Reviews

This review will not recant the plot, or mention anything about the concept of Star Trek, or it's characters. That has been done many times over by many others. Instead, I am going to review what it's like watching this film in the year 2012. Over 30 years after it's initial release. I'm doing so because my memory of originally watching was greatly altered with time, and yours may be too.

At the time of it's release I thought it was pretty good, if slow. I thought the new Enterprise looked fantastic, and the effects with the "Cloud" the team is investigating were beautiful and stunning. The story was average, devoid of much suspense or conflict. In this aspect it was blown away by Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. But it was an okay movie.

Watching TMP again, in the year 2012, on a nice HD television, reveals many flaws. First, the effects are nothing special, at times the cloud is interesting, but much of the time only because the design of it is somewhat innovative. Instead the effects look somewhat soft, even bland. The scenes of it, and the Enterprise go on forever. I'm sure when they made the film, and I first saw it, this was hypnotic to watch, to see something so new and special. But it's shine has long ago worn off with time. Some of the effects shots are almost laughable. They look very old. I tried my best to keep in context when the film was made, but even with that in mind it was at times hard to watch. There are other flaws as well, such as the tactical display of the cloud looks nothing like what they show you in space. It creates confusion. There are also other scenes that seem like interludes to show you effects and they drag. All of these things made the film difficult to watch.

However, if you are a ST fan, and can accept that and somehow get past it, how is the film? I still believe quite average. A lot of ST fans dislike this film and Star Trek V, but others think people missed the point. Having recently seen ST5 I now get that one, and think it's message is reflective of many episodes from the original series. It too is flawed, but I like it's idea, and it has a classic ST antagonist. But TMP doesn't have this. It's mostly just about re-discovering the characters, which was too subtle and took too long, and investigating the cloud. And in that regard I think even a lot of ST fans are going to find it difficult to sit through, and simply too long and uneventful.

The film tells the story about famed Quartzite Falls, a daunting Class V+ or VI rapid (a short cascading waterfall) deep in the wilderness along the Salt River Canyon (some 120 miles east of Phoenix near Highway 77), the only commercially run rapid in this class in the state. Quartzite was such an obstacle, that guided trips down the river were spending up to four hours to portage it, and a few who didn't want to wait, went over the falls, and some paid for it with their lives.

Frustrated with this, a group of 8 vandals (some outfitters) went into the wilderness one off season and dynamited Quartzite Falls into oblivion, reducing it to a series of ripples.

How this happened, and what happened to the men who did this, is told in this outstanding film, which is narrated by Peter Coyote. I caught this at the 2002 Banff Film Festival, and was fortunate enough to see it again seven years later.

I caught this cute film at a festival in 2006, which is likely where most people will view it. It's story is one of a French exchange student played by Natalie Avital who is befriended by a young man eager to help her out in her time in America. There's a twist ending I won't give away.

The film is in black and white, and the style does a good job of imitating great French directors of the past, such as Jean-Luc Goddard and Francois Truffaut, in the way it's shot, edited, and scored. Fans of that age of film-making will likely admire this film more than the general viewer and perhaps give this film a higher rating.

As a disclaimer, I actually met the filmmaker, Shawn Dawes, and worked with him one day many years ago. I have not seen him since that time, and did not know that he had directed this film until the credits rolled.

This film was well hyped when released, with trailers and ads talking about the power and efficiency of the Ingram sub-machinegun, what happens when hunting trips go wrong, and revenge. The movie only lived up to the hype in the first, and last scenes, but the concept is still sound. This is a story that could be remade, or explored in a new film.

The story starts out with a great set-up when a group of friends (very good actors - Cliff Robertson, Ernest Borgnine, Henry Silva) venture out hunting in the Canadian wilderness. The story shifts when they encounter a "rival" group of hunters in the distance. After an accident of sorts, both sides retreat. When no one reports the accident from the other side, ex-military Major Cliff Robertson becomes convinced the other guys are plotting against them. Great set-up so far.

Here is where the film bogs down, way bogs down. It's like they had about fifteen minutes of information, and spread it out over the next hour giving us unnecessary details on character development, and wordy dialog that didn't properly explore the ethics of the hunter's situation and dilemmas. By the time the climax approaches you're almost asleep wondering what the heck too so long. However, when the final scenes finally do arrive and the story picks up steam again, it commands attention and will not leave you disappointed.

If you get a chance to see this movie, pay close attention to the beginning, don't worry about popcorn or potty breaks during the middle, and wake up for the ending.

As of August of 2006, you're going to have to look for this on Cable TV, or Ebay, as the VHS is long out of print, and the film hasn't be released on DVD, which is too bad considering all the junk that is out there.

During the 1970's the three major networks (mostly ABC) made a slew of Made for TV movies. Many of them were junk, some were imitations of Hollywood hits at the time, and more than a few were excellent films. This is one of them.

I'm fortunate to own this movie and watched it just last night. I won't recant the plot, for you can find that here. but I will say this - this movie holds up very well as the years have gone by. The look and feel of it really captures the isolation and situation. The script isn't filled with old 70's clichéd dialog, and is very well paced. It's very well shot, and very well acted by two solid actors. Gil Melle's synthesizer score, while dated, fits the film quite well. Some of the effects are old, but there aren't very many, and don't detract from the story. If you are fortunate to get a look at this old movie you won't be disappointed.

Although I see the point of another reviewer who stated this movie's obscurity is part of it's charm, ABC (and the other networks) need to dig into their archives and re-master and release some of the good old TV movies to DVD. This one, A Short Walk to Daylight, Dying Room Only, many others.

I won't recant the plot, as that is listed here in the summary.

This film played on TV back in 1973, and at the time got some great reviews and created a little stir. Mercifully, the movie didn't just completely vanish in a vault, left only to memories, but has been saved and now can be found on DVD (Amazon, eBay, etc.) If you saw the film before, you are likely like me and when the title appeared again, want to again be touched as you once were. In that regard, you won't be disappointed. Oh, the film is dated, certainly. Some of it might make you chuckle here and there, and they obviously didn't have much of a budget back then, but that won't detract you at all, because the meaning in this story holds up extremely well. Even over 30 years later. The simply story of complex characters, and how they develop and grow is still as true today as it was then, and probably forever will be. The core of this film is very well written, and surprisingly well acted. I can't imagine anyone watching this film and not caring about the characters and being moved by their situation, their growth and friendship.

As to the DVD (when you find it) is no frills. The picture quality is not bad for the time, 4:3 TV aspect ratio, looking like a good VHS tape, or good old TV broadcast. The audio is mono, and generally good. Around 50 minutes in there is a slight buzz that might annoy you, but soon disappears. There are no trailers, no commentary, nothing like that. The DVD is coupled with a Johnny Cash/Eli Wallach film, "The Pride of Jesse Hallum", if that interests you, or if you can't find the title under Voyage of Yes, you may try it under that name instead.

**Since I wrote the following review in 2004, a storm of controversy, and potential lawsuit has emerged by the makers of DEN against the production company that made the film Saw, with accusations of plagiarism. If you have seen Saw, and liked it, it would be worth your while to try to seek this film out.**

I had a chance to see this strong film and am a bit surprised it was never picked up for any distribution, and hasn't really been seen or heard of since.

The story is rather simple: A strange, intimidating man kidnaps 4 people, and chains them in separate corners in a large church basement. From here, he proceeds to psychologically torment them with various secrets he knows about them, all from his twisted, demented mind.

The characters are very strong, the writing strong, and the acting strong. If there are two things that work against this film, and likely why it didn't get distribution (as of yet): It's shot on DV, and at times has somewhat of a video look, and at times somewhat hollow sound. This shouldn't bother you, as the film is about characters and acting.

The other (more likely) reason is that there are strong religion overtones, or anti-religion overtones. When Den screened at one festival for example, a few people actually got into an argument about it, then a fist fight broke out! This is a tough, well written and acted, original film, as independent as it gets. If it sounds like something you'll like, you shouldn't be disappointed and it's worth tracking down. I'm giving it a hard earned "7" out of 10.

Tom and Penelope look good, the movie looks very nice (cinematographer John Toll shot Legends of the Fall, Last

Samurai), and the film is in some aspects mind bending. It's also

wildly uneven, pushed to the point of confusion, almost

pointlessness.

I won't recant the plot, you can find enough info of that on your own,

but I will say these things without spoiling it. If you watch this film,

you're going to have to suspend some belief, and just let it wash

over you. Also be prepared for a lot of MTV interludes, where the

actors in an emotional moment, and right up front on the

soundtrack pops a classic rock song right over everything else. I

found this extremely detracting, but with warning, perhaps you may

not.

All in all, a nice looking, but uneven film.

Having climbed in the Andes, Tian Shan, St. Elias and other

mountain ranges across the planet, I was often asked what I

thought of this movie, and it's accuracy.

This is, without doubt, the least accurate film on climbing I have

ever seen. This movie is simply absurd. I consider it about as

"accurate" as, say, Spy Kids is to global espionage.

In addition to the gaffs pointed out, I wanted to state what was

most amusing to me: Inside the crevasse, the climbers ice tools

bounce off the crevasse walls like they're made out of solid steel

(and 'ping' just like it). But when Chris O'Donnall does his full

sprint (at altitude!) and huge leap across a cavernous abyss, he

drives his ice tools into the other side - made of solid rock - and

sticks like Spiderman. The film is filled with many other absurd

implausabilities that insult the sport it manipulates in the guise of

entertainment.

Aside from that, as so many others have noted, the movie is

simple minded action. If you don't mind laughing at much of it, and

don't for a moment think it represents realistic climbing, leave your

brain at the door and you might have some fun. But most people

will just find it absurd rubbish.

While released in 1980 on the heels of Halloween's success, this

film owes more to Last House on the Left, or I Spit On Your Grave,

as it follows the plight of three college friends who are kidnaped,

raped and tortured in the woods, then fight back when all hope

seems lost. This also marks a very early release for Troma, the

comedy-horror production group. But Mother's Day only contains a

small amount of comedy, and the only "cheeze" factor it has

comes from it being dated (a bad music score for example)

compared to the camp that Troma would later make. Mother's Day

comes across as a low-budget horror film like many others from

that era. The rape scenes are ugly, as they should be, and the film

is far more brutal than what we could come to expect from Troma,

but the film often seems long in the tooth, and lacking of a

compelling story to keep it moving. Would I recommend it? That's

hard to say, if you are doing a search for all 1980's Horror, and that

was indeed a time for low-budget Horror, then you should check

Mother's Day out, with a strong stomach. But if you aren't sure if

you'd like this or not, it would probably be better to skip it.

This independent, art-house film saw limited release in 1999-2000, but is not to be missed. It contains a powerful mix of tension, pathos, and social despair, as the lead character, Billy - a good person with too much stress from too many everyday problems, slowly succumbs to the difficulties of life. While not an easy film to watch, which is certainly why it missed the big theatres, it is an excellent film that achieves all it strives for, and is recommended to all fans of the independent genre. Let's see more films from these filmmakers.

The third installment in the series picks up where Part 2 leaves off. (Just as 2 picked up after 1). Just like my thoughts on Part 2, I will list the good and bad:

The Good 1) The tension in this film is unrelenting. With a small exception early in the film to introduce some characters, from start to finish there is never a dull moment. Director Steven Miner - who also did Part 2, had this craft mastered. 2) Several victims to be slaughtered are not weak, frail, stupid (well, maybe stupid) characters, which was a case with many in Part 2, and in many, many slasher movies. Some characters here are from a biker gang, and others just have "bad luck" in getting killed. 3) Jason is very intimidating. In my Part 2 review I credited Kane Hodder, he was actually not Jason until later in the series. But the credit can be shared, Jason is a very menacing, towering figure here and in most of the sequels. His hockey mask fit him perfectly! 4) As another reviewer noted, Harry Manfredini's manic score is fitting.

The Bad 1) While a few of the characters are formidable, the acting is often weak. Amy Steel gave Part 2 a great hero, with good acting. Outside of "Jason" too much acting here is stiff, with weak characters. 2) The body count is too high, and too quick. Just like Part 2 (and many horror/slasher films), not enough time is frequently given to allow you to care about the characters (a root problem) thus, feel the tension to build before the killing. 3) The ending does not have the crescendo that parts 1&2 had. I liked the finale, and lack of absolute resolution in the first two films that seems tired by now. 4) The filmmakers tried to overdo the 3D, and it takes a bit away from the film.

All in all, probably 3rd best in the series, perhaps 4th (1, 2 & 4 are all good "horror"), but while the series continued, it didn't have much left to say. Really after Part 2. 3 out of 4 stars for Horror fans. 2 of 4 for everyone else.

There are good things and bad things about this film. First the good: 1) There is a very high amount of tension during several moments in the film. The opening and closing most of all. 2) Hero Amy Steel was possibly the strongest and most capable actor from the entire series (respect to Betsy Palmer), and is not just a helpless female being stalked. Her character is smart, and she conveyed her feeling of terror very well. 3) Kane Hodder was dammed intimidating as Jason, especially considering he's wearing a hood over his head the entire film.

Now, the bad: 1) Steel and Hodder aside, the entire rest of the cast are cardboard characters with acting possibly on that same cardboard level, just waiting to be slaughtered. The only other decent actor has a very small part in the film (I won't give that away). The rest are really bad. 2) There are too many direct ripoffs from Halloween. The first film was compared to Carpenter's masterpiece, but really, this one (and the rest of the sequels) have direct copied ideas from Halloween. 3) Because of the producers (or studio's) need for the shock factor (read: gorey FX) with exception to the opening and closing, not enough tension and suspense are allowed to build before the characters are killed.

That said, there is enough tension and scares to keep most any horror fan more than interested.

This is probably the second best film in the series, behind Part 1. Part of the credit should go to Steven Miner, the director, who went on to direct House, Forever Young, Halloween H2O, and episodes on TV of many good shows.

3.5 stars (of 4) for horror fans. 2.5 for everyone else.

Made back in the early 1980's, on the heels of the horror resurgence, Eyes of a Stranger did it's best to break away from the endless Halloween clones, while still keeping up a level of tension.

It stars the attractive Lauren Tewes (from Love Boat) as a reporter trying to track down and verify the identity of a ruthless killer, played by John DiSanti. Where this movie differs so much from other horror of the era is that DiSanti's identity, and face, are never hidden. You know who he is, and that he did it, from the get-go. Tewes is convinced he's the killer, but no one will believe her (duh, of course not) and there is a confrontation between she and her blind sister (well played by a very young Jennifer Jason Leigh), and DiSanti. Ken Wiederhorn had worked on PBS before this film, and apparently used this film and genre, like so many others tried, to try to break into Hollywood. In all, there are some strong moments of tension, the FX are good, especially for the day (FX master Savini), and Tewes surprised a lot of people with her character (not nearly as sweet and pure as Julie on the Love Boat), but in the end the film never generated much interest and flopped. Hopefully at some point horror fans will make enough of a stir to get it released on DVD.