamers but Star Trek has always been that way and will always continue to be that way. And yes it has the lens flares and the Dutch angles and the non-linear storytelling but do we expect colourful sets and uniforms, cardboard sets and terrible lizards like the Original Series when filmmaking has come on for far in the 60 years since that time?
Watch it, don't watch it; but don't believe all the haters who say it isn't Star Trek or that it's a muddled mess. It's not TNG, it's not DS9 but it is good. It's better than Enterprise, Voyager and Discovery. Give it a go if you're a Trek fan and I'm sure you'll enjoy it. And if you aren't a fan then watch it for Sir Patrick Stewart alone.
A Shot at Glory (2000)
Not as bad as some make out, not as good either...
Well it looks as though, like Marmite, you either love or hate this movie. I saw it in an empty cinema in Edinburgh with a friend of mine who doesn't like football (soccer) but is a huge film buff. It's a shame the theatre was so quiet, as there were some good moments that deserved a higher attendance. Ally McCoist in particular belies his lack of acting experience and shows of his lovable rouge persona that British TV viewers will be familiar with from A Question of Sport.
Robert Duvall for me looked like he was having fun, but his accent is really hit and miss, going from Groundskeeper Willie to Sean Connery via Brigadoon. To be fair to Duvall, the area of Scotland the film is set is known for it's accent, which is different from the main cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow (Scotland has many local dialects and accents so it's difficult to have a true representation of the accent).
Sadly Michael Keaton doesn't add anything to the movie other than a name. While it may have helped secure funding, Keaton doesn't do much apart from play the pantomime baddie, and as such his part in the proceedings is minimal. Unless you are a massive Keaton fan it's not worth watching his performance.
In general though, it's a fun way to spend 90 minutes, certainly more entertaining than watching a real game of Scottish Premier League action. If you are Scottish, you'll have fun spotting the players, ex-players and commentators; if you're a fan of underdog-beats-the-odds movies, you'll get a kick from seeing how the small team gets stronger as the cup goes on and if you just like movies there is enough to keep you watching without reaching for the remote.