Showing posts with label Patrick Stewart. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Patrick Stewart. Show all posts

Saturday, 8 August 2026

X-Men: The Last Stand (4½ Stars)


"X-Men: The Last Stand" is the third film in the original X-Men trilogy. It's a very good film, but it suffers from what I call "telescoping". Comic book stories develop over years, while films have to squeeze the important events into a couple of hours. As a result, things that happened years apart in the comics can take place within days on screen.

That's particularly damaging here because the film combines two of the X-Men's most important stories, the Phoenix Saga and the Dark Phoenix Saga. In the comics Jean Grey returned from apparent death as Phoenix, but it wasn't until years later that Mastermind manipulated her and unleashed Dark Phoenix. In the film Jean returns and almost immediately becomes a destructive force. Phoenix is also presented as a power that has always existed within Jean, rather than a cosmic force. It's an effective story in its own right, but it loses much of the tragedy and gradual development that made the Dark Phoenix Saga so memorable.

At the same time, a second story concerns a "cure" for mutation, created from the powers of a young mutant who can temporarily suppress the abilities of other mutants. Magneto sees the cure as an attack on mutantkind and gathers an army to destroy it. It's a strong plot, but putting it alongside Dark Phoenix means that neither storyline gets as much room as it deserves.

The film also takes the surprising step of killing three of its central characters. Scott Summers dies early in the film, Jean Grey dies at the end and Professor Xavier is apparently killed by Jean. Xavier gets a reprieve after the credits. Earlier in the film he discusses the possibility of transferring the mind of a dying person into the body of someone with no higher brain functions. The final scene reveals that he has done exactly that, transferring his consciousness into another body.

So I have the same basic problem with "X-Men: The Last Stand" that I had when I last watched it. As an adaptation of the Dark Phoenix Saga it's disappointing. As a film, however, it's very good. Maybe the biggest mistake wasn't the way the story was told, but trying to tell so much of it at once.


Stan Lee makes one of his usual cameos at the beginning of the film. He appears as one of Jean Grey's neighbours, watering his garden as the water rises into the air.


There's a second cameo by Chris Claremont, playing another neighbour whose lawnmower starts floating. Lee co-created the X-Men with Jack Kirby, while Claremont wrote the original Dark Phoenix Saga. If anyone had earned the right to look puzzled by what the film was doing with Jean Grey, it was Chris Claremont.

Success Rate:  + 0.2

Order from Amazon.com
Order from Amazon.co.uk
Order from Amazon.de

Thursday, 6 August 2026

X-Men 2 (4½ Stars)


"X-Men 2", commonly called "X2", is often regarded as one of the finest superhero films of the early 2000's, and it's easy to see why. Bryan Singer expands the scale of the original film with more action, stronger character development and a compelling story involving Colonel William Stryker's plan to wipe out the world's mutants. The action scenes are exciting, the special effects still hold up well and Hugh Jackman once again steals the show as Wolverine.

My biggest criticism of the X-Men films is one that applies to the entire series rather than this film alone. Instead of adapting the comics as they developed over the decades, the filmmakers created a pick-and-mix version of the team. Heroes from the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's are thrown together because they happened to be popular when the films were made. The original X-Men line-up of Cyclops, Marvel Girl, Beast, Iceman and Angel, created by Stan Lee, was discarded in favour of a roster that never existed in the comics. As someone who loves the classic stories, I find the disrespect for the source material disappointing.

Fortunately, "X-Men 2" succeeds on its own merits. The relationships between the characters are convincing, the pacing is excellent and the film balances spectacle with quieter moments surprisingly well. It may not be the X-Men story I wanted as a long-time comic reader, but taken as a superhero film it's an entertaining and well-crafted sequel.

Success Rate:  + 1.7

Order from Amazon.com
Order from Amazon.co.uk
Order from Amazon.de

Sunday, 10 May 2026

The Sheep Detectives (4 Stars)


As soon as I saw the trailers I knew this would be a special film.

Hugh Jackman plays George Hardy, a shepherd who's dedicated to his sheep. He lives in a caravan in the middle of his flock, and every night he reads detective novels to his sheep. They sit spellbound around him, and he assumes that they're only enjoying the sound of his voice, not the content of the novels, but he's wrong. They understand every word, and they discuss the stories with one another after he goes to bed at night.

One day George is found dead outside his caravan. The local policeman says it's a heart attack, but the sheep are convinced that he was murdered. If the police fail, it's up to the sheep to solve the crime.

It's a beautiful story, admittedly silly, but delightfully cute. The sheep aren't just a random flock, the main characters are all named and shown with distinct personalities. Maybe four stars isn't enough. I'll think it over next time I watch the film. Yes, there has to be a next time!

Friday, 7 November 2025

Deadpool & Wolverine (5 Stars)


I've finally bought "Deadpool & Wolverine" on Blu-Ray. It took a while. I had to wait until the price dropped to something I was willing to pay. Yes, I know it's on Disney Plus, but that's not good enough for me. I need to hold the shiny metal disc in my hand. It was the best film of 2024, so it deserves a special place in my collection.


This is what we've been waiting for since 2000. The real Wolverine!


The film features the return of Wunmi Mosaku as Hunter B-15. She needs a better name. Can I call her B for short? But whatever her name is, she gets my vote for Miss Multiverse 2025.

That's all I'm writing today. What? Are you complaining? Be honest... what would you rather have? A thousand dull words from me or a sexy action photo of Hunter B-15?

My case rests.

Success Rate:  + 4.7

Order from Amazon.com
Order from Amazon.co.uk
Order from Amazon.de

Sunday, 24 November 2024

Deadpool & Wolverine (5 Stars)



I was surprised to find out that "Deadpool & Wolverine" is already streaming on Disney Plus. I would have known if I'd occasionally logged in. As my readers know, I'm not much of a streaming fan. That doesn't mean I'm against streaming in principle. I have friends who boycott the streaming services. I wouldn't go that far. I need Netflix and the others to watch films that haven't been released on disc yet; or worse still, films like "Veneciafrenia" that will never be released on disc. Streaming services are also useful for me to watch films out of curiosity that I'm not sure I like.

I'm getting off topic. Concerning "Deadpool & Wolverine", I'm surprised that it's gone to streaming so soon. It's less than three months since it left the cinemas. Usually that's the sign that a film had performed badly at the box office, but that's hardly the case with "Deadpool & Wolverine". It's the second highest grossing film of the year so far, second only to "Inside Out 2".

It's a good film, though not up to the quality of the first two films. On the other hand, it's hilarious. There are non-stop in-jokes about the politics of the film studios behind the scenes. Not secret politics, of course. All Marvel fans have been reading what's going on with one company being bought by another.

I shan't write any more for now. I'll wait until I buy the film on Blu-ray, although I suspect that it'll only be a brief plot summary. The film isn't about the plot, it's about the jokes.

Success Rate:  + 4.7

Order from Amazon.com
Order from Amazon.co.uk
Order from Amazon.de

Monday, 29 July 2024

Charlie's Angels [2019] (4 Stars)



I missed this film when it was in the cinema in 2019. To be honest, I don't know why I've waited so long to watch it on Netflix. It's been on my watch list for a few years, but I've ignored it. My readers know I like strong women. The only reason that I watched it today is because it's been flagged by Netflix as "Leaving Soon". So it was my last chance to watch it for free. I'd have to buy it on Blu-ray.

I'm glad I watched it today. I would have been disappointed after spending money on it Compared with the last two Charlie's Angels films, it's a flop. The main problem is that it lacks the humour of the previous films. I agree that the 1970's television series wasn't comical, but that's why I didn't like it.

This film also highlights what I don't like about modern Hollywood films. So much emphasis is placed on films being unpredictable. Totally unnecessary plot twists were built into the later scenes. When did the craze for plot twists begin? Was it "The Sixth Sense" in 1989? It wasn't the first film with a significant plot twist, but as far as i remember it was the turning point. Since then films without plot twists have been dismissed as predictable.

Despite my criticisms, I've given the film a four star rating. It's not a bad film, even if it doesn't live up to its predecessors. But it's not a film that I intend to watch again.



My regular readers must have noticed my lack of posts in the last two months. One of my most faithful readers who claims that he checks my blog every day has asked me about it more than once. You know who you are! I gave the same answer every time, but he still wasn't happy. So I'll explain it here for the record.

I've been posting less because I haven't been watching films.

And why haven't I been watching films? It's because I've had a lengthy visit by my daughter and her children. They've been with me for more than two months. I've been spending every day with them, which has left me with hardly any time to watch films, neither in the cinema nor at home.

I promise to catch up now.

Success Rate:  -0.5

Order from Amazon.com
Order from Amazon.co.uk
Order from Amazon.de

Saturday, 27 July 2024

Deadpool & Wolverine (5 Stars)


It's good to be back in the cinema again, and what better film to watch than the new Deadpool film, "Deadpool & Wolverine"? I went to see the film with trepidation after reading that Ryan Reynolds had disagreements about the refilming of the film's third act. I feared the worst. Was it going to be another "Marvels"? I needn't have worried. I enjoyed the film from beginning to end.

It's a multiverse saga. That's another thing that made me groan when I read about the film in its early production days. Again, I was pleasantly surprised that the story succeeded. The multiverse was used as as a method of bringing back characters from old "forgotten" films. I shan't name them, because I don't want to rob you of the wow effect that I felt when they appeared on screen.

After watching the film I read reviews by critics who couldn't decide whether it's a good film or a bad film. The story is weak, which is obvious to me, but it's not about the story. The film jumps from one joke to the next, with only short pauses for action. The audience was laughing from beginning to end.


And Wunmi Mosaku is back! That's enough of a reason to watch the film!

"Deadpool & Wolverine" is my favourite film of the year so far.

Monday, 18 March 2024

X-Men (4½ Stars)


After Stan Lee's death I rewatched all of the Marvel films in which he appears, from "Spider-Man" to "Captain Marvel". For reasons unknown to me I omitted the X-Men films. I'll make up for it now.

Chronologically, "X-Men" was his first cameo. It was also his most subtle cameo. He appears without speaking for about ten seconds as a hot dog vendor on the beach. Of all his cameos, this is the easiest to miss. As the films progressed, his cameo roles became bigger and more prominent.

One criticism I have is that the film seems to have been made for comic book fans. What I mean is, many characters are barely introduced. I have a question to my readers. Are you someone who had never read the X-Men comics? If so, did you understand the film?

Success Rate:  + 2.0

Order from Amazon.com
Order from Amazon.co.uk
Order from Amazon.de

Monday, 24 July 2023

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (4 Stars)


This is the 28th film in the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe). After watching it on Disney Plus 12 months ago, I've finally bought it on Blu-ray. I'm a collector, so I need a complete MCU collection.

I wrote badly about the film when I first saw it in the cinema. That was an emotional response. It deserves a four star rating, i.e. it's a good film, though far from perfect. Having said that, the best scene is at the beginning. It's wonderful to see Doctor Strange fighting Ditko-esque monsters in New York, even if he seems more like an action hero than a master of the mystic arts.


But picking the Scarlet Witch as the villain is just wrong. I could accept her moral ambiguity in the TV series "Wandavision", but I don't accept her willingness to kill Doctor Strange and anyone else who stands in her way.

I shan't write any more because I'm still emotionally drained by my PC breaking down. Apart from that, writing blog posts on my laptop isn't as comfortable. A 29-inch screen is better than a 17-inch screen. Size matters. I'll have to check if I can connect an external monitor to my laptop.

Today I ordered a new PC from the company Alternate, which specialises in gaming PCs. I could have saved money by buying one of their standard high quality PCs, but I decided to configure my own PC. It'll be delivered in four weeks, they said. I hope it will be faster. As far as I'm concerned, it's my Corona PC. I couldn't have afforded it in 2020, but due to the pandemic I rarely left the house and saved over 2000 Euros. That's my budget for the new PC. I've spent slightly less, but 2000 Euros was my upper limit.

Success Rate:  + 2.8

Order from Amazon.com
Order from Amazon.co.uk
Order from Amazon.de

Tuesday, 27 June 2023

Wolverine (4½ Stars)



The official name of this film is "The Wolverine", but most fans call it "Wolverine 2", without an article. I call it "Wolverine" as a compromise. It's  the second Wolverine film, following "X-Men Origins: Wolverine", but whether or not it's a sequel is a matter of debate.

My last review, six years ago, was very short because I was suffering from writer's block. This review is also short, but for a different reason: I'm short of time while I'm on holiday. That's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it!

Success Rate:  + 4.1

Order from Amazon.com
Order from Amazon.co.uk
Order from Amazon.de

Sunday, 25 June 2023

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (3 Stars)



The title of this film makes me think that Marvel intended to make a series of origin films about the different X-Men. Fourteen years have passed, and there still aren't any more films. There used to be origin stories in the early issues of the X-Men comics (X-Men #38 to #57). These stories could have been adapted for films. It was a missed chance.

Success Rate:  + 0.5

Order from Amazon.com
Order from Amazon.co.uk
Order from Amazon.de

Wednesday, 3 August 2022

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (4 Stars)



I know I said this in my last review, but I'll repeat myself: the Multiverse is nothing bad in itself. It's not something dangerous. In fact, the Multiverse doesn't even exist, except as a concept. There are countless alternate realities. In the standard Marvel comics reality, usually called Earth-616, there are super-powered beings. In our reality, Earth-1218, there are no superheroes. Does that make our reality in some way more dangerous? On the contrary, our reality is harmless in comparison to the so-called Marvel universe. Of the hundreds, thousands or even millions of alternate realities, most are harmless in themselves. The Multiverse is just a word to describe the assortment of realities.

Now let's say something about this film, the 28th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). After watching it today on Disney Plus I've given it a higher rating. Maybe my positive bias in favour of Sam Raimi has kicked in. Maybe I just slept well last night. Either way, I now view it more positively. In a way, it's normal. I'm disappointed with most Marvel films on first viewing and don't give them a fair rating until the second time round. My first reaction is to compare the films with the comics. They never come up to the level of the comics, although Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man" came close. The only way to match the quality of the comics is to stick closely to the original stories. That's something the MCU screenwriters have never understood.


Doctor Strange comes to the aid of America Chavez, a young girl who has the power to open portals to other realities in the Multiverse. She's a singularity, i.e. only one of her exists, unlike normal people, of whom there's an alternate version in each reality. A demon has sent creatures to capture her and steal her power. Doctor Strange recognises the demonic power as witchcraft, so he goes to Wanda Maximoff aka the Scarlet Witch for aid. What he doesn't know is that it isn't a demon who's sent the creatures, it's Wanda herself. Wanda wants to travel to another reality where her children exist. (Those who've seen the television series "Wandavision" will understand this. I haven't reviewed it. Sorry). Wanda could just have asked nicely and said please to America, but instead of this she wants to steal America's powers for herself, even though this will result in America's death.

And so there's a battle across the Multiverse. We see different realities. It begins in the MCU reality, incorrectly called Earth-616, but most of the action takes place in Earth-838, a universe where Doctor Strange died battling Thanos. (I always considered Thanos to be a singularity as well, but let's not discuss it here).


The film uses a lot of CGI, but it's necessary. Magical worlds need good CGI, and it's well crafted. Look at the screenshot above. The beautiful Ditko-esque monster could never have been created without CGI.

My remarks in my last review about Doctor Strange looking more like an action hero than a Master of the Mystic Arts were unfair. He fights with magic. This is portrayed in the film to the best of Sam Raimi's abilities. In the battle scenes it's obvious that Doctor Strange is using magic, not just firing power blasts from his wrists.

What really annoys me in the film is the presence of Doctor Strange's ex-girlfriend Christine. There are characters in other films with ex-wives and ex-lovers, such as Ant-Man and Venom. They're always annoying. Did any character in the comics ever have his ex tagging along? I don't think so. Maybe they had ex-girlfriends, such as the Human Torch's ex-girlfriend Dorrie Evans, but she didn't stick around comic after comic. We just saw her briefly, then she was gone.

I'll watch the film again soon. It deserves a third chance. I doubt I'll ever upvote it to five stars, but it has its rightful place in the MCU.


And it stars Bruce Campbell. Hooray!

Success Rate:  + 2.8

Order from Amazon.com
Order from Amazon.co.uk
Order from Amazon.de

Monday, 6 June 2022

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (3 Stars)


This is the biggest disappointment of the year for me. I went to the cinema today with sky-high expectations. I expected it to be the best film of the year. It's not. Not even close.

Why did I expect so much of the film? It's the return of Sam Raimi to the Marvel fold. He's the director who made the best Marvel films before he was sacked over creative differences. I thought he would give Doctor Strange a deeper mystical style in his second solo film, but this was proved wrong in his first battle. When Doctor Strange faced a Ditko-esque monster on the streets of New York he looked more like an action hero than a Master of the Mystic Arts (capitalisation deliberate).

"Doctor Strange 2" (as I prefer to call the film) furthers Wanda Maximoff's portrayal as a bad guy. I thought she would have been reformed after "Wandavision". (That was a brilliant TV series, Marvel's best so far. I'm disappointed with myself for not writing about it). It's possible that she reforms at the end of this film. All I can say is that I'm disappointed that she plays the Big Baddy in "Doctor Strange 2". It's not faithful to her character in the comics, and why is she so powerful? In the comics she was a novice witch, no match for Doctor Strange.

Does Sam Raimi even know what the multiverse is? Judging by the dialogue, he doesn't. It's spoken of as something evil and uncontrollable. Rubbish! The multiverse is just a word to describe the different parallel timelines/universes. In the comics they're usually created by time travel, when someone goes back in time and changes events. The differences between the universes are subtle, not drastic.

In the last paragraph I bundled together the words "universes" and "timelines". In the comics (from the mid 70's onwards) they're practically synonyms, two words intended to describe the same thing. In the MCU the parallel universes in "Doctor Strange 2" and the parallel timelines in "Loki" seem to be different things. Otherwise the Time Variance Authority could have dealt with the problems while Doctor Strange stayed at the wedding sipping champagne.

So many random things are thrown together, We see the Illuminati, admittedly an alternate version of the Illuminati in the parallel universe Earth-838. The introduction of the Illuminati in an Avengers story in 2005 was one of the sillier ideas of Marvel's post-canon age, but in the film they look even more ridiculous.

What's with the Darkhold? We already saw it in Marvel's "Agents of Shield" series. It briefly appeared in the final episode of "Wandavision", but it plays a major part in "Doctor Strange 2". Is it the same book? It has different characteristics to the book in "Agents of Shield". The continuity of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is breaking down. Can't Kevin Feige, or whoever's responsible for the MCU, keep things better under control?

There's an unforgivable blunder. Sam Raimi should be ashamed of himself. It's claimed that the Doctor Strange in the film comes from Earth-616. Wrong, wrong, wrong! The main Marvel Universe in the films is Earth-199999. Earth-616 is the universe in the comics. They're very different to one another. Mysterio already called our universe Earth-616 in "Spider-Man: Far From Home", but he was a liar, so his mistake was deliberate.  Although, admittedly, they're becoming more alike. After films are released, stories are written in the comics that match the films. There's a major incursion of Earth-199999 into Earth-616.

Who is Charlize Theron supposed to be in the mid-credits sequence? The film itself doesn't name her, but in the credits she's listed as Clea. I hope her character isn't ruined by rewriting her in future films. She's Dormammu's niece, the daughter of his sister Umar. All true Marvel fans know that.

There's a silly post-credits scene in which Bruce Campbell speaks into the camera and tells the audience that the film's over. That made me smile. I know what it's about. Sam Raimi has said in interviews that he's opposed to post-credits scenes. Marvel probably insisted on a post-credits scene, so Sam made one as short as possible, not worth watching. Unless, of course, you're a Bruce Campbell fan.


When I walked out of the cinema my first inclination was to give the film a one star rating to signify my severe displeasure. I calmed down a bit on the train on the way home. Three stars is a fair rating. It's a reasonably well made film, even if it isn't Marvel.

The Marvel bubble has burst. When the MCU was launched in 2008 with "Iron Man" I was excited. I rushed into the cinema to see every film as soon as possible. I could hardly wait to buy them on Blu-ray. That's changed. The Marvel films don't excite me any more. "The Eternals" is the first MCU film that I refuse to buy on Blu-ray. It's not worth the money. There may come a time when I skip Marvel films in the cinema. That time isn't far off.

Tuesday, 31 May 2022

Lifeforce (4 Stars)


I watched this film in February this year. I mentioned in my review that the Blu-ray disc contains a director's cut. Since then I've read that it probably isn't a director's cut at all, it's just a longer version; 14 minutes longer, to be precise. It's no longer possible to figure out exactly what happened in 1985, when the film was first released, but it seems like the longer version was in the cinemas first, and then it was replaced by the shorter version.

Knowing this, I was interested in seeing if the shorter version is in any way censored. That isn't the case. "Lifeforce" has a lot of nudity in both versions. Most of the changes are cosmetic, shortening conversations to make the film run faster. The only thing that stands out is that the kisses are shortened, which I find regrettable. They're relevant, because the female alien sucks the life force out of her victims by kissing them.


Just one more kiss?


Beautiful! The best kiss he's ever had.


But he regretted it afterwards.


The moral of the story is never kiss a naked alien.

If you want to know more about the film, click here to read my original review.

Success Rate:  - 2.2

Order from Amazon.com
Order from Amazon.co.uk
Order from Amazon.de

Monday, 14 February 2022

Lifeforce (4 Stars)


This is a film that I bought almost two weeks ago, but I delayed watching it until today. The reason is simple: I've been giving priority to my True Stories marathon. After watching the first 30 true films, I'm going to slow down so that I don't delay watching any new purchases.

"Lifeforce" is a British sci-fi horror film made in 1985. A team of British and American astronauts investigates Halley's Comet as it passes the Earth. They find a large space ship travelling with the comet, hidden by the comet's glow. They enter the space ship and find it full of thousands of large bats, all dead. The only survivors on the ship are three beings, seemingly human, in suspended animation pods, two men and a woman. The team takes the pods into their space shuttle before the comet passes.

Radio communication on the space shuttle breaks down. Over the next few weeks everyone on the shuttle dies mysteriously. Their bodies dry out. Only the shuttle's leader, Colonel Carlsen, survives. While looking at the woman in her pod, he feels a psychic link with her and knows she's responsible for the deaths. He starts a fire on the shuttle to destroy everything, and then ejects himself in an escape pod.

Unfortunately, a rescue team is sent to the shuttle. They find the three suspended animation pods and bring them back to Earth. They're stored in a Space Research Centre in London.


The woman is the first to wake up. She kisses a security guard, and his body is dried out, leaving him dead. Or so it seems. She easily escapes from the centre, kissing anyone who tries to stop her. The two men escape later, but I don't want to go into too many details.

I'll just try to describe what's happening. The film is complicated, but it makes sense, if you pay attention. When the woman kisses a man, she absorbs his life force, leaving his body a dead husk. After two hours the man awakes and attempts to absorb the life force from someone else by touching him. If he can't find anyone to absorb within a few minutes, his body turns to dust and perishes. If he finds someone to absorb, his body returns to its original appearance, while the other becomes a dead husk in his place. This isn't the end, because the restored person runs around absorbing as many others as he can. So, effectively, it's a rapidly spreading plague.

An added complication is that the three original beings, the woman and the two men, have the ability to enter and possess humans.

It's claimed that the three beings, and others like them, have been accompanying Halley's Comet for centuries. They've visited Earth before, as the comet passed, and they were the inspiration for vampire legends.

This leaves a lot of unanswered questions. How did they come to Earth in the past, if nobody fetched them from their space craft? If the plague spreads so fast, how did humanity survive their previous visits?


This is an enjoyable film, more horror than science fiction. The special effects are reasonable, considering how old it is. Patrick Stewart plays a small but significant role. The Blu-ray disc also contains a director's cut, so I'll return to the film later this year.

Success Rate:  - 2.2

Order from Amazon.com
Order from Amazon.co.uk
Order from Amazon.de

Friday, 12 July 2019

Star Trek 10: Nemesis (3½ Stars)


This was the least successful of the Star Trek films, but even if it had made more money it would have been the last film starring Patrick Stewart as captain of the Enterprise.  There are different factors that make it a final film. William Riker and Deanna Troi get married, rounding off the romance that's been simmering ever since the first episode of "Star Trek: The Next Generation". There's also the death of Data, and it's difficult to imagine a new film in the series without him.

The enemy in this film is a man called Shinzon, who was cloned by the Romulans from Jean-Luc Picard's DNA. It gives a new meaning to the words "We're the same, you and I", which have been spoken by screen villains in varying forms for the last 50 years. It would have been too corny for Shinzon to say this, but I was still disappointed that he didn't.

Shinzon has advanced to become the leader of the Romulans, and he has a plan of how to destroy the Earth, but it's more important to him that he can defeat Captain Picard. He's obsessed with him. Captain Picard is Shinzon's nemesis, more than the other way round.

I find this film less appealing than any of the Star Trek films that went before. Something about it seems too laid back. Even when facing major crises, Captain Picard and the other members of his crew carry on talking calmly. It's as if they're burnt out after so many television episodes and so many films.


But don't they make a beautiful couple? I wish Will and Deanna all the best for a long, happy life together.

Success Rate:  - 0.9

Order from Amazon.com
Order from Amazon.co.uk
Order from Amazon.de

Monday, 8 July 2019

Star Trek 9: Insurrection (4 Stars)


One of the first questions Star Trek fans ask when they meet is "Who's your favourite captain?" I can't give a simple answer to that question. My reply is, "I like Jim Kirk most as a character, but Jean-Luc Picard is the most realistic captain". What I mean is, Jim Kirk was a swashbuckling rogue, more like a pirate than a traditional captain, with a girlfriend in every port. Jean-Luc Picard is a quietly efficient captain who does his job by the rules. He doesn't beam down to every planet he passes, he delegates the responsibility to his first officer. And he definitely doesn't kiss a different girl every week.

That's where "Star Trek: Insurrection" stands out. It's a Kirk story. This isn't the Jean-Luc Picard that we know, it's Jim Kirk in disguise. He defies Star Fleet orders when he thinks they're wrong. He beams down to the planet to do everything himself. He even falls in love with a woman and kisses her, though the kiss itself was cut from the film against Patrick Stewart's protests. After watching the kiss in the deleted scenes I think it's beautiful, even if it's out of character for Picard. Decide for yourself.







Maybe it's not quite a Kirk kiss. Captain Kirk always kissed actively and aggressively. In this scene Captain Picard isn't doing the kissing, he's letting himself be kissed. This makes the scene all the more beautiful. It should have been left in the film.


So who's the woman that Jean-Luc Picard is kissing? It's a colonist on the planet Baku. But who is the actress? That was bugging me all the time I was watching the film today. I'm sure my readers all know the feeling. You see an actor in a film, and you're sure you know him from somewhere, but you can't say where. Luckily we live in the age of the Internet. IMDB (Internet Movie Database) knows everything. It's Donna Murphy, and I recognised her hauntingly beautiful face from "Spider-Man 2", in which she plays the wife of Doctor Octavius.


It's not just about her beauty. Look at her face when she bids farewell to Captain Picard. Without saying a word, she can express fathomless depths of sadness and longing. That's magnificent acting. I need to see what she's like in other films.


Now let me say a few words about the plot. Data has been assigned to the planet Baku to observe a primitive society. He malfunctions and exposes himself to the population, in violation of the Prime Directive. When Captain Picard travels to the planet to retrieve Data, he finds out that the population is extremely advanced. They settled on the planet 300 years ago and have turned their back on technology. In this case the Prime Directive doesn't apply, because the population of Baku isn't indigenous, they're alien settlers on a previously unoccupied planet.

Captain Picard discovers that the Federation has authorised that the settlers, who only number 600, are to be relocated to another planet against their will. The planet's atmosphere has healing properties that they want to research. Really? There are only 600 people on the whole planet, and they have to be moved? Isn't there enough room for everybody? Picard immediately objects. He lodges a complaint with the Federation, but Admiral Dougherty says that the relocation will be complete before the Federation has time to discuss the matter. In a typical Kirk manoeuvre, Picard takes off his uniform and beams down to the surface with a bag full of weapons.

This was the least successful of the Star Trek films so far, but I like it a lot. As a franchise, Star Trek is better suited to television series than to films. What makes this film so good is that it has the feeling of a television episode. That's what gives it its strength.

Success Rate:  - 0.3

Order from Amazon.com
Order from Amazon.co.uk
Order from Amazon.de