Change Your Image
cheesus-895-673869
Reviews
Star Trek: The Next Generation: Silicon Avatar (1991)
What a stupid stupid episode
She was the one person to do what was necessary. When that thing came into range they should have released every form of torpedo and phaser blast to destroy it. They even have the audacity to suggest that her son would be upset with her decision. Of course he would not. He would accept her decision to do what was necessary to destroy that thing immediately. What an utterly stupid episode. Get that deranged captain into sick-bay and get his brain checked out. He has been possessed!
Why do they do such stupid episodes? "Oh lets have a casual chat with the demented killing machine, and allow it to show how much it likes destroying life! Let's show it affection and see what else it wants to destroy while we are at it." You really had to ruin this show with this level of stupidity didn't you?
What a load of rot!
Star Trek: The Next Generation: The Price (1989)
Euww... what a total denigration of Troi
This is pure vileness. A guy "oozes" his way into the life of Deanna Troi. How did she even let this walking slime enter her room, let alone her life. He is disgusting.
I would say this episode just ruins her strong character. "Oh you have big blue eyes... therefore I will sleep with you!" I do not think any thought went into this episode at all. It is a disgrace.
If there is anything in the episode, it is totally ruined by this tacky "character". I use the word "character" loosely. He is more like a cartoon caricature.. It basically just revolves around smut. It is like a bad porn movie with no actual sex scenes.
The scene involving Riker is pretty pointless. The fact that Troi even considered this guy palatable is amusing at best. Vomit bags at the ready for this episode.
On Deadly Ground (1994)
A very realistic review
This is an interesting movie because it is actually quite good in comparison to 80s action movies... but it is a 90s movie. It is fairly easy to see why people like it or hate it.
1. It is just an 80s style action movie with a somewhat more cerebral quality/ topic.
2. Even though it is a serious topic - it was handled in a way that is quite absurd.
3. It actually has better production values than most 80s action movies.
4. There are at least 2 good actors (both baddies: John C. McGinley and Michael Caine). They are good (as always) but their script makes them over the top. They are still quite fun to watch though and, as always, shine as great actors. There is even a quite funny/ silly little cameo for Billy Bob Thornton, small role for Mike Starr and a type cast role for R. Lee Ermey of Full Metal Jacket fame.
5. The story verges on the point of being so silly that it is actually fun to watch! It is no more absurd than Commando though.
6. People don't like Seagal because they find him narcissistic and preachy. Seagal acts better than Arnold Schwarzenegger but people LIKE Arny much more. Seagal acts (possibly) even better than 80s Stallone... but people LIKE Stallone (both Rambo and Rocky).
7. If you like martial arty types of stuff then this is pretty fun. If you like the shooty/ explosions stuff then it is also quite fun.
8. It is another portrayal of native American culture (Inuit in this case) that is reminiscent of the Star Trek Voyager Chakotay kind of thing. If the mumbo jumbo/ woo woo way of portraying native Americans/ Inuit culture annoys you... this will probably annoy you too!
Bottom line: It is a reasonable 80s style "good vs evil" action movie. It is low rated because of the somewhat absurd story-line and dislike of Seagal. If you look past those and just watch it as a typical 80s action flick, you should enjoy it.
I would give it 6.5 if I could, but I have rounded it up to 7.
Star Trek: Voyager: Memorial (2000)
Good overall but silly, illogical ending
It is an interesting premise and well structured story throughout. Unfortunately the end is really silly and botched. The ending may appeal to certain people but, from a rational perspective, it is immoral. I will not divulge any spoilers.
The episode unfolds in a manner which gets one thinking. Eventually it becomes apparent what has been happening. People's actions and reactions indicate good acting and the story and imagery is realistic. The problem is that, with a little thought, it can be seen that the actions taken at the end will almost certainly lead to severe problems for others.
Star Trek: Voyager: Retrospect (1998)
Better than the last episode but lower rated for some reason
I can be noted that this episode was not written by the same writer as the last. I have noticed some reviews coming from anti-male writers. The episode is indeed balanced and does represent some real life situations. People react in the way in which people do in real life.
I would say the whole point of the episode is examining the notion of questioning emotion over logic. People with "witch-hunt" types of mentality ( always guilty regardless of whether they can be proved innocent) won't like it. The reason for this is because the episode reflects real life.
Unlike the last episode people stay in character this time. 7 of 9 (contrary to some people) IS taken seriously and people do seem to jump to conclusions probably because she is one of their own.
In no way does the episode suggest that a woman's rights are less than male's... none whatsoever. It is purely reflecting on the need to use sound judgement and seek the truth in an objective manner. There are plenty of times when perpetrators of some form of violation are truely guilty; some of those people get away with it and some don't. There are also several incidents where innocent people get wrongly convicted or have their life destroyed because of false allegations. It is just life.
Star Trek: Voyager: Prey (1998)
Foolish episode written with little regard to sensibility
In some ways the episode is up to standard because of the usual production standards. Unfortunately it becomes exceedingly silly with serious character errors. Not only does Captain Janeway seem to get a bout of psychosis - everyone seems to follow along. The only one with any kind of sense of Star Fleet common sense is 7 of 9.
Before 7 of 9 actually saved the entire crew (and bizzarely got punished for this) the ship should have been completely destroyed or boarded losing all hands. The only reason for this miraculous ability to survive the assault seems to be there purely for the sake of justifying the Captain and crew's temporary insanity.
I think that the episode can be explained away as a ridiculous dream by one of the crew members. I think that is the only way that the events that took place could be explained. Maybe it actually never happened... because if the entire crew really were under the influence of some kind of space hallucinogen (of which 7 of 9 was immune) they should have all met their end. Maybe the Hirogen and 8472 were off their faces on this space drug too!
Rules of Engagement (2000)
Disturbing stereotypes that are actually quite ridiculous
This film itself is not too bad from the perspective of quality of filming and acting. Even the story-line is almost believable... but it then gets really quite silly.
Unfortunately I believe that this is not so well researched and is more based on imagination assisted by some very silly stereotypes. I am sure that there will be some people who will believe some of the scenes showing toddlers firing at Marines - but those of us with a little more experience of the world won't be taken in by it. It is a case of: "That's to be expected of those (-->add offensive racial slur here<- -)"
The score of 4 is based on the idea that it is a capable film from a production point of view. It is, however, very blatantly a game of stereotyping (or racial profiling (or whatever it is called these days)). This is what brings it right down, as well as:
1. Very silly soldiers and ridiculous troop movements - no wonder they are getting shot! The are in full view of the shooters. 2. Very odd lack of engagement of completely exposed rooftop shooters. They could have easily dispatched of the rooftop shooters with even the slightest bit of common sense. They were not even snipers... marine sharp shooters could have taken out all of them in under a minute. 3. It is highly likely even after simply shooting the rooftop shooters the majority of the crowd would most likely have dispersed. Most of the women and children would probably have dispersed simply with the sound of any kind of gunfire. 4. Multiple times we see the kind of attitude that says: "It was OK to break the rules of engagement and commit war-crimes because they were under pressure!"
I am not impressed at all with this film. If the people were reversed then it would not be viewed in the same light. I am definitely seeing a viewpoint here of someone who considers Americans to be more important than other people. There will be plenty who disagree with that viewpoint and I dare say you will see many reviews that say this is a great film. I respect people's point of view but I am strongly opposed to this film and understand the outrage of the people who see it in the same way as I do.
Ocean's Twelve (2004)
After watching this you will feel like a billionaire who has just won a 1000 dollars
It is probably not so difficult to describe how bad this film really is. It is basically a load of very well paid actors just lounging about doing nothing much. I believe there probably was a script in there somewhere but it is fading from my memory already (I watched the film a few minutes ago - or did I? What was that film I just watched? Never mind, I seem to have forgotten).
After watching this I am beginning to wonder if they did actually write a script at all. It almost seems like it was all just ad- libbed.
This is how the film goes: It seems that someone at some point planned something and everyone just knew what to do. "OK then, lets go and do some stuff in the most lethargic way possible and everything will be OK. At the end we can all sit around getting drunk and try to work out what just happened for the last few days... and work out if we actually care about it or not. I guess not - let's just get drunk anyway and pat each other on the back for some reason."
Yes, it is that bad!
Out of Time (2003)
I cannot understand the low score - Very good film
I picked this film out because I tend to find Denzel Washington films to be of high quality. I saw the fairly average score but thought I would give it the benefit of the doubt.
I was definitely not let down! At points it may seem a little unrealistic but it real enough (taking into account the story teller's right to stretch reality) to be believed.
Denzel is brilliant as usual with his economic style of acting. He does not over dramatize which is something I find intriguing. There were tense moments that were very well played out and comic moments that were carefully inserted. The comic scenes mostly come from John Billingsley who is one of my favorite actors from Star Trek.
I am surprised that it has gained such a low score because I found the quality exceptionally good. I am trying to find fault in it to justify why people would rate it so low but I cannot think of many. Maybe some of the comic scenes were a bit cheesy!? This was a gem of a movie and well worth my time.