Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country

After the miserable failure of “Star Trek V: The Final Frontier,” everyone thought that the franchise knew that they had a limited chance of success to set things right. The series’ original cast was getting older past the age of reasonably another huge sci-fi adventure, yet no one wanted “The Final Frontier” to be their final movie. Also, “Star Trek” was approaching its 25^th Anniversary, and that was a positive moment too good to look past. Paramount gave them another film. Leonard Nimoy, who had Executive Produced the final movie, approached director Nicholas Meyer, who directed “The Wrath of Khan. Together, they came up with a story idea where the longstanding fight between Starfleet and the Klingon Empire would work as a political story for the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union.

“Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country,” released in 1991, opens with a literal crash. On a routine scientific expedition, the starship Excelsior is shot by an energy shockwave coming from a huge explosion near the Klingon home planet. What has happened is that the Klingons’ main energy production factory on their moon of Praxis has had a Chernobyl-type catastrophe. The Klingons at first refused help from the Federation, but is soon forced to admit that their empire is falling because of economic ruin and public unrest. Their current leader, Chancellor Gorkon, played by David Warner, starts to talk in order to end hostilities with the Federation. On the Blu-Ray review, it states that, “A new age of Glasnost (however that may translate in Klingon) is emerging.”

As their first step, Starfleet assigns its battleship, the U.S.S. Enterprise, to meet the Chancellor and escort him to a peace conference. Captain Kirk, whose son was murdered by the Klingons, grudgingly accepts the tasks and tries to hide his inner prejudice against the Klingons. He thinks that a difficult diplomatic dinner will be the hardest part of the mission. However, strangely, the Enterprise has opened fire on the Klingon vessel without Kirk’s command. General Chang, played by Christopher Plummer, the Chancellor’s hard-nosed right-hand-man, has Kirk and Bones arrested and put on trial for trying to start a fight. Spock and his new Vulcan apprentice, Valeris, played by Kim Cattrall, must look through the Enterprise and find out what conspiracy was attempted to interfere with the peace process.

The review stated, “Though I hadn't been too impressed with Meyer's script for the series' fourth movie, 'The Undiscovered Country' is a welcome and much needed return to form for the 'Trek' franchise.” The same director of “The Wrath of Khan” is back at the top of his game. The film not only has the expected sci-fi action, but also parts of a political thriller, murder mystery, courtroom drama, and prison camp escape movie. Somehow, they blend perfectly with every spaceship, photon torpedoes and latex makeup.

The director keeps the pacing sharp and the production values high. Trying really hard not to repeat the laughable special effects from “Star Trek V” (which was stated as “outsourced to the lowest bidder”), the team at Industrial Light & Magic have come back into the chair. Their work here returns to the franchise’s previous look. The Blu-Ray review states, “The shockwave blast from the Praxis explosion proved so influential that the visual (thereafter known as the "Praxis Effect") was later reused in numerous sci-fi movies, including George Lucas' wretched 'Star Wars Special Editions.'” In his most motivated scene, Meyer gives a zero-gravity assault inside the Klingon ship. The CGI drops of floating blood were quite impressive for 1991 (if a little dated now), as were the shapeshifting effects (all the rage at the time) of a shapeshifter alien played by model/actress Iman.

Gone is any silly comic relief that had poisoned the last two movies. “Star Trek VI” has a focused and thematically-rich screenplay with hilarious dialogue and multi-dimensional characterizations. The review stated that “Plummer's Shakespeare-spouting Chang is a juicy villain.” One of the nice things is that Sulu, who has been underused, is not the captain of the Excelsior in “Star Trek IV,” and this promotion makes him play a critical part of the movie’s climax. The rest of the team, who has really showed their ages in recent movies, seem especially alert and energized here, no doubt responding to the better material they had to work with.

The review states that, “Acknowledging that this was to be the original crew's last adventure, the film has many themes of retirement, outliving one's usefulness, passing of the torch, and death, all handled eloquently and with proper respect.” Wrapping up 25 years under their belt, “Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country” makes a very stylish finale for our favorite crew of the starship Enterprise.

“Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered County” is a welcome return after the failure of “Star Trek V” and a worthy finale for the original Enterprise crew. Too bad the producers couldn’t help but to bringing Kirk back for the disappointing “Star Trek: Generations,” but we’ll get to that this Friday. It gives the reason that Paramount will probably re-release this film in its longer “Director’s cut” format. How long that will take is only what time will tell. The Blu-Ray review ended by saying, “To be honest, the theatrical cut is superior, if only for the removal of the dumb plot twist at the end. Even so, this Blu-ray's video quality is problematic. I would welcome any excuse for a fresh remaster. The audio is pretty good, though, and the disc has plenty of bonus features.”

I would strongly suggest that everyone watch this movie. You will absolutely love this, especially since it was released at the 25^th Anniversary of “Star Trek.” If you saw “Star Trek V,” and I would feel bad if you did, “Star Trek VI” will wash that bad taste out of your mouth. This movie was a great final entry of the Original cast.

Check in Friday when we talk about the disappointing next entry in “Star Trek Month.”

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier

With the late Leonard Nimoy’s “Star Trek” films being both critical and commercial successes, “Star Trek V: The Final Frontier,” released in 1989, was William Shatner’s turn as the director of the series, and it almost killed the franchise.

The movie opens on a mysterious planet called Nimbus III, we meet a Vulcan with a crazy laugh, and can take away peoples pain. We then cut to Earth where we see Kirk, Spock and McCoy enjoying their break at the Yosemite National Park, Scotty is busy trying to get the new Enterprise up and ready, while Chekov and Sulu are enjoying their hiking trip.

The crazy Vulcan I mentioned before is named Sybok, played by Laurence Luckinbill, who has a strong faith, and an urge to leave Nimbus III (Adam Sloman stated in his review, “I'm not quite sure how or why he ended up there”) and kidnaps three delegates that represent Earth (David Warner), the Klingons (Charles Cooper) and the Romulans (Cynthia Gouw). The team’s breaks are soon interrupted however, when, like always, Kirk is the only Captain who can save the day.

On the other side of the galaxy, Klingon commander, Klaa, played by Todd Bryant, gets annoyed of shooting down space probes and after hearing about Kirk and the Enterprise playing to Nimbus III, he decides to put himself up against Kirk.

With the new Enterprise’s transporters acting finicky, a shuttle is dispatched, sending a rescue party to the surface of the planet. Kirk soon has rescued the hostages, only to realize it was a planned out trap on Sybok’s end to capture the Federation starship.

Cut back to the ship, the Klingons have got in the way again and the shuttle craft has to go for an emergency landing. Kirk has a brief fight with Sybok. Spock has the chance to shoot Sybok, but refuses, telling Kirk that they are, in fact, half-brothers and the trip are taken to brig.

Working his ability on the rest of the crew, Sybok soon has the ship at his fingers and sets course for the Galactic barrier where, he thinks, god lives.

Scott is successful in breaking the trio out of their cell and they go around trying to regain control of the ship. They succeed only in telling the Klingons where the ship is going, before Sybok catches up with them, asking for the chance to heal their pain. We get a nice look into McCoy’s back story, but Sybok’s attempt with his brother is not a success. Spock, what it looks like, has found his place in the universe and is happy with that.

Kirk refuses Sybok, and reminds us that pain in important, that it teaches us a lesson, and makes us the type of person we are.

Sloman stated in his review, “With the sort of timing only found in Hollywood, the Enterprise then arrives at God's planet. Sybok, Kirk, Spock and McCoy head down for a tête-à-tête with the Almighty.” They find on this planet isn’t God, but an alien, played by George Murdock, looking for a ride and wants to join with the Enterprise.

Suffering the wrath of God, Kirk asks what God needs with a starship. Attacking Kirk and Spock, the alien reveals he is a prisoner of the planet and Sybok realizes his mistakes and fights the alien, wanting to heal its pain.

Scott finally gets the transporters working, beaming Spock and McCoy back on the Enterprise, leaving Kirk alone to face the increasingly peeved extraterrestrial God. The Klingon Bird of Prey suddenly arrives, firing at the alien and beaming Kirk on their ship. Back on the Enterprise, Klaa apologizes for his unnecessary violence and the two ships fly their separate ways allowing the Captain and his team to finish their vacation back on Earth.

Sloman stated in his review, “The Final Frontier is widely regarded amongst fans as the worst of the series, but I don't think it's as bad as that. There was certainly worse to come from the franchise.” I do agree with him, but this is pretty bad. However, there is one movie that I think is worse than this, which we will get to later in the month. As with all good “Star Trek,” its strong moments are character led. The camp fire scene is great at first, and McCoy’s disregard for Kirk’s mountain climbing is another great moment from the late DeForest Kelley. What is also worth mentioning is his scene with his father, played by Bill Quinn, the suffering of his father’s death with a cure so close to getting is a great look into his character’s background, away from Starfleet.

The film really fails with it special effects. Simply put, they’re terrible. There’s no other word best to describe them. Robbed of ILM’s help, (they were busy working on an “Indiana Jones” movie and “Ghostbusters II”) Shatner was forced to look around for the cheapest choice possible and it hurts the film.

Sloman said, “It puzzles me why Paramount chose to cut so many corners with this film, from cheap special effects to simply cutting large chunks of storyline (Den Of Geek has already covered the cut Rockman sequence) that could have lifted the film; it shows little faith in Shatner, his story and his direction.”

There are problems with the story, however. It’s jumbled, to say the least. How does Sybok know about the God-Alien? How is the Enterprise able to travel across the galaxy so quickly? Sloman mentions, “It also rankles me that, despite Sybok's powers, the crew are so quick to betray Kirk.” The funny moments feel a little forced, as if it was shoved in to calm those that, after “Star Trek IV,” were happy to see a “Star Trek” film.

This movie isn’t great. In all honesty, you’re not missing a lot if you decide to skip straight from “Star Trek IV” to “Star Trek VI.”

I agree with Sloman where I feel that other films that were about finding God, it was done “way” better than in here. I don’t feel like anything was accomplished with the whole “finding God” element. This is worse than the first movie, in my opinion. Reasoning behind this is because of the flat story, pointless characters and scenes that just don't seem to flow together. The infamous Uhura dance made me feel really dirty and when Kirk, Spock and McCoy are singing, “Row Your Boat,” mentioning it again and bringing it back at the end I felt was really stupid.

Alright, now that we thankfully got that stinker out of the way, tune in Wednesday for my review on the final film entry of the Original Series cast, “Star Trek VI.”

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

When they finished writing the script for “Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home,” released in 1986, they must have had so many pointless smirks on their faces. This is easily the most convoluted of the “Star Trek” stories – however, strangely enough, it is also the best, the funniest and the most enjoyable in laymen’s terms. Roger Ebert admitted, “I'm relieved that nothing like restraint or common sense stood in their way.”

The movie starts with some unfinished work from the previous movie, including the Klingon ambassador’s protests before the Federation Council. These scenes don’t have much to do with the rest of the movie, but they give a certain encouragement (like, how Ebert described, “James Bond's ritual flirtation with Miss Moneypenny”) that the series remembers it has a history.

The Starship Enterprise team is still stuck on Vulcan with the Klingon starship they confiscated in “Star Trek 3.” They choose to return home on this alien ship, but on the way they find a strange deep-space inquiry. It is sending out signals in some strange language which, when translated, turns out to be the song of the humpback whale.

It’s around this mark that the script talks must have really taken off. See if you can wrap your head around this: The Enterprise team decides that the inquiry is targeting on Earth, and if no humpback songs are responded, the planet could be destroyed. Therefore, the team’s mission becomes this: Because humpback whales are extinct in the 23^rd Century, they must travel back in time to the 20^th century, steal some humpback whales, and return with them to the future – which will save Earth. Ebert said, “After they thought up this notion, I hope the writers lit up cigars.”

No matter how questionable the story is, it gives what is probably the best of the “Star Trek” movies so far, directed with cool professionalism by the late Leonard Nimoy. What happens is that the Enterprise team land their Klingon starship in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park, cloak it with an invisibility shield, and separate into the teams through the Bay area looking for humpback whales and a complete source of reduced nuclear power.

What makes their search entertaining is we already know the members of this team really well. That cast’s laidback contact is unique among movies, because it hasn’t been figured out in a few weeks of rehearsal or shooting. By the time this movie was released, it was the 20^th anniversary of “Star Trek,” and most of these actors have been working together for most of their professional lives. These characters know one another.

For example, Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock visit a Sea World-type aquarium, where two humpback whales are held in custody. Catherine Hicks (who played the mother in the horrendous “7^th Heaven” show), as Gillian, the marine biologist in charge, plans to release the whales, and the Enterprise team need to find out her plans so they can recapture the whales and go back to the future.

Obviously, this requires the two men to ask Gillian out to dinner.

She asks if they like Italian food, and Kirk and Spock do a wonderful little verbal jazz based on the running joke that Spock, as a Vulcan, cannot tell a lie. Ebert advised, “Find another space opera in which verbal counterpoint creates humor.”

The stories of the previous “Star Trek” have focused around dramatic villains, such as Khan, the feared genius in “Star Trek 2.” This time, the villains are faceless: the international hunters who continue to follow and kill whales despite clear signs they will annihilate these decent mammals from the Earth. “To hunt a race to extinction is not logical,” Spock calmly observes, but we see shocking footage of whalers doing just that.

Instead of giving a single human villain as counterpoint, “Star Trek 4” gives a heroine, in Hicks. She obviously is moved by the dilemma of the whales, and although at first she understandably questions Kirk’s story that he comes from the 23^rd Century, eventually she joins in the mission and even claims on returning to the future with them, because of course, without the humpback whales, the 23^rd Century also doesn’t have humpback whale experts.

There are some major action scenes in the movie, but they aren’t the highlights. The “Star Trek” series has always depended more on human contact and thoughtful, cause-leaning stories. What happens in San Francisco is must more interesting that what happens in outer space, and this movie, which might seem to have an unlikely and inconvenient plot, is actually the smartest and satisfying “Star Trek” film so far.

I liked this better than 2, just like James Rolfe admits. The environmental message in this movie was needed at the time, and they pulled it off perfectly. Plus, the comedy in this movie is the best of all of them thus far, especially with how the crew is trying to fit in the 20^th Century. Nimoy really followed this movie up from 3 very well, so it ended the trilogy very well. Now, when I mean “Trek Trilogy,” I mean 2, 3 and 4. These three are connected very well to one another and I highly recommend everyone to check this one out. If you liked 2 and 3, you’ll love this one, I promise you.

Look out next Monday when I review what Trekkies and regular moviegoers like to call the worst “Star Trek” movie. Trust me, I’m not looking forward to it either.

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock

Whether you’re a diehard Trekkie or a regular moviegoer, everyone who has seen all of the “Star Trek” movies will tell you that the even-numbered films are good but the odd-numbered movies are not. Certain people will tell you that if you look closer that theory will be invalidated. On the one hand, everyone’s favorites “The Wrath of Khan” and “First Contact” are even, while on the other hand everyone’s least favorites “The Motion Picture” and “The Final Frontier” are odd. Brian Eggert stated in his review, “It’s not that the odd-numbered films are poor, though indeed one or two are; but rather, for some reason, they usually contain less actionized plots, and thus are less likely to serve up a blustering crowd-pleaser.” If you look at “Star Trek III: The Search for Spock,” released in 1984, which follows the movement of an Enterprises crewmember’s soul, or “katra” in the original Vulcan language. A spiritual journey is hardly a classic story for a big-budget blockbuster, which is probably why writer-producer Harve Bennett included some Klingon troubles for excitement.

Yet, the story is what Time critic Richard Schickel called, “the first space opera to deserve that term in its grandest scale.” Eggert said, “Indeed, Paramount Pictures didn't release another swashbuckler like the film’s immediate predecessor, but a weighty, sometimes cornball drama filled with themes of rebirth.” After everyone crying over Spock’s death at the end of “The Wrath of Khan,” Bennett began writing the script backward, starting with the final sequence of Spock’s rebirth and working his way back, since resurrecting Spock was the main reason Paramount signed on this sequel. Produced for $16 million, the studio kept the production cost (and even the production value) low. The devoted fan base guaranteed “The Search for Spock” would gross $76 million, giving another profitable release and setting the franchise’s future, regardless of unexcited responses.

Starting exactly where “The Wrath of Khan” ended, the film starts with Spock dead, having sacrificed himself to save the Enterprise and the crew, his body shot on a planet being created by the Genesis Device. This device creates life where there isn’t any, growing abandoned vegetation and atmosphere in wealth. With Spock’s body on the planet, he begins his rebirth. Meanwhile, the Enterprise has returned to Earth and stopped at a spaceport, the crew still mourning over the passing of their friend. Admiral Kirk has noticed that Dr. McCoy is acting somewhat strange. When Spock’s father, Sarek, played by Mark Lenard, arrives and hears of McCoy’s actions, he deduces that Spock must have transferred his “katra” into McCoy just before he sacrificed himself. Sarek tells Kirk he must recover Spock’s body and return him to Vulcan, where he will set up an ancient ceremony to return Spock’s “katra.”

Easier said than done. Back on the Genesis Planet, shameful Klingon Captain Kruge, played by Christopher Lloyd, wants to retrieve the life-bringing Genesis Device and recreate it as a weapon. On the planet, Vulcan scientist Lt. Saavik (Robin Curtis) and Kirk’s son David (Merrit Butrick), both characters introduced in “The Wrath of Khan,” find a Vulcan boy (Carl Steven, Vadia Potenza, Stephen Manley, Joe W. Davis and Steve Blalock, with Frank Welker providing the screams) aging rapidly, slowly growing into the ever famous Spock. Luckily, Kirk disobeys orders and quietly leaves with the Enterprise, with only the main crew, to stop the Klingons, recover the Genesis Device, and restore Spock’s “katra” from McCoy’s body to its newly reborn and rightful person on Vulcan.

Some awkward casting is very clear when Robin Curtis shows that she’s not Kristie Alley, who played Saavik in “The Wrath of Khan” and does not reprise her role in this movie. Alley supposedly wanted more money than was offered to reprise her first movie role from the last film. Paramount could have written her character out, but they re-casted the actress, a decision that made the film feeling erratic. Curtis’ presence is unnatural and stiff, too much even for a role to play a Vulcan. Additionally, as much as the Kruge character is needed to give some space action, his motivation is distorted, although Lloyd does great with one-dimensional roles.

Despite the late Nimoy being largely absent from the film, he appears on the poster and his name is on the director’s chair. Nimoy started his directing job for “The Search for Spock” after his positive experience on “The Wrath of Khan,” a film he originally said would be his last as Spock. Eggert said, “More than any other Star Trek film director, Nimoy renders all the characters with humanistic traits, which challenges the raw entertainment value of any photon torpedo battle. He captures how the actors and characters alike play off one another in a fixed rhythm—particularly Shatner’s Kirk and Kelley’s McCoy in this film—thus solidifying their permanent status in film and pop-culture history as genre icons. Doing this with sensitivity and consideration for the dramatic depth of the story is what makes Nimoy’s direction exceptional.”

Yet, there are creative choices that feel unusual to a movie and better fit for a two-part episode. For example, earlier in the opening credits we are treated to a recap of what happened in the previous film (Eggert said, “as though “Previously on Star Trek” should have opened the film”). Eggert goes on to say, “Such a generic intro hardly helps distinguish the film series from its television roots, but the visual splendor (save for some cheap-looking soundstage sets) and impressive effects make up for that. The aforementioned rigid acting and seemingly forced Klingon conflict also present unnecessary comparisons to the show.” Though, undeniably the studio fought for a villain, as saving Spock would not be enough to interest audiences that aren’t fans of the show – since “obviously” that would happen in this sequel. (After “The Wrath of Khan,” and even before it was released, fans wrote angry letters to Paramount against killing Spock.)

Despite all the problems, “The Search for Spock” is a nice, character-driven entertainment. Once again you would have to rethink the theory of ranking the “Star Trek” films by their numeric order, even-numbered good, odd-numbered bad. Eggert is right when he says, “Since The Search for Spock is the third film in the series, many waive-off its dramatic merits solely in support of this superstition, ignoring how the film elevates this franchise from mere adventure in the stars to a full-fledged theatrical experience, complete with a narrative that has us emotionally invested in familiar and lovable characters and their fates.” Helping the film out, audiences find out what kind of “Star Trek” viewer they are: Either they’re the type that allow themselves to get emotionally involved in the story, or they’re the everyday viewer watching only to see spaceships explode and the once in a while alien vaporized by a phaser. You can say I am in the former category.

Like I had already stated, this is the only odd-numbered “Star Trek” movie that I really recommend. It’s a good sequel, although the villain wasn’t a good follow-up to Khan. Lloyd is like a one-note villain, but a pretty good one, even with him going in a hand-to-hand fight with Kirk, like how it used to be in the original series. Kirk always had a number of physical fights with villains in the television show, as I have heard. A strong rivalry could have helped, but it’s still enjoyable, despite the fact that it can drag, since the big death scenes and strong moments will help the film feel operatic. Not as good as some of the others, but a nice sequel to follow “The Wrath of Khan,” so I give it credit for trying. Definitely check it out if you liked “The Wrath of Khan” because this film will not be a huge disappointment, even though I can understand why some people may find it boring.

Since Nimoy really hit a homerun with this movie, how do you think he will do since he returns as director for the next one? Find out this Friday for the next installment in “Star Trek Month.”

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

Welcome back to “Star Trek Month,” where today we will be looking at the vast improvement over the first movie and the one that you should start the movie series out with, “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,” released in 1982.

At a time when the underwhelming “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” was released, the starting of the “Star Trek” movies needed an improvement, which is what “The Wrath of Khan” gave. While still having the thematic elements of the late-60s TV series and using the original and loved USS Enterprise crew, “Star Trek II” added a lot of action, adventure and suspense, putting life into a concept that had been left declining by the first movie. A lot of people like to declare this the best “Star Trek” movie and even the strongest any movie adaptation of the series that fans loved.

Unlike the first movie where the uniforms were pastel and clinical white, this one had a nicer burgundy uniform. James Berardinelli stated in his review, “The ship also seems smaller and homier than three years ago, although there's a definite warlike aspect to its comforts (witness the detail shown as the Enterprise prepares for the film's climactic battle).” The characters also appear more relaxed here, and the three-way friendship/rivalry between Admiral Kirk, Spock and McCoy heeds back to the best moments of the show. Director Nicholas Meyer, along with writers Harve Bennett and Jack B. Sowards, has taken quite some work to revive the humanity of “Star Trek.”

The film is a follow up to the first episode of the 22^nd season (“Space Seed”). Here, the villain Khan, played by the late Ricardo Montalban, in an enjoyable over-the-top performance, and his comrades have escaped from the barren planet where then-Captain Kirk imprisoned him fifteen-some years ago. Khan, once a brilliant, fascinating leader, has become a bitter psychopath, driven only to revenge. He blames Kirk for the death of his wife and his own life being ruined, and plans to execute revenge – in blood. After taking over a Federation starship, Khan steals Genesis, a possible doomsday weapon created by Kirk’s son, David (Merritt Butrick), and former girlfriend, Carol (Bibi Besch), and traps the Enterprise into a carefully-executed trap.

The “Star Trek” cast does what fans expect them to do. Berardinelli said this about William Shatner: “William Shatner, not generally regarded as a top-flight actor, fits comfortably into this role, mixing heroic arrogance with surprising vulnerability. Of the seven Star Trek features in which he has appeared, Shatner does his best work here.” As always, the late Nimoy plays Spock with a spark of sarcastic humor, and the late Kelley proves to be his perfect, inconsistent foil. Familiar faces James Doohan, Walter Koenig, George Takei and Nichelle Nicols have all returned, although only Koenig has more than a few empty scenes.

Along with bringing back Montalban’s enjoyable performance as Khan (Berardinelli stated, “This is a fun performance to watch, principally because it's so campy”), “Star Trek II” introduces three important new characters. The first is Saavik, played by Kristie Alley from the famous TV show “Cheers,” the half-Vulcan understudy of Spock. Then there are a couple of characters out of Kirk’s past – a son and a former girlfriend. Berardinelli said, “However, while Alley steals scenes as Saavik, both Bibi Besch and Merritt Butrick are flat and unappealing, causing the entire "Kirk's family" subplot to flounder. Fortunately, it's afforded only token screen time.”

“The Wrath of Khan” is a top-notch, fast-paced thrill ride that can be enjoyed equally by Trekkies and viewers who have never seen the show. There are several tense, well-shot battle scenes that show impressive special effects and a great score by James Horner. Berardinelli stated, “The ending, which I won't reveal (although everyone probably knows it by now) is tender and poignant -- proof that Star Trek can still touch the heart.” You might even know what I am talking about, but I won’t say. “The Wrath of Khan” shows the possible characteristic in the “Star Trek” idea as useful to the big screen. Berardinelli ended his review by saying, “It's unfortunate that none of the other films in this long-running series have come close to the level achieved by this marvelous example of entertainment.” A lot of people say that, but I beg to differ. Not to say that I hate this movie, I think this is one of the best. As the month goes on, I will reveal my personal favorite.

In the end, if you haven’t seen this movie, you shouldn’t even be reading my review. Skip the first movie and go to this one. You will be thoroughly enjoyed by it, I promise you. Not only will you like Khan and the film’s pacing, but the interactions between the characters really help this film out. Only downside are the special effects and some of the acting. Plus, Shatner and Montalban don’t have any screen time together. Their scenes had to be shot separately, so you don’t get a face-to-face encounter, but that’s fine. There's also the famous "Khan" scream that Shatner famously delivered in this movie.

Happy Independence Day once again my online readers. Wednesday I will look at the only good odd numbered movie in “Star Trek Month.”

The Patriot

Happy Independence Day to all my online readers. Today we will celebrate with another patriotic movie. Now you might be thinking that I will review the “Independence Day” sequel, but I haven’t seen that. I’m actually not wanting to go to the theater to watch it, especially since I haven’t heard good reviews of it. My review on the "Independence Day" sequel will be posted next year since I'm thinking of waiting until the DVD comes out to rent and watch it. Instead, let’s take a look at another movie. I’m thinking about the 2000 movie, “The Patriot.”

This is a story arguing the uselessness of nonviolence, set against the environment of the Revolutionary War. Roger Ebert said in his review, “It is rousing and entertaining, and you get your money's worth, but there isn't an idea in it that will stand up to thoughtful scrutiny.”

The British are seen as manly narcissus or sadistic beings, and the Americans are broken in two categories: brave or braver. Ebert said, “Those who have a serious interest in the period will find it a cartoon; those raised on summer action movies will find it more stimulating than most.”

Mel Gibson is our star, in a powerful and effective performance, as a widower named Benjamin Martin with seven children. He saw plenty of the battle in the French and Indian Wars, and was scared by what he found out about himself. He counsels a treaty with King George. He is asked about his principles by an old army friend, played by Chris Cooper, he replies, “I’m a parent. I haven’t got the luxury of principles.” However, he gets some really quickly, after the jerk British Colonel William Tavington (Jason Isaacs), arrests Martin’s eldest son Gabriel (the late Heath Ledger) and takes him away to be hanged, after first shooting another one of Martin’s sons (Gregory Smith) for no reason and burning down his house.

Ebert mentioned, “Since Martin had merely been treating the wounded of both sides in his home, this seems excessive, and in the long run turns out to be extremely unwise for the British, since Martin goes on to more or less single-handedly mastermind their defeat.” There must have been a handful British officers less of jerks – but none would have given the screenplay’s purpose, which is to show Martin filled with grief, rage and the hunger for revenge.

The following segment is the film’s most difficult to see. Martin and his sons (Trevor Morgan, Bryan Chafin and Logan Lerman) hide in the woods and trap Tavington and his soldiers. Eventually the battle turns into a hand-to-hand fight (with Martin holding a tomahawk). Gabriel is freed, and the younger boys see bloodshed for the first time (“I’m glad I killed them!” one of the children says. “I’m glad!”). The movie’s scenes of carnage have more impact than the handful of killings in a film like “Shaft,” because they are personal, not technical. Individual soldiers, scared and not prepared, are fighting for their lives, while Ebert mentions, “in the modern action movies, most of the victims are pop-up arcade targets.”

The main players in the war (George Washington, King George) are way offscreen, but we do see General Cornwallis, played by Tom Wilkinson, a British leader who, as Ebert said, “promotes a "gentlemanly'' conduct of the war and rebukes Tavington for his brutality. Still, when the Americans refuse to "fight fair'' and adopt hit-and-run guerrilla tactics against the British (who march in orderly ranks into gunfire), Cornwallis bends enough to authorize the evil colonel to take what steps are necessary to bring down Martin (by now legendary as "the Ghost'').”

The movie’s fight scenes are one of two things – disturbing and unlikely. Two fights are near the beginning of the film are conveniently fought in open fields seen from the upper windows of houses, so onlookers have clear view for the show and can give a running narration. No doubt revolutionary battles were fought right there in the grassland, but would Benjamin Martin let his children to stand in the windows, or tell them to hide in the barn? The “real” battles are difficult tests of men and horses, as soldiers ride into sarcastic fire, and the survivors take out their swords or fix their bayonets for a bloody fight in close proximity. Ebert credited, “These battles seem anarchic and pitiless, and respect the movie convention that bitter rivals will sooner or later find themselves face to face.” The scenes are well-shot by the director, Roland Emmerich, working off of a script done by Robert Rodat, the same man who wrote “Saving Private Ryan,” with its equally terrible battle scenes.

Ebert mentioned, “Hollywood movies are at pains these days to provide a role for a heroic African-American or two. A role for a black sailor was found in the segregated U.S. Navy submarine corps in "U-571'' (he was a mess orderly). Now we have a black slave who fights beside white men (even those who hate him) because Gen. Washington has promised freedom for all slaves who fight for a year. Good enough, but why not go all the way and give this character dialogue and a real role to play--instead of demeaningly using him only to count down the months and days until his freedom?” When the former slave, played by Jay Arlen Jones, finally gets two whole sentences in a row, at the end, he quotes Martin’s son: “Gabriel said if we won the war, we could build a whole new world. We could get started right there with your home.” Right. Why not get started with your own home? The movie gives light comic relief to calm the tension (Martin’s handmade chairs keep breaking beneath him), and a love story (Gabriel is in love with Anne, played by Lisa Brenner, a courageous colonial girl who sees him with a patriotic speech.) Anne’s father, played by Joey D. Vieira, is a deaf man who misunderstands things. When Gabriel asks permission to write Anne, the man at first gets offended. Then he says, “Oh…writer her! Of course you may.” What did he think Gabriel had asked? Meanwhile, there’s even female company for the hard-nosed Benjamin Martin, who asks the sister of his late wife, played by Joely Richardson, “May I sit here?” Ebert mentioned, “Her answer got laughs in the screening I attended: "It's a free country--or at least, it will be.'' These passages and others (including the Dead Man Who Is Not Really Dead) have been trucked directly into "The Patriot'' from the warehouse of timeless clichés. They betray the movie's lack of serious intentions.” This basically wanted to be a summer action movie, with a historical shine. It succeeding at being that. Ebert admitted “I enjoyed the strength and conviction of Gibson's performance, the sweep of the battle scenes, and the absurdity of the British caricatures.” None of it has much to do with the historical reality of the Revolutionary War, but with such a huge budget at risk, how could it?

In the end, I would say that this is a good movie nonetheless. I recommend this movie and say check it out. Mika Boorem and the late Skye McCole Bartusiak are playing Gibson’s daughters, with Bartusiak not speaking but gets emotional when her father leaves and saying to not go. That part is one of the saddest parts of any movie ever. Watching it will pull at your heartstrings, that I can say. Anyway, check the movie out, you’ll like it.

Check in later today when I review the second “Star Trek” movie.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture

The month of July will be an exciting one because I will look at a very popular sci-fi franchise that has a huge fan base. In case you don’t know which franchise I’m referring to, it is none other than “Star Trek.” I will not do a full out “Trek-a-thon” where I review every single part of the franchise, like the shows and everything else. Instead, I will solely focus on each film entry leading up to the new one that will be released in a couple of weeks. Now let’s not waste any time, let’s dive in with the first entry, “Star Trek: The Motion Picture,” released in 1979.

“Star Trek,” the popular television series that ended 10 years prior to the release of this film is a classic, has, according to Vincent Canby, “like Lazarus, come back to haunt the skeptical and reassure all those who have kept the faith. It's called "Star Trek — the Motion Picture," rather superfluously, I think, because I doubt anyone who sees it could possibly confuse this film with those shards of an earlier, simpler, cheaper television era.”

Canby described, “Watching "Star Trek — the Motion Picture," which opens today at Loews Orpheum and other theaters, is like attending your high-school class's 10th reunion at Caesar's Palace.” Most of the characters are familiar, but the design has little familiarity to anything you’ve seen before. Among the crew are Admiral James T. Kirk (William Shatner), commanding officer of the Starship Enterprise, Vulcan Mr. Spock (the late Leonard Nimoy), whose emotions have been stripped after achieving “kolinahr,” the state of grace on his home planet Vulcan, Dr. McCoy (the late DeForest Kelley), the Enterprise’s general doctor, nicknamed “Bones” just like he would have been on H.M.S. Bounty, and other friends including Scotty (the late James Doohan), the engineering officer, Sulu (George Takei), the ship’s helmsman, Chekov (Walter Koenig), the navigator, and Uhura (Nichelle Nichols), the communications officer.

The newcomers are Stephen Collins (who would go on to play the father on the horrible long-running show, “7^th Heaven”), who plays Commander Decker, the Enterprise’s determined young executive officer, and Perris Khambatta, an actress from India who plays Ilia, a surprisingly beautiful young woman whose head was shaved completely clean in the fashion of her home-planet, Delta Four.

This time around the mission of the Enterprise is to interrupt a mysterious cloud, which is evidently light years in diameter and is heading toward earth for reasons that not even Mr. Spock can deduce. It’s no secret to let you know that the cloud contains what is normally called under such circumstances as “a superior intelligence,” though just what that intelligence is must be one of the film’s few surprises.

Canby stated, “I suspect that wit is not what "Star Trek" fans are looking for. Instead they want to see favorite characters who are as ageless and multidimensional as characters in a comic strip, and not at all ashamed of those origins.” The dialogue – at least what dialogue you could hear over Jerry Goldsmith’s music and the sounds of rockets being shot – is of a dullness that calms the tired mind, like, how Canby described, “Magic Fingers that work on a tired brain.” Unlike “Star Wars,” which was full of conscious reminders to other literature, “Star Trek” only refers to itself, with the possible allowance of the climactic series that borrows easily from Christian mythology.

The film’s vision of the future, which is a bit messy at the beginning, becomes increasingly fascinating as the movie goes on, or maybe it just seems that way as you might become entranced of endless patterns of light and color, made to mimic the experiences of the members of the Enterprise crew as they pass through a handful of dimensions of time and space.

“Star Trek” is yet another film that owes more to Douglas Trumbull and John Dykstra, who did the special photographic effects, and to Harold Michelson, the production designer, than it does to the director, the writers or even the producer, Gene Roddenberry, who also created and produced the television series.

Canby mentioned, “The formidable Robert Wise, who once directed a good, pacifist sci-fi film, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (1951), a film with very few special effects, directed "Star Trek," but I can't imagine what there was for him to do after telling the actors where to stand.” Because most of the drama in this kind of movie is created in the laboratories, the actors are limited to the trading of meaningful looks or staring closely at television monitors, usually in disbelief.

In the end, I don’t think this movie holds up at all. Instead, it’s a "Star Trek" movie that I don't recommend anyone to start the series out with. The reason why I say that is because not all the characters are developed in an interesting way, the movie drags at a surprisingly slow pace and you will be instantly bored by it. The effects look great, given the time period, but when you have to look at them for what looks like hours, you probably will be put to sleep. After seeing it (which I hope you don’t), you will realize why this is called “the slow motion picture.” If you do, by any chance, watch this movie, I advise you to keep your finger on the Fast Forward button. My brother says this is the worst "Star Trek" movie, but there's one that I think is "far" worse, which we will get to later in the month. I agree with both James Rolfe and the Nostalgia Critic where they stated that this film was copying what "2001: A Space Odyssey" did, but it failed because there can only be one "2001: A Space Odyssey." Thank goodness I'm done with this review.

In fact, you will realize that almost all the odd number “Star Trek” movies get the hate but the even numbered ones get the praise. If you want to know what I mean, keep checking in every Monday, Wednesday and Friday of this month to find out.

Speaking of which, check in on Monday for not only my yearly Independence Day movie reviews, but for the second entry in “Star Trek Month.”