Admiral-3 Reviews

Payback (I) (1999)

Gritty

[20 February 1999]

Payback is perhaps the most honest film I've ever seen played in a theater. While admittedly a work of fiction, Payback shows us more of the real world than the average Hollywood flick. In the real world, there are few instances where this guy is good, and this guy is bad. Gibson in Payback is a villain, to be sure. Not the first guy you'd want to send a Valentine to. But in the shades of gray painted in this gritty, underground crime world, is Mel better or worse than the Big Crime bosses he pursues? I really don't think the question is relevant. We root for the bad guy, Mel, because he's the guy telling the story. It's all in the slant you view the film on. Payback is harsh, violent, and filmed in a manner that makes it feel, overall, like a noir detective movie. But it also is a movie that is not afraid to let us know exactly what we could find in the real world, if we wanted to look. Take, for instance, the family man/crime boss played by Kris Kristofferson. Is his family aware of his dealings in organized crime?

I don't believe Payback can be discounted as trash, or labeled as a contributing factor in the sorry state of our world. It is not the aim of the filmmakers to corrupt moviegoers or instill the idea of a life of crime. There is no gloss or glorification of what Mel, or any of the other actors do to advance the plot.

Simply put, Payback is a terrific film that isn't afraid to show the viewers everything, and to that I give it great credit. It's not Mel Gibson or anyone else associated with this film that need to worry about corrupting young children. It's the parents dumb enough to take their children along.

***1/2

Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)

Boldly Goes Down In Flames

[4/10 · 11 December 1998]

Leonard Nimoy's 1986 film Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home was the first, and most successful, turn into humor in the Star Trek franchise. Nimoy used trans-cultural situations to bring his comedy across within the context of a mission that had social impact on both the world of Star Trek, and in our own 20th Century. The message of saving the whales in that film was not only important to the Earth of Captain Kirk's time, but also stands as an important message to us, in OUR time. Shatner's directorial debut in Star Trek V attempted to travel the same road, with dismal results. Star Trek became, in that film, a hokey romp of camp humor that was a black eye to all that Star Trek had stood for. Beyond the multi-colored uniforms and often unintentionally humorous dialog, Star Trek had always presented itself not as science fiction, but as a future to our race that was not only quite possible, but also quite plausible.

Director Frakes, following the huge success of First Contact in his debut, seems to fall into the same trap that ruined Shatner's Final Frontier nine years earlier. Insurrection's obvious comedy-driven plot is laced with one-liners and gag situations, to the point that the underlying story suffers from it. Like Final Frontier, the story of the So'na and the B'aku could have been a compelling philosophical masterpiece relevant to the Saxons' relocation of Native Americans upon claiming North America as their own. Instead, what we get is a jumbled message behind the humor that is difficult to identify with. Even the often stoic and typically reserved Picard is unfortunately also drawn into this mess, delivering quips from the onset of the film that immediately set the tone. As for action, so muddled by humor, there is little that in truly entertaining. The Enterprise, for example, while never intended as the center of any Star Trek story, is hardly present, and is depicted not as the rough and tumble battleship of First Contact, but as an actually rather weak vessel that must resort to trickery to defeat enemies never established as superior.

All in all, Insurrection begins with an uncomfortable first act established by Picard's sudden and inexplicable change of persona, during which familiar characters act as they never had before, followed by a second act that is an improvement but never compelling. The finale is ultimately weak compared to other Trek triumphs of the past, contriving a way to put a principal cast member in grave danger when a more obvious solution would seem more suitable.

Star Trek needs to lose the bug of catch phrases established by Nick Meyer in Star Trek VI (Nimoy's "Go to hell."), and return to the original vision, which was that of a "Wagon Train to the Stars." Even while the Enterprise was shooting them up in The Wrath of Khan, there was still an underlying philosophical principal, and at least there was a lot of excitement. Insurrection is not as bad as Final Frontier, but perhaps it's time to refuel the Dilithium Crystals and get this ship back on course.

** (Below Average)

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)

Solid Adventure

[28 October 1998]

Leonard Nimoy made Star Trek III: The Search For Spock in the spirit of the previous film, and the result is a rock-solid sci-fi adventure that, in typical Trek style, also manages to raise social and philosophical issues.

The film begins, after a flashback, with the sight of a heavily damaged Enterprise limping home for decomission, commanded by a crew merely going through the motions of their everyday jobs to mask their grief over the death of their Captain.

But when Admiral Kirk learns that Spock's eternal spirit has been transferred into McCoy (oddly, hokey on paper, yet mystical on the screen), there seems at last to be a chance. Spock's body has been interred on the Genesis Planet, a planet created of space debris by the explosion of the Genesis Device in the previous film. Could Spock's mortal body have been regenerated by the life-giving powers of the device? Could his spirit, safely stored in a now-unbalanced McCoy, be reunited with that regenerated body? Starfleet, the Naval institution which pays Kirk's salary and plans to scrap the Enterprise, refuses to allow Kirk access to the Enterprise to find out. Genesis has caused an intergalactic controversy, and has been militaristically quarantined.

The only option remaining for Kirk is to hijack the Enterprise and put his career on the line for one last chance to save his old friend.

William Shatner, yet again cast in the lead role, is not yet the characature he would become, and DeForest Kelly makes the most of his role as McCoy. The special effects are up to par, as usual, as is the by-play between the regulars. Newcomers to the series, Christopher Lloyd, John Laroquette, and Robin Curtis, do little to deminish themselves, and also turn in solid performances.

As director, Nimoy uses standard camara angles and largely uninspired technique, perhaps erring on the side of caution (as one might suspect his alter ego also would), but sets a nice tone of action, dramatic dialog, and humor. To be able to coax actors into not sounding like ten year olds play acting in a garage while uttering the technobabble the script calls for, says something about the director's skill.

Star Trek III, while not nearly as dynamic as the second film, is nonetheless a progressive piece for this series, and an open-ended continuation of a storyline that would cover the remainder of this team's films.

*** (Very Good)

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)

Scotty, we need more power!

[27 October 1998]

After the mixed critical returns of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the fledgling franchise was in desperate need of a boost. Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan provided that boost, and more.

Fifteen years (movie time) after Admiral Kirk's encounter with V'Ger, the Enterprise is a decomissioned training vessel under the command of Captain Spock. Uhura, McCoy, and Captain Scott still serve as active crewmembers. Chekov, the young ensign, is a commander now, and first officer of the science vessel Reliant. Sulu, newly promoted to Captain, is being primed to assume command of the experimental Excelsior.

Enter Savvik, a by-the-book, no-nonsense command cadet. She is half Vulcan, half Romulan, and the protege of her Captain. While none of Savvik's actions directly affect the outcome (this is and always will be Shatner's command performance), Savvik is our own interest in this film; the outsider among the familiars, and it is greatly through her eyes that we view the action. She asks the questions we would, reacts to the developments as we would.

The tone of this film, directed by Nick Meyer, is decidedly darker than that of its predecessor, with some heavy-handed violence, tounge-in-cheek humor, philosophical insight, supurb effects, and almost relentless action. This is what Star Trek was always intended to be. Gone is the hokey campiness, the ultra-fantastic uniforms, and cardboard computer consoles. The Enterprise and her sister ship are presented with the look of real Naval vessels; not clean, well-oiled machines, but dirty, somewhat beaten, in every respect more believable that earlier models. The new uniforms are crisp, functional, and realistic. Khan's overwhelming drive for vengeance is instantly understood, with help from Herman Melville (ST:TWOK is actually consided by some to be directly based upon Moby Dick; Savvik being Ismael, both Kirk and Khan playing a split Ahab/white whale, each with their obsessions). The plot is nicely constructed, with Khan's plans of revenge crossing paths with the scientific advancement of a missle capable of re-generating new, programmable life upon its target, and Kirk's reluctance to fall back into his old role. Once he does so, however, it comes back on a grand scale.

As mentioned before, this is William Shatner's command performance. He has never before nor since been better. Montalban's over-the-top, wild-eyed performance of Khan is classic, one of the most memorable villians in cinema history, and one gets the impression he might have slept in his wig and costume at night. James Horner's (Oscar winner for Titanic) score is magnificent, setting the mood for the action precisely; never so brassy as to become gaudy, never so dark as to transcend the picture.

The bottom line is that the best of the Star Trek films is also a good enough to stand up against the best of Hollywood.

***1/2 (excellent)

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

Nothin left but the batt'ries, Capt'n!

[27 October 1998]

Robert Wise directed this epic-scale, Disney-esque update of the sixties television series, coaxing all the familiars out of retirement for a well-thought and well acted film. But the beat of the film is plodding; unlike the slick lightning bolt action of Star Wars two years earlier, Star Trek: The Motion Picture flows like forty-weight motor oil. While Star Trek was always intended to be more of a dramatic take on the sci-fi genre than a strict shoot-em-up, ST:TMP starts with a sense of ethereal wonder that never quite transcends itself into a coherent film. From the awesome first sighting of the energy cloud, to the beauty shot of the new Enterprise in drydock, we are hit by the spectacle of the dazzling effects and Jerry Goldsmith's classic, often inspiring score. But, too many long shots of the viewscreen followed by close-ups of each crewmember's reaction begin to grow repetitive, and there seems to be a certain lack of motivation in the film. Instead of driving forward from one deductive point to another, ST:TMP seems to be floating on inertia. The resolution of the various problems that we encounter have less to do with how the crew reasted, what decisions they made, than with what merely happened next. This Trek is too gentile, as well, garnering a G rating from the MPAA. While Star Trek films simply aren't cut out to be R-rated mature entertainment, they don't stand well as gentle, G-rated fodder, either.

On a side note, the film is further hampered by the choice of costume designers to put the crewmembers in pajamas. The "hokiest" aspect of Trek to its critics has always been the outrageous and impractical space-uniforms. This did not help.

** (below average)

Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995)

Oh, no, not again

[4/10 · 17 September 1998]

Michael Myers, the deranged, not-so-young-anymore psycho, who seems to get beefier with every appearance, is resurrected by his druid brothers to wreck more menace upon his family members, and any one else who gets in the way. Gaps in logic seem to be ignored in favor of a healthy body count. Michael, who originally preferred strangulations and kitchen knives, learns to swing an axe and use whatever means necessary to off his victims, and the result is an awful, patchwork, dollar store film virtually unhelped by a few genuinely creepy sequences. Donald Pleasance, who died shortly after production, seems to have been injected into this story simply so *somebody* could be billed as the star. You won't want to cover your eyes during this one, but you will shake your head at the downward slide of John Carpenter's classic creation.

Jason Goes to Hell (1993)

Get thee behind me, Satan

[5/10 · 17 September 1998]

Adam Marcus' installment in this infamous series takes a sharp left turn off the main road, and the result is an interesting ride of mixed emotions. Produced by Sean S. Cunningham, Jason Goes to Hell presumes for the first time that Crystal Lake is not in a Twilight Zone of its own, and attempts to show up its place in the world.

Jason, it appears, is renowned as the deadliest serial killer in the world, and a favorite subject of tabloid journalists. One "Inside Affair"-type program even goes so far as to hire a bounty hunter to rid the world of Jason's evil. The FBI is also out to get the masked man. To do this, a pretty girl is sent alone to the woods of Crystal Lake to strip nude and climb in the shower. This is the bait, to lure Jason out of hiding. When he bites, the young woman runs him into a trap, and Jason is suddenly surrounded by machine guns, rifles, and a grenade launcher, and blown to chunks of seared and smoking flesh. There is no mention of how the FBI SWAT team members manage not to kill each other in the crossfire.

This is the first ten minutes of the film, just before that sharp left turn.

It is at this point that we learn Jason is nothing more than a demonic worm (literally), capable of possessing human bodies and using them to his own means until they disintigrate and become useless. He makes his way, in one body or another, back to Crystal Lake. His mission, we understand, is to become "reborn" of his own flesh via the body of another Voorhees. Ah-ha.

The screenplay comes across as something out of Quentin Tarantino's worst nightmare, with surreal gunfights and sleazy characters, but does manage to work up a few creepy sequences, such as the figure lurking in the dark garage, illuminated red in the tail lights of a parked car.

Of course, Jason *is* reborn of his own flesh in the end, prtrayed once more by Kane Hodder, and his duel to the death with John D. LeMay's sympathetically-drawn character Steven, is a root-for-whoever-seems-to-be-winning climax that does work up a little adrenaline. Think of it as Jason hits Big-Time Wrestling.

In the end, as you might guess, Jason is hauled down to Hell by the clumsy, groping hands of subterranean demons, with a little help from an old friend at New Line.

This is the kind of film that you watch with absolutely no idea whether it is good or bad. And then you remember that it is another Friday the 13th entry, and it's hard to argue with logic that sound. The result is a second consecutive, solidly adequate thriller for this series, which is still unable to read its head completely out of the cellar, but makes a good try.

Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan (1989)

Bites the Big Apple

[5/10 · 17 September 1998]

Jason Voorhees is raised from his watery grave and sets about mutilating whichever nearby teenagers he can get his hands on. Sound familiar? It is.

But Rob Hedden has directed what is perhaps the best of the Friday the 13th films with more style and imagination than earlier outings. The Jason character is cast as a sort of anti-hero in this update of the series, and the result is a campy good time.

Crystal Lake's graduating class are shipping off to New York for their class trip, and when Jason is accidentally revived from the bottom of Crystal Lake by an anchor which snags a power line, he climbs on board for the ride. What ensues is a cruise to mayhem as many of the teens are slain en-route to the Big Apple, and the boat eventually sunk. There's a lot of energy and kinetic camera work in this piece, nearly enough to revive the series to presentable level, and many of the killings almost come off as gags.

Kane Hodder, affirming that he is, in fact, the *real* Jason Voorhees, resumes the role he took over in the previous film, and hams it up a bit on the streets of New York while remaining a menacing figure. He frightens the dickens out of a street gang, proves that you should never touch the third rail of a subway, even marvels at his likeness on a New York Rangers billboard.

The ending in the sewers is questionable at best, with Jason dissolved in acid while the spray never harms his cowering quarry, but Hodder is fantastic lurching around the subterranean corridors while clutching his steaming, monsterous face and wailing in pain. Do zombies feel pain?

Jason Takes Manhattan gives a fresh perspective on the old formula, with good, solid performances and a core cast of believable characters. The fact that it *is* an old formula weighs greatly on this otherwise acceptable film, and the result is a middle of the road thriller that can finally stand almost eye-to-eye with other suspensers not cursed with a "VIII" in the title.

On a side note: hardcore F13 fans typically despise this film, perhaps for its change of venue or relatively low body count. Regardless, this is a film that delivers its share of frights and laughs, and of course, a measure of "oh, yeah, rights."

Friday the 13th: The New Blood (1988)

Carrie vs. Jason

[4/10 · 17 September 1998]

Jason Voorhees, mortal stalker-turned-zombie slasher returns for his fifth appearance on the big screen (after cameos in the original and in Part V). Is there really anything worth seeing in this film? Probably very little. The characters for the most part are cardboard cutouts. Terry Kiser and Lar Park Lincoln turn in adequate performances in a generic, fill in the blanks plot. Lincoln is a troubled teenaged girl returning to the place of her father's death (which is the root of her troubles), and Kiser is her shrink. Her pretends to be interested in helping her, but we discover that he is nothing more than a weasle trying to capture her flashes of telekinetic ability for his own profit. Hmmm...

Strangely, there is a cabin full of partying teens next door, including Nick, the "straight" outcast of the group, who of course falls for Lincoln's character, Tina.

Then, in the depths of depression, Tina attempts to concetrate her powers on raising her father from his watery grave at the bottom of Crystal Lake. She only succeeds in awaking Jason, who is not happy.

John Carl Buechler's direction is adequate and seems to build up some momentum as this film nears its climax, and serving also as makeup artist, Buechler's creature creation is the best in the series. Under the pounds of latex and slime (not to mention the infamous hockey mask), Kane Hodder manages to breathe life into the maniac Jason for the first time in perhaps five years, gnashing his teeth and hunching his shoulders menacingly.

Bottom Line: Hodder's devilish performance and Buechler's makeup are worth seeing, if you can survive the rest of the banter.

Titanic (1997)

Sinking Feeling

[10/10 · 10 September 1998]

Depending on what crowd you're a part of, it may be cool to your friends to like *everything* that is popular without forming your own opinion. Or, conversely, it might be cool to *hate* everything popular without thinking about it. This seems to be the basis of most amateur reviews of Titanic I 've read. The truth is that this is a terrific film which emotionally chronicles the death of 1500 people on a doomed luxury liner. Every movie needs a plot, though, or the fantastic last third of the film would have no meaning. I am not a particular fan or detractor of either Leo, Kate, or James, but all three work their professions to perfection. Jim writes and directs the film with real feeling and intelligence, and only in the movies is dialogue also perfect. There is never any confusion as to what is going on at any moment, and Leo and Kate both give outstanding performances as the doomed lovers. The historical characters are cast with uncanny resemblance (especially E. J. Smith), and the effects are so perfect that you hardly realize that what you're looking at is not real, and probably wouldn't know if you hadn't been told. Horner's soundtrack is at first wondrous, and becomes haunting as Titanic's fate is sealed. My only bone is that Cameron doesn't know port from starboard. The bottom line is that this is one of few films I've seen where the fate of the characters is of utmost importance to the viewer. You know Kate survives the wreck, and Kathy Bates as well, but what about the rest. These characters have the feeling of being real, breathing, men and women, and for good reason: many of them *were*. This is not a tragedy that belongs in a pop culture tug of war. I've seen the film only twice, and have been moved both times. And perhaps the best thing about historical dramas like this is best summed up in Hitchcock's own view on suspense. When the viewer knows the potential outcome, but the characters don't (Hitchcock explained it as two men at a table discussing baseball, while only the viewer is privy to the fact of a bomb ticking beneath the table). Titanic is a marvelous film, and the budget, politics, etc, involved in the Hollywood aspect of this memorable masterpiece are moot. If the film had not won an Oscar, it would still be among the five best films in the 100 year history of cinema.