Change Your Image
Jo_the_film_junkie
Reviews
Der Schatz im Silbersee (1962)
It's a romanticised fantasy, so don't criticize it for its factual inaccuracies
Having read some of the comments on this film I feel somehow compelled to defend one of my favourite childhood movies. First off, I find it very odd that accuracy in the depiction of Indian culture and the what kind of equipment was used in a film made in the 1960s, when with very few exceptions (such as Cheyenne Autumn and Broken Arrow) American Westerns only depicted Indians as villains. Moreover, in the 1960s cinematography was maybe a bit more boring by modern music-video style cutting standards. Also, the prop work (costumes, the kind of guns and knives used etc....excuse me?) was simply making do with what you could get. This was not a multi-million-dollar budget movie, it was produced for German TV in a coproduction with Yugoslavia and I think Italy. Of course the story is full of clichés, and that's not surprising since Karl May never even left Germany, he was writing escapist romanticised fantasies of noble savages and cowboys fighting against evil savages and cowboys, it's not an ethnographic study on mid-19th-century Native American war-painting styles. It is still a very good and entertaining movie with likable characters, including some for comic relief. It is still the best of all the Karl May films, even though it greatly deviates from the book. When you see these films as an adult and don't know them from childhood I can understand they don't really grip you or blow you away. But they are classics. Their clichés, great music, and scenery make them so popular and the films have, along with the books, had a great impact on popular culture in Germany, even having spawned their own spoofs and parodies. If you are looking for factual accuracy, don't watch Westerns at all, if you just like a good adventure story, watch it.
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)
Not only the final act of a trilogy, but a homage to the first film too
Why do people go into sequels? Well, because they know what to expect, and they want more of it. So obviously, as you make a sequel to a very successful and popular movie you are forced to up the ante. The first Pirates was a stand-alone movie with an open ending, but it was somehow finished. Bad guys gone, the curse lifted from the Pearl and Sparrow on the loose again, that was it. Now since Pirates wasn't a classic pirate adventure but a fantasy pirate film with a lot of yarn and legend come to life with undead pirates and all, it all had to be more spectacular in Pirates 2 and even more so in Pirates 3. And to make these two come together they ended in a cliffhanger where one of the major characters has to be saved in the last part. There are too many parallels with the original StarWars to go into (main character "dies" at end of film two, rescue mission, two opposing fleets in final battle...). Anyway, the fantasy elements clearly got stronger in films 2 and 3 than they were in the first. It is still enjoyable and visually impressive on a big screen, but things like the 3-people fight in the wheel in Pirates 2 and the (HEAVY SPOILER) maelstrom fight between Pearl and Dutchman are too over-the-top and reminiscent of theme park rides, which is not surprising what with Pirates being based on one anyway. No question, the CGI carry a lot of the film, while the complex and intertwined plot with everybody crossing and double-crossing everyone is a bit confusing and you are surprised about the changes in character. Jack is the only reliable of the whole bunch of back-stabbers, because as a dishonest man can of course he can be trusted to be dishonest, and so his betrayals are not really surprising anyone. His, or rather Johnny Depp's performances are again the driving force of the movie. I don't know exactly how to call these sequences, but let's say his afterlife schizophrenic hallucinations, when he talks to his other sub-identities, at one point commands and crews a ship just by his very own selves, are the most hilarious scenes. Jack is best when interacting with the other characters, especially Rush's Barbossa with whom he squabbles constantly over the Pearl's command including some hilarious 'mine's-longer-than-yours' references. And Jack meeting his parents (yes, both of them, in a manner of speaking) is also not to miss. Verbinski also tries to tie all three films closer together, not only by unraveling some of the mysteries spun in Pirates 2, but also by paying homage to the other two movies, especially the first one. There's the rum that is always gone, the sea turtle story, and Jack's two slapping strumpets. This time even the two redcoats guarding the Interceptor in the first film are back. But there's more, Verbinski quotes himself repeatedly. The film starts and finishes on a song, and Captain Jack once again rides into view in one scene standing on top of the mast (only this time it is really a ship not just a boat, oh and the ship doesn't ride on the crest of a wave but on a crest of crabs...through the desert). Even though the film is really exciting and enjoyable to watch, it has a very major flaw in terms of picturing the villains. I don't mean Davy Jones, despite his vessel's submarine capabilities and his organ-playing which remind me of Captain Nemo. But what about the East India Trading Company that makes all pirates' timbers shiver, and who have control over Davy Jones? Well, at the start of the film Lord Beckett is shown as introducing a terror regime at Port Royal that is casting him as an earlier version of Robbespierre, possibly to make the pirates seem more humane (freedom-loving, code of honour...). If Beckett and co. are so tough why do they leave all the work to the Dutchman (HEAVY SPOILER) and why does their vastly superior fleet not engage the pirate brethren? Why doesn't Beckett fire a single shot? Generally, what is really missing from this film is that battle of the two fleets which from the trailer I was somehow anticipating. There is only one time we see the pirates from all the corners of the world fight, and that is in the council chamber among themselves. Apart from Sao Feng, they were a mere footnote to the whole film. That it all boils down to a duel between Pearl and Dutchman instead of an epic battle with dozens of ships is a bit pathetic. That would have been the proper sending off for the trilogy. The missing of this battle was one of the things that just weren't predictable. Neither were some of the twists and Turns in the movie, especially the final one, but others simply had it coming, such as the already-mentioned references to the previous films. Finally, the big parallel to the first movie is that again the trilogy is now finished within itself (like Star Wars), but it is still open ended. Johnny Depp has repeatedly said he still would love to play the character again, and the map Sparrow has at the end of the film leaves many magical places still to explore, but I don't think this is going to happen in the immediate future. Maybe a number of years down the road, but not right away. I would see them too, as long as Jack's on board. I would also see this one a second time on the big screen, and for fans of the series and Captain Jack it is a must-see, despite the things that I pointed out ...hmm-hm-hm,...and really bad eggs... drink up me hearties, joho
Star Trek: First Contact (1996)
Stands out as a good science fiction film even on its own
One of the problems of the Star Trek franchise, especially in the more recent installments, Insurrection and Nemesis, has been pushing the envelope of both Science Fiction and the Star Trek universe, boldly going where no one has gone before. That was easy for the first series and some of the films made with the original cast, but in terms of CGI and storytelling there was no new ground to break for Star Trek, others had gone there before. This explains why especially Star Trek IX and X seem so weak. First Contact is/was different. It is the best film made with the cast of The Next Generation without any challenge, and is right up there with my other two favourites, Wrath of Khan and The Undiscovered Country. It opens with a huge battle of Star Fleet against a Borg ship, which is one of the best set piece battle sequences of the whole franchise (along with the battles of DS9 against Klingon and Jem Hadar fleets) even though it is a bit short. immediately after the battle the film reprises the idea of time travel that was already used in the Voyage Home. This time however the reason is a far call from the cringeworthy whale-saving mission of Star Trek IV, it is about preventing the Borg from foiling Cochrane's first warp flight, which in turn would mean that the First Contact with the Vulcans and the founding of the Federation would never take place. Now the crew must ensure that history or rather the future takes its course, while ridding the Enterprise from Borg infestation. what makes this film stronger than the other installments with the TNG crew is that they are firmly grounded in the known Star Trek universe, featuring a known villain race, the Borg which are anyway one of the most imaginative creations of Star Trek, and a key event in Federation history, First Contact. Insurrection and Nemesis on the other hand just introduced new evil races, the Son'a and the Remans, sticking them onto the universe without much background. the Borg in First Contact are a known quantity but their background is expanded by introducing the Borg Queen. the film also explores human nature. the fact that the film leaves the utopian vision of a world without war, hunger and poverty and travels to an Earth devastated by World War III with 600 million dead, is a strong reminder of humanity's violent and destructive character, that we are made painfully aware of in each day's news bulletin. Picard himself also is unlike we have seen him before, thirsting for revenge from the Borg who once assimilated him. The Borg Queen in her role as a manipulating temptress is ironically the one who instead of assimilating Data brings him closer to to feeling human than he bargained for. And there is the most likable character of the whole film, punch-drunk anti-hero and Rock'n'Roll-fan Zefram Cochrane, who is very uncomfortable with all his future fame and hero-status that the timetravellers confront him with. maybe one of the morals of the film here is to always take history as it is written with a pinch of salt. however, it remains a bit of a mystery how an alcoholic such as him could fashion a warp ship. the film has some truly memorable scenes such as the zero-G fight at the deflector dish with the Enterprise shown upside down, or Picard moving down Borg in with holographic bullets in a 1920s holodeck setting. among these remaining impressions are also the film's irony in such moments as that showing a more-drunk-than-tipsy Deanna Troi "just trying to bl-lend in", as well as the unavoidable cheesy lines - "Borg? Sounds Swedish" and "Try to assimilate that". not only in comparison to other Star Trek movies, but even on its own, First Contact stands out as a good Science Fiction film, and is more than the sum of prosthetics and CGI, showing some good writing, directing and acting. It is the only Star Trek film I ever watched in a cinema and it was worth it. When I saw the trailer on TV I just had to see. Resistance was futile. The Star Trek films after that just did not have that allure.
Star Trek: Voyager (1995)
Combining the best elements of all the others
Looking back to first watching Voyager when it aired in Germany about 10 years ago every Friday night over the course of several years, I must say it was a really exciting series. As mentioned by many others who defend the series against its critics, I have to stress that it is a great re-invention of the premise of the Original Series, being out there filling the blank spots of the map and meeting new species, much more so than the Next Generation was. Even though I got into Star Trek via Picard and Co. and never really watched Kirk's adventures (apart from the films), TNG was just not gritty enough and had an overabundance of scientific episodes (anomalies, strange medical conditions...), a lot of which where pretty boring. Voyager had much more of DS9 (which at the beginning I didn't like but which I have come to appreciate) in that it had greater (I mean in scope) story arcs, including an über-arc which was the search for a way to get home. That was something that anchored the series similar to the way that DS9's setting on a station and not a ship gave it something to gravitate to. The setting of the unexplored Delta Quadrant gave the writers a creative license unknown maybe since TOS. New alien civilizations were introduced, of which the recurring bad guys of the Delta Quadrant, the Keson, stand out because they unlike so many star trek races are not united among themselves, which in my view makes them so much more believable, even human. Voyager has an interesting dynamic between the characters because they are forced to cooperate with each other due to the being stranded many light years from home. Rules have to be bent so that even the outlawed Maquis are integrated into the crew because being stranded there as well they are all in the same boat, er, starship. Conflicts are set aside in the service of the search for the return ticket, but the old loyalties/enmities of course die hard and at times come back to haunt the crew. Especially in terms of the characters, who are all flawed in their own particular ways, the series differed from the holier-than-thou attitude sometimes displayed in the all-too-noble characters of TNG. Just as DS9 introduced the first African-American captain as lead, Voyager had a strong female captain, a good counter-point to the womanizing Kirk of the original. Actually, Voyager is (in addition to DS9) notable for its strong female characters (Torres, Kes, 7of9, Janeway, maybe Seska too) which set the series apart from not only the original's Uhura in miniskirt, but also TNG's female characters which are cast in far too stereotypical roles in caring professions (doctor and counselor; tomboy Tasha leaving TNG far too early). Characters from the Delta Quadrant species join the crew drawn to the adventure of exploration, of which Neelix provides a bit comic relief. While the Voyager as a whole searches its way to Earth, two unique characters, the holographic doctor, and the ex-Borg assimilated into Voyager's crew, are on a quest for their own identity. These two characters that develop as the story progresses, are reminiscent of Data, as they both try to be more human.
So why not full points? Well, as any Star Trek franchise, Voyager also has its weak episodes, and sometimes the pseudo-science of the 24th century takes over a bit too much. Add to that the occasional holodeck episode which apart from the one using the Beowulf saga I find rather awful; also add some episodes featuring Q, whom I much dislike not only as character but as a concept in the Star Trek universe, and you have where the series loses some points for me. Even though I was an avid viewer in the first four or five years, I did not really follow the rest too closely as I lost interest which maybe shows that they could have let them return home a bit earlier. However, I believe that Voyager combined some of the best elements of all the previous series, TOS's quest for the unknown, TNG's (especially Data's and Picard's) quest for what it means to be human, and DS9's good character development and its focus around one central theme (guarding the worm hole/Bajor and finding a way home respectively.