citrin@ucbvax.UUCP (Wayne Citrin) (06/22/84)
I've been away for a while and this is the first chance that I've had to put my two cents in on a few films. Indiana Jones - Disappointing. It seems that Spielberg set his sights lower in this film. The stakes Jones is playing for aren't as high (although I suppose you can't get higher than they were in Raiders) and the plot is much less compelling than the first. The film generally looks as though it was done for the sake of the special effects and the plot was added to pad the film. I suppose that the problem is that Raiders transcended the B movies that it paid homage to, while Indiana Jones is just another B movie. Rating: ** out of ****. Star Trek III - By far the worst of the Star Trek films. In fact, possibly the worst film I can recall seeing. Director Nimoy has a television mentality and is blinded by his love with the Star Trek mystique. It shows in the tacky sets, the bad acting, and the silly script. In fact it makes you wonder what we saw in the TV series. The film looks like nothing but a big Star Trek TV episode, and a bad one at that. Still, I suppose Trekkies will like it. One interesting point is that the two worst Star Trek films were directed or produced by old Star Trek people, while the best one (ST II) was directed by Nicholas Meyer, who knew nothing of the series and made a film that was nothing like the TV show. One nice ouch to the film was in a scene in Kirk's earth apartment (which is supposed to be in San Francisco - just look at the scenery out the window if you don't believe me). At one point you can hear in the background a cable car bell. Nice, but that's about all the film has to recommend to. Rating: * out of ****. Greystoke - Finally saw this. It's pretty but boring. No character development except for Tarzan, and lots of loose ends in the plot, none of which are tied up. Rating: ** out of ****. A question: Has anyone seen "Under the Volcano" yet? Wayne Citrin (ucbvax!citrin)