Datasets:

DDDDZQ

/

imdb_reviews

like 0

Norris More Subdued With All-Star Cast

tt0090927

Menahem Golan directs this terrorist thriller with an all-star cast that surely has seen better days: Martin Balsam, Joey Bishop, Lainie Kazan, George Kennedy, Susan Strasberg, Bo Svenson, Robert Vaughn, Shelley Winters, and a young Kim Delaney as a nun. A big surprise is finding the German actress Hanna Schygulla in this film, but she does have a pivotal role as the head stewardess. Chuck Norris is the man that gets the job done, opening up a can of W.A. for those nasty terrorists. Norris does a lot better when he's a part of a larger cast like this; because, his acting talent is not enough to carry a film by itself. The first half of the film is an exciting account of a terrorist hijacking aboard a plane, characters being introduced, and the illustration of the surrounding tension that would exist during such an encounter. Robert Forster effectively plays the menacing terrorist leader. The film deteriorates a bit in the second half when Norris, along with his commander Lee Marvin (in his very last film role), enter the scene. Marvin lends an aura of credibility to whatever role he plays and there's no exception here. He balances Norris' bravado nicely, limiting Norris' usual one man army routine to a few scenes. The action is good, but turns cartoon-like somewhat with Norris so that any tension the film establishes in the first half dissipates in the second half. The soundtrack is annoying with the repetitive synthesizer, typical of 1980's television. Still the film is consistently entertaining, and it is one of Chuck Norris' better films. **1/2 of 4 stars.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090927/reviews-60

ur2567338

title: Norris More Subdued With All-Star Cast review: Menahem Golan directs this terrorist thriller with an all-star cast that surely has seen better days: Martin Balsam, Joey Bishop, Lainie Kazan, George Kennedy, Susan Strasberg, Bo Svenson, Robert Vaughn, Shelley Winters, and a young Kim Delaney as a nun. A big surprise is finding the German actress Hanna Schygulla in this film, but she does have a pivotal role as the head stewardess. Chuck Norris is the man that gets the job done, opening up a can of W.A. for those nasty terrorists. Norris does a lot better when he's a part of a larger cast like this; because, his acting talent is not enough to carry a film by itself. The first half of the film is an exciting account of a terrorist hijacking aboard a plane, characters being introduced, and the illustration of the surrounding tension that would exist during such an encounter. Robert Forster effectively plays the menacing terrorist leader. The film deteriorates a bit in the second half when Norris, along with his commander Lee Marvin (in his very last film role), enter the scene. Marvin lends an aura of credibility to whatever role he plays and there's no exception here. He balances Norris' bravado nicely, limiting Norris' usual one man army routine to a few scenes. The action is good, but turns cartoon-like somewhat with Norris so that any tension the film establishes in the first half dissipates in the second half. The soundtrack is annoying with the repetitive synthesizer, typical of 1980's television. Still the film is consistently entertaining, and it is one of Chuck Norris' better films. **1/2 of 4 stars.

Chuck Norris and Lee Marvin save the day

tt0090927

I once loved this movie but the more I watch it the worse it becomes. Look, the only reason this movie has been given as high a rating as it has is because of Chuck Norris. Do you know why they don't name a bridge after Chuck Norris? Because nobody crosses Chuck Norris. As I kid I loved Chuck Norris and pretty much tried to watch as many of his movies as possible. These days Churck Norris to me is simply one of those cult icons that people seem make jokes about (Yes, Mr President, I understand, the entire cast of Twilight).Anyway, as it turns out, this movie is based upon a true story, however it seems that when they made this movie they completely butchered it, to the point that they cannot even say that it is based on a true story (I wouldn't). In the real event, the hostages did not leave the plane, and the hero was the German Air Hostess that was able to build a rapour with the hijackers and pretty much saved the hostages lives. However, I suspect that this is one of those films where they decided to use the story, and then have the Delta Force come in and save the day.I guess the reason that I consider that this movie is so bad is because they are trying to mix a true story, and using the shock tactics of the true story (and that part of the movie works) but then have the Delta Force come in and save the day (which doesn't). Seriously, if they wanted to make such a movie, they should have toned down on the realism, a lot. In fact, having Chuck pretty much take it out on the terrorist at the end of the film sort of glorifies vengeance too much. Seriously, what Chuck did to the terrorist sort of tells us that it is okay to pretty much torture people slowly because they are bad people (when in reality it makes us no better than them).The other thing about this movie is that it is pretty much propaganda. Look, I don't know if the Delta Force every actually successfully rescued hostages from terrorists without having any of the hostages killed, but it is sort of turning them into real life super heroes. In fact it seems that they are moving them above the level of superhero because we all know that superheroes do not exist, but the Delta Force does. I can just picture hostages clinging to the hope that maybe, just maybe, the Delta Force, led by Chuck Norris, will burst through the door any second and rescue them.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090927/reviews-124

ur27175177

title: Chuck Norris and Lee Marvin save the day review: I once loved this movie but the more I watch it the worse it becomes. Look, the only reason this movie has been given as high a rating as it has is because of Chuck Norris. Do you know why they don't name a bridge after Chuck Norris? Because nobody crosses Chuck Norris. As I kid I loved Chuck Norris and pretty much tried to watch as many of his movies as possible. These days Churck Norris to me is simply one of those cult icons that people seem make jokes about (Yes, Mr President, I understand, the entire cast of Twilight).Anyway, as it turns out, this movie is based upon a true story, however it seems that when they made this movie they completely butchered it, to the point that they cannot even say that it is based on a true story (I wouldn't). In the real event, the hostages did not leave the plane, and the hero was the German Air Hostess that was able to build a rapour with the hijackers and pretty much saved the hostages lives. However, I suspect that this is one of those films where they decided to use the story, and then have the Delta Force come in and save the day.I guess the reason that I consider that this movie is so bad is because they are trying to mix a true story, and using the shock tactics of the true story (and that part of the movie works) but then have the Delta Force come in and save the day (which doesn't). Seriously, if they wanted to make such a movie, they should have toned down on the realism, a lot. In fact, having Chuck pretty much take it out on the terrorist at the end of the film sort of glorifies vengeance too much. Seriously, what Chuck did to the terrorist sort of tells us that it is okay to pretty much torture people slowly because they are bad people (when in reality it makes us no better than them).The other thing about this movie is that it is pretty much propaganda. Look, I don't know if the Delta Force every actually successfully rescued hostages from terrorists without having any of the hostages killed, but it is sort of turning them into real life super heroes. In fact it seems that they are moving them above the level of superhero because we all know that superheroes do not exist, but the Delta Force does. I can just picture hostages clinging to the hope that maybe, just maybe, the Delta Force, led by Chuck Norris, will burst through the door any second and rescue them.

A fast-moving action flick. Cheesy and Americanized.

tt0090927

My Take: Cheesy, mindless and entertaining in a laughable manner. After reading a couple of reviews and seeing it's neat-looking video cover, I decided to watch "The Delta Force".After watching, I didn't get all that I expected. Well, it does have the hard-hitting action, but it lacks the drama from the all-star supporting cast, including Martin Balsam, Shelley Winters, George Kennedy, Lainie Kazan and Susan Strasberg. I expected that since the film has an stellar supporting cast (like a disaster film), I expected it to have a dramatic turn. But since this is Hollywood, and it has Chuck Norris on top-billing, it just has to end with good ol' Chuck kicking some Lebanese terrorists' butt! But as it turned out,"The Delta Force" is corny, cheesy 80's action entry with lots of cheese poured over it. Chuck Norris is not the one-army he usually is. He teams up with Lee Marvin, and the results are really compelling. The formula of two, although not always as effective as the Gibson-Glover partnership in "Lethal Weapon", is fun to look at. The first half is the only real thing you can take seriously as some of the depictions of hijacking, one-minded as it is, is actually frighteningly realistic. The second-half was all-out cheesy that it should come with crackers. Alan Silvestri completes the lunacy with his cheesy 80's score that you might find yourself humming after you see it. Don't be so surprised. Rating: ** out of 5.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090927/reviews-98

ur14080241

title: A fast-moving action flick. Cheesy and Americanized. review: My Take: Cheesy, mindless and entertaining in a laughable manner. After reading a couple of reviews and seeing it's neat-looking video cover, I decided to watch "The Delta Force".After watching, I didn't get all that I expected. Well, it does have the hard-hitting action, but it lacks the drama from the all-star supporting cast, including Martin Balsam, Shelley Winters, George Kennedy, Lainie Kazan and Susan Strasberg. I expected that since the film has an stellar supporting cast (like a disaster film), I expected it to have a dramatic turn. But since this is Hollywood, and it has Chuck Norris on top-billing, it just has to end with good ol' Chuck kicking some Lebanese terrorists' butt! But as it turned out,"The Delta Force" is corny, cheesy 80's action entry with lots of cheese poured over it. Chuck Norris is not the one-army he usually is. He teams up with Lee Marvin, and the results are really compelling. The formula of two, although not always as effective as the Gibson-Glover partnership in "Lethal Weapon", is fun to look at. The first half is the only real thing you can take seriously as some of the depictions of hijacking, one-minded as it is, is actually frighteningly realistic. The second-half was all-out cheesy that it should come with crackers. Alan Silvestri completes the lunacy with his cheesy 80's score that you might find yourself humming after you see it. Don't be so surprised. Rating: ** out of 5.

A ridiculously funny kind of terrible movie.

tt0090927

A flight of American Tourists in Israel is hijacked by terrorists. A super-tough, testosterone fueled, and extremely bad-ass team of American commandos, The Delta Force, is sent in to rescue them.From the first scene to the last the movie is packed with a pro-brute force, pro military, got get 'em with guns blazing message that is a truly an insult to all the good commando action movies out there. Even by action movie standards the characters are ridiculously simplistic, the "drama" so incredibly unconvincing, and the action scenes are a nice display of general ineptitude. Choppily edited, poorly staged, logically inconsistent within themselves, and surprisingly unexciting. Bad guys can't aim and hit nothing, good guys also can't aim and hit all the bad guys. Also the "patriotic" music is screamingly absurd and gets repetitive. Very repetitive. When you have a major motion picture production with name stars and a big budget and all you come up with is something as sophisticated and involving as a bad side-scrolling shooter game for Nintendo then you are seriously in need of some help.On the plus side this movie makes for a great party flick and drinking game. The rules are simple: when something ridiculous happens take a drink of beer; when something absurdly ridiculous happens take a shot of hard liquor. Only Chuck Norris will survive, guaranteed. And remember kids, only do this is you are over 18 or 21 depending on where you live!Overall: Terrible, but a ridiculously funny kind of terrible. --- 2/10Rated R for violence

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090927/reviews-97

ur2214855

title: A ridiculously funny kind of terrible movie. review: A flight of American Tourists in Israel is hijacked by terrorists. A super-tough, testosterone fueled, and extremely bad-ass team of American commandos, The Delta Force, is sent in to rescue them.From the first scene to the last the movie is packed with a pro-brute force, pro military, got get 'em with guns blazing message that is a truly an insult to all the good commando action movies out there. Even by action movie standards the characters are ridiculously simplistic, the "drama" so incredibly unconvincing, and the action scenes are a nice display of general ineptitude. Choppily edited, poorly staged, logically inconsistent within themselves, and surprisingly unexciting. Bad guys can't aim and hit nothing, good guys also can't aim and hit all the bad guys. Also the "patriotic" music is screamingly absurd and gets repetitive. Very repetitive. When you have a major motion picture production with name stars and a big budget and all you come up with is something as sophisticated and involving as a bad side-scrolling shooter game for Nintendo then you are seriously in need of some help.On the plus side this movie makes for a great party flick and drinking game. The rules are simple: when something ridiculous happens take a drink of beer; when something absurdly ridiculous happens take a shot of hard liquor. Only Chuck Norris will survive, guaranteed. And remember kids, only do this is you are over 18 or 21 depending on where you live!Overall: Terrible, but a ridiculously funny kind of terrible. --- 2/10Rated R for violence

Chuck Norris and Lee Marvin kick terrorist butt.

tt0090927

I liked this movie I thought it was great when I first saw it as a kid and I still enjoy it to this day. Nothing like seeing the bad guys get blown away at the end, you get a real sense of satisfaction from seeing them get what they deserve. Of course, that is usually what happens at the end of most Chuck Norris movies. This one has a plane hijacked by terrorist and they are a vicious bunch, but do not fear as the Delta Force is on the case and they are going to rescue everyone from the normal passengers on the plane, to the pilots and some of the Jewish people on the plane as they are all taken to different locations after the initial takeover of the plane. Lot's of stars in this one aside from Norris and Lee Marvin though those two have the biggest impact on the movie for me, you also get to see George Kennedy, Shelly Winters, Martin Balsom, Joey Bishop and a whole host of other celebrities. Though I would have to say I am a bit disappointed in George Kennedy's role in this one as he would have been better suited to be like some sort of backup guy for the Delta Force, maybe a grizzled guy behind the scenes. Seeing him as a priest with not much power to do anything just did not fit him. The action in the film is good, most of the best stuff takes place near the end, but they have a couple of other good scenes as well including a very nice chase scene in the middle of the movie. I really enjoyed the music in this one too, granted it is standard 80's fare, but it is so darn catchy and goes really good with the chase scene and when the Delta Force swoops into action. In the end a very good Chuck Norris movie that really can get my blood pumping.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090927/reviews-116

ur1111192

title: Chuck Norris and Lee Marvin kick terrorist butt. review: I liked this movie I thought it was great when I first saw it as a kid and I still enjoy it to this day. Nothing like seeing the bad guys get blown away at the end, you get a real sense of satisfaction from seeing them get what they deserve. Of course, that is usually what happens at the end of most Chuck Norris movies. This one has a plane hijacked by terrorist and they are a vicious bunch, but do not fear as the Delta Force is on the case and they are going to rescue everyone from the normal passengers on the plane, to the pilots and some of the Jewish people on the plane as they are all taken to different locations after the initial takeover of the plane. Lot's of stars in this one aside from Norris and Lee Marvin though those two have the biggest impact on the movie for me, you also get to see George Kennedy, Shelly Winters, Martin Balsom, Joey Bishop and a whole host of other celebrities. Though I would have to say I am a bit disappointed in George Kennedy's role in this one as he would have been better suited to be like some sort of backup guy for the Delta Force, maybe a grizzled guy behind the scenes. Seeing him as a priest with not much power to do anything just did not fit him. The action in the film is good, most of the best stuff takes place near the end, but they have a couple of other good scenes as well including a very nice chase scene in the middle of the movie. I really enjoyed the music in this one too, granted it is standard 80's fare, but it is so darn catchy and goes really good with the chase scene and when the Delta Force swoops into action. In the end a very good Chuck Norris movie that really can get my blood pumping.

Airport 1985 – Enter the Chuck

tt0090927

The first hour of "The Delta Force" is a genuinely intense, dramatic and captivating hijack-thriller, but then it seems as if the crew suddenly realized they were supposed to make a Chuck Norris action vehicle and the whole thing still turns dreadful nonetheless. The makers should have just made it a fifth installment in the "Airport" series, especially since George Kennedy was already cast anyways, but instead they opted to narrate a repulsively anti-Arab propaganda story. The plot is based on the tragic real-life hijacking drama of TWA Flight 847 in June 1985 and several of the GOOD parts in the movie are truthful depictions of what happened there, like the brutal assassination of a Navy Diver, the separation of the Jewish people from the rest of the travelers and the press conference of the pilot held at gunpoint, but in order to enforce a preposterously patriotic happy ending, Chuck Norris and Lee Marvin (as well as a whole lot of rocket-firing devices) were added. Strange as it may sound, "The Delta Force" becomes incredibly boring and derivative as soon as Norris and his titular Delta Force come into action. The suspense is too often undercut, for example by numerous ludicrous and overlong images of Chuck cruising on his motorcycle on the horizon, and with the transfer to the city of Lebanon as the action territory, the movie loses its biggest trump of claustrophobic location. With a running time of more than two (!) hours, "The Delta Force" also outstays its welcome and the catchy theme music is frustratingly overused. Lee Marvin reprises his "Dirty Dozen" typecast role for the umpteenth time but, even though he's seemingly fatigue and his eyebrows are in desperate need for a haircut, his performance is still reliable and solid as a rock. This icon of military cinema died one year later from a heart-attack, making "The Delta Force" his last role. The supportive cast is vastly impressive, with the aforementioned George Kennedy, but also other acclaimed (disaster movie) veterans including Shelley Winters, Bo Svenson, Martin Balsam, Susan Strasberg and Robert Vaughn. The undeniably most memorable performance comes from Robert Forster in his courageous and ungrateful role as the Islamic head terrorist. Probably the ideal film to watch on the 4th of July, dressed in a Stars and Stripes outfit and while launching some fireworks yourself. Unfortunately, I'm not American

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090927/reviews-127

ur2020269

title: Airport 1985 – Enter the Chuck review: The first hour of "The Delta Force" is a genuinely intense, dramatic and captivating hijack-thriller, but then it seems as if the crew suddenly realized they were supposed to make a Chuck Norris action vehicle and the whole thing still turns dreadful nonetheless. The makers should have just made it a fifth installment in the "Airport" series, especially since George Kennedy was already cast anyways, but instead they opted to narrate a repulsively anti-Arab propaganda story. The plot is based on the tragic real-life hijacking drama of TWA Flight 847 in June 1985 and several of the GOOD parts in the movie are truthful depictions of what happened there, like the brutal assassination of a Navy Diver, the separation of the Jewish people from the rest of the travelers and the press conference of the pilot held at gunpoint, but in order to enforce a preposterously patriotic happy ending, Chuck Norris and Lee Marvin (as well as a whole lot of rocket-firing devices) were added. Strange as it may sound, "The Delta Force" becomes incredibly boring and derivative as soon as Norris and his titular Delta Force come into action. The suspense is too often undercut, for example by numerous ludicrous and overlong images of Chuck cruising on his motorcycle on the horizon, and with the transfer to the city of Lebanon as the action territory, the movie loses its biggest trump of claustrophobic location. With a running time of more than two (!) hours, "The Delta Force" also outstays its welcome and the catchy theme music is frustratingly overused. Lee Marvin reprises his "Dirty Dozen" typecast role for the umpteenth time but, even though he's seemingly fatigue and his eyebrows are in desperate need for a haircut, his performance is still reliable and solid as a rock. This icon of military cinema died one year later from a heart-attack, making "The Delta Force" his last role. The supportive cast is vastly impressive, with the aforementioned George Kennedy, but also other acclaimed (disaster movie) veterans including Shelley Winters, Bo Svenson, Martin Balsam, Susan Strasberg and Robert Vaughn. The undeniably most memorable performance comes from Robert Forster in his courageous and ungrateful role as the Islamic head terrorist. Probably the ideal film to watch on the 4th of July, dressed in a Stars and Stripes outfit and while launching some fireworks yourself. Unfortunately, I'm not American

I've seen trashier guests on the Springer show compared to Leatherface's new family

tt0099994

You know not many horror movies can survive a franchise and it seems like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is one of those movies that just couldn't be lifted from the ground with decent sequels. The second movie as silly as it was had it's occasional moments where as crazy as they were you could just try to slide past them and just enjoy the movie. However I did see The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre before I watched this movie, that movie made me wonder how the heck Renée Zellweger and Matthew McConaghey had any kind of career afterwards, believe me it was that bad. So I wasn't so sure how I would handle this movie but figured to give it a fair chance. Even though it's not as bad that movie, it's still not exactly that good. You could tell that the series really took a bad turn at this point. First off I do want to rant a little bit, I got the unrated version of this movie and how in the heck was that unrated? There is barely any blood and even though there is violence, however this still seems very tame as we don't see anyone get chainsawed. I don't know about those who also have this DVD but I feel like I got gypped. Ken Foree is the only thing that made this movie a good time because the two leads didn't exactly carry the movie very well. Michelle and her boyfriend Ryan are both traveling through Texas. At a gas station, they meet a hitchhiking cowboy named Tex and the station's perverted owner Alfredo. Tex shows Ryan a route on the map that can get them to a town. A fight soon breaks out between Tex and Alfredo. As Michelle and Ryan flee from the station in their car. As night falls, Ryan and Michelle, having taken the route Tex recommended, become lost. As Ryan changes their car's flat tire on the road, Michelle, hears a noise, and Leatherface ambushes the two of them. Now they are in for a night of terror with another survivor who just might give the crazy cannibal family a run for their chainsaws.Viggo Mortenson, he's such a baby in this movie, I mean looks wise, it's just weird to see where your roots start I suppose. But again I guess we all have to start somewhere like Renée and Matthew did with that silly movie. The two leads are what really killed the movie since they were beyond terrible and not even in a good way. Plus I wasn't crazy about the family with Leatherface, the house seemed a little too nice for cannibal serial killers and they're not meant to have the whole Hannibal the Cannibal vibe with being first class. I don't know where the little girl came from, was she meant to be the daughter of Leatherface? I'm not sure where the mom came from and the grandpa I'm pretty sure that he's stinking up the house since he's been dead for over a decade. However I did enjoy Viggo and Ken's characters, they seemed to be the only actors having fun and maybe that's why they have careers. I'm not sure if I would recommend this film, it has it's moments and if you want to see the whole series, I would say that it's not a total skip. But just don't expect a treasure, I think it's one of those films you have to let go a little and have fun. But my recommendation to others and myself is to write an angry letter to the DVD company for the unrated non violence. Believe me, compared to Saw -which granted maybe hardened our generation a little more- makes this look like Winnie the Pooh. And also keep our chainsaw gritty, we hardcore fans like our cannibal family riding in trailer trash pick up trucks with the crazy chicken feathers flying while listening to the pleasant rusty roar of our beloved chainsaw.3/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099994/reviews-149

ur1293485

title: I've seen trashier guests on the Springer show compared to Leatherface's new family review: You know not many horror movies can survive a franchise and it seems like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is one of those movies that just couldn't be lifted from the ground with decent sequels. The second movie as silly as it was had it's occasional moments where as crazy as they were you could just try to slide past them and just enjoy the movie. However I did see The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre before I watched this movie, that movie made me wonder how the heck Renée Zellweger and Matthew McConaghey had any kind of career afterwards, believe me it was that bad. So I wasn't so sure how I would handle this movie but figured to give it a fair chance. Even though it's not as bad that movie, it's still not exactly that good. You could tell that the series really took a bad turn at this point. First off I do want to rant a little bit, I got the unrated version of this movie and how in the heck was that unrated? There is barely any blood and even though there is violence, however this still seems very tame as we don't see anyone get chainsawed. I don't know about those who also have this DVD but I feel like I got gypped. Ken Foree is the only thing that made this movie a good time because the two leads didn't exactly carry the movie very well. Michelle and her boyfriend Ryan are both traveling through Texas. At a gas station, they meet a hitchhiking cowboy named Tex and the station's perverted owner Alfredo. Tex shows Ryan a route on the map that can get them to a town. A fight soon breaks out between Tex and Alfredo. As Michelle and Ryan flee from the station in their car. As night falls, Ryan and Michelle, having taken the route Tex recommended, become lost. As Ryan changes their car's flat tire on the road, Michelle, hears a noise, and Leatherface ambushes the two of them. Now they are in for a night of terror with another survivor who just might give the crazy cannibal family a run for their chainsaws.Viggo Mortenson, he's such a baby in this movie, I mean looks wise, it's just weird to see where your roots start I suppose. But again I guess we all have to start somewhere like Renée and Matthew did with that silly movie. The two leads are what really killed the movie since they were beyond terrible and not even in a good way. Plus I wasn't crazy about the family with Leatherface, the house seemed a little too nice for cannibal serial killers and they're not meant to have the whole Hannibal the Cannibal vibe with being first class. I don't know where the little girl came from, was she meant to be the daughter of Leatherface? I'm not sure where the mom came from and the grandpa I'm pretty sure that he's stinking up the house since he's been dead for over a decade. However I did enjoy Viggo and Ken's characters, they seemed to be the only actors having fun and maybe that's why they have careers. I'm not sure if I would recommend this film, it has it's moments and if you want to see the whole series, I would say that it's not a total skip. But just don't expect a treasure, I think it's one of those films you have to let go a little and have fun. But my recommendation to others and myself is to write an angry letter to the DVD company for the unrated non violence. Believe me, compared to Saw -which granted maybe hardened our generation a little more- makes this look like Winnie the Pooh. And also keep our chainsaw gritty, we hardcore fans like our cannibal family riding in trailer trash pick up trucks with the crazy chicken feathers flying while listening to the pleasant rusty roar of our beloved chainsaw.3/10

Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3

tt0099994

Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3 is the worst of the series (so far, that I've seen). It starts of great. The first 25 minutes are cool. Good writing. Decent acting.Then, we see Leatherface. Stupid, dumb, violent, sick, Leatherface.I know Leatherface is a horror hero. But I hate him. He's like a stupid zombie.After we see Leatherface, it gets stupid. The acting goes to hell, the script sucks, the dialogue sounds unrealistic and crappy.I am not a Texas Chainsaw Massacre series fan. But this is definitely the worst.1: 5/10 2: 5/10 3: 4/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099994/reviews-148

ur20481545

title: Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3 review: Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3 is the worst of the series (so far, that I've seen). It starts of great. The first 25 minutes are cool. Good writing. Decent acting.Then, we see Leatherface. Stupid, dumb, violent, sick, Leatherface.I know Leatherface is a horror hero. But I hate him. He's like a stupid zombie.After we see Leatherface, it gets stupid. The acting goes to hell, the script sucks, the dialogue sounds unrealistic and crappy.I am not a Texas Chainsaw Massacre series fan. But this is definitely the worst.1: 5/10 2: 5/10 3: 4/10

Part Remake/Part Sequel of the Original The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.

tt0099994

It's been years Serial Killer:Leatherface (R.A. Mihoiloff) has been missing and the most wanted killer in Texas. When two college students (Kate Hodge & William Bulter) are going to California. On that same day, when they though, they have taken a shorter short cut to California. They are stalked by Leatherface and his demented family (Viggo Mortensen, Joe Under, Tom Everett, Jennifer Bako & Miriam Byrd Nethery), which that family are a bizarre cannibalistic clan with blood on their hands and a feast on their minds. But the college students are being helped by a survivalist (Ken Foree) with enough firepower to blast Leatherface and his family, if they survived the night.Directed by Jeff Burr (Stepfather 2) made a entertaining, at times darkly humour sequel/remake of the original film. Which the film was supervised by Kim Henkel (Co-writer of the original), which he was a creative consultant for the film. It is also the better acted in the series until the 2003 Remake. The DVD Features are terrific:which it has an audio commentary by the director, screenwriter:David J. Schow, make-up effects supervisor:Greg Nicotero from KNB make-up F/X Studio, New Line's Film Production Executive:Mark Ordesky, actors:R.A. Mihoiloff and William Bulter. DVD also has an new featurette in the making of the third film, Deleted Scenes, Original Ending and the cool Theatrical Teaser and DVD-ROM Content.DVD has an clean anamorphic Widescreen (1.85:1) transfer and an strong Digitally Remastered-Dolby Digital 5.1 EX Surround Sound (Also in DTS 6.1 ES Surround Sound). Although the real treat watching this film is now seeing Cult Star:Ken Foree from "Dawn of the Dead" and Viggo Mortensen from the popular "The Lord of the Rings Trilogy". Who knew by watching the 30 minute featurette that New Line's Production Executive wanted Peter Jackson (Who directing the upcoming remake of "King Kong") to direct this film! and this film was submitted at least 11 times to get an R-Rating for the Motion Pictures Association of America! DVD Feautres the R-Rated Cut and the Unrated Version. Unrated Cut has Four minutes of additional footage, which makes the film stronger. Fans of The Texas Chainsaw Masscare won't be disappointed. While another's might take a look. Written by David J. Schow (The Crow). (****/***** for the Unrated Cut).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099994/reviews-94

ur5115203

title: Part Remake/Part Sequel of the Original The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. review: It's been years Serial Killer:Leatherface (R.A. Mihoiloff) has been missing and the most wanted killer in Texas. When two college students (Kate Hodge & William Bulter) are going to California. On that same day, when they though, they have taken a shorter short cut to California. They are stalked by Leatherface and his demented family (Viggo Mortensen, Joe Under, Tom Everett, Jennifer Bako & Miriam Byrd Nethery), which that family are a bizarre cannibalistic clan with blood on their hands and a feast on their minds. But the college students are being helped by a survivalist (Ken Foree) with enough firepower to blast Leatherface and his family, if they survived the night.Directed by Jeff Burr (Stepfather 2) made a entertaining, at times darkly humour sequel/remake of the original film. Which the film was supervised by Kim Henkel (Co-writer of the original), which he was a creative consultant for the film. It is also the better acted in the series until the 2003 Remake. The DVD Features are terrific:which it has an audio commentary by the director, screenwriter:David J. Schow, make-up effects supervisor:Greg Nicotero from KNB make-up F/X Studio, New Line's Film Production Executive:Mark Ordesky, actors:R.A. Mihoiloff and William Bulter. DVD also has an new featurette in the making of the third film, Deleted Scenes, Original Ending and the cool Theatrical Teaser and DVD-ROM Content.DVD has an clean anamorphic Widescreen (1.85:1) transfer and an strong Digitally Remastered-Dolby Digital 5.1 EX Surround Sound (Also in DTS 6.1 ES Surround Sound). Although the real treat watching this film is now seeing Cult Star:Ken Foree from "Dawn of the Dead" and Viggo Mortensen from the popular "The Lord of the Rings Trilogy". Who knew by watching the 30 minute featurette that New Line's Production Executive wanted Peter Jackson (Who directing the upcoming remake of "King Kong") to direct this film! and this film was submitted at least 11 times to get an R-Rating for the Motion Pictures Association of America! DVD Feautres the R-Rated Cut and the Unrated Version. Unrated Cut has Four minutes of additional footage, which makes the film stronger. Fans of The Texas Chainsaw Masscare won't be disappointed. While another's might take a look. Written by David J. Schow (The Crow). (****/***** for the Unrated Cut).

Unpleasant to watch.

tt0099994

This certainly is not the worst of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies, but it's probably the hardest to sit through, despite also being 75 minutes without credits. The fourth Massacre movie is much easier to sit through, even though it's one of the strangest, dumbest, worst movies of all time. As with most bad movies, the weakest link in this one was the story and pacing. It's not exciting when a movie is in a constant climax. You begin to lose interest, and that's where this movie suffers most.Michelle (Kate Hodge) and her boyfriend Ryan (William Butler) are bringing her father's car from Florida to California. Along the way, they stop for gas in Texas, and meet Tex (Viggo Mortenson), a man claiming to be lost. Ryan refuses him a ride, they drive off, and are attacked by a giant monster truck. And, you'll never guess it...Leatherface and his family are at it again. Thrills, chills and spills are nowhere to be found.These Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies are too similar to each other. Sure, they have original characters in each one, but they all end up with the family scaring the protagonist(s), and they're too much alike almost to call sequels. Even Nightmare on Elm Street brought some element of freshness or originality to each film. These are just rehashed over and over again, minus the fourth film, which is in a bizarre league of it's own.The acting wasn't too bad. The lead actors gave okay performances, including an early performance by Viggo Mortenson. It's not as over the top as any of the other movies, and because of that grows boring very fast. The direction was pretty good for what the script allowed. All the action scenes were well shot, though nothing spectacular. The dialogue is okay, meaning there's no lines that stood out as absolutely awful.The story and pacing makes this very hard to watch. The story is the same as the other movies. The pacing consists of a 5 minute opening, a 20 minute introduction to the characters, then a 50 minute climax. It's not exciting to have constant climaxes in movies, it's tiresome, and this movie is nothing but that.My rating: * 1/2 out of ****. 80 mins. Rated R for violence and language.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099994/reviews-132

ur4195782

title: Unpleasant to watch. review: This certainly is not the worst of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies, but it's probably the hardest to sit through, despite also being 75 minutes without credits. The fourth Massacre movie is much easier to sit through, even though it's one of the strangest, dumbest, worst movies of all time. As with most bad movies, the weakest link in this one was the story and pacing. It's not exciting when a movie is in a constant climax. You begin to lose interest, and that's where this movie suffers most.Michelle (Kate Hodge) and her boyfriend Ryan (William Butler) are bringing her father's car from Florida to California. Along the way, they stop for gas in Texas, and meet Tex (Viggo Mortenson), a man claiming to be lost. Ryan refuses him a ride, they drive off, and are attacked by a giant monster truck. And, you'll never guess it...Leatherface and his family are at it again. Thrills, chills and spills are nowhere to be found.These Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies are too similar to each other. Sure, they have original characters in each one, but they all end up with the family scaring the protagonist(s), and they're too much alike almost to call sequels. Even Nightmare on Elm Street brought some element of freshness or originality to each film. These are just rehashed over and over again, minus the fourth film, which is in a bizarre league of it's own.The acting wasn't too bad. The lead actors gave okay performances, including an early performance by Viggo Mortenson. It's not as over the top as any of the other movies, and because of that grows boring very fast. The direction was pretty good for what the script allowed. All the action scenes were well shot, though nothing spectacular. The dialogue is okay, meaning there's no lines that stood out as absolutely awful.The story and pacing makes this very hard to watch. The story is the same as the other movies. The pacing consists of a 5 minute opening, a 20 minute introduction to the characters, then a 50 minute climax. It's not exciting to have constant climaxes in movies, it's tiresome, and this movie is nothing but that.My rating: * 1/2 out of ****. 80 mins. Rated R for violence and language.

What about part II?

tt0099994

At the end of Texas Chainsaw II, there was something of a variation on the ending of the original film. The girl who spends most of her time trying to escape the family of crazed maniacs with her life ends up holding the chainsaw herself, swinging it around like a lunatic exactly like Leatherface did at the end of the original film, which led me to believe that it would suggest a general direction that the movies would take in any further sequels. Instead, Texas Chainsaw III, one of the more controversial entries in the series, seems to be unaware of its predecessors.I hesitate to condemn the entire film just because it is seriously lacking in the quality department, if only because I watched the 'Making Of' featurettes on the DVD and found that the cast and crew actually went through some serious trouble getting the thing made, and the cause of a lot of the drops in quality was some things that they had to cut or change in order to get an R rather than X rating. You would think that all they have to do is cut out excessive blood or guts or nudity to tame the rating a bit, but they had to completely change scenes in order for the blasted MPAA to allow them to release it. Wes Craven went through similar troubles in some of his earlier films, like Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes, and when you learn what they deal with it's not so hard to figure out why the MPAA is not popular with horror filmmakers.(spoilers)One thing that had to be changed, for example, was the ending. This is why you see a character show up grinning at the end of the film, despite the fact that we watched him get his head chainsawed in half earlier in the movie. Before you yank the DVD out of your DVD player and try to stick it in the wall, take a few minutes to watch the making of documentary, which essentially is 30 minutes of the cast and crew trying to explain why the movie was so bad. One verbose reviewer who calls himself Duke De Mondo writes a hilarious review in which he asserts that the Texas Chainsaw sequels all seem to pay homage to the original film as though it were some kind of urban legend, constantly reshuffling everything except Leatherface, the only character who is expected to be in any Texas Chainsaw movie. Hence, in part III, Leatherface is the only returning character, and as the director explains on the accompanying documentary, everyone else is some sort of surrogate family brought together my similar deviations from sanity. Still a pretty weak explanation for the little blonde girl, I should think.Speaking of which, it should be mentioned that at one point in the film, two people get chainsawed to death minutes apart, and it is not until I saw that little girl standing at the top of the stairs that I was even slightly apprehensive. What is it about little kids that makes them so scary? It's the worst when they are dressed in cute little outfits that just clash so strongly with their surroundings, like the little girl in this movie or, probably most famously, the twin girls in The Shining, who I still think are some of the creepiest kids ever captured on film. This girl turns out to be an aspiring member of the family, eager for her turn to put the meat hooks and sledge hammers to good use, and who decorates her room not with flowers or Barbie's or anything even remotely pink, but with human bones and skulls, presumably left over from the original Texas Chainsaw and, subsequently, The Hills Have Eyes. And this is to say nothing of her doll. You know, Jodie Foster had to undergo counseling in preparation for her role as a 12-year-old prostitute in Taxi Driver. I really wonder if there were similar concerns for this girl, whose film-making ordeal can't have been much less damaging.As far as the gore, Texas Chainsaw III is famous for being disappointing, but this is explained by the whole ratings fiasco. On the other hand, there was much talk about death scene of the girl who had already been running from the crazed family for five days or so when this movie started. Supposedly she was sawed in half from the stomach up, but this is simply not true, even in the unrated version that I watched. Yes, there is a vast quantity of blood in the scene, and yes, she does get brutally killed with the saw, but no, she does not get sawed in half and then her body peel off in two directions, having been split down the middle. It just doesn't happen. Nevertheless, I should think there is sufficient gore in the movie to satisfy all but the most depraved horror and Chainsaw fans, especially considering the sledge-hammer scene (which is based on a real police photo of Ed Gein's basement, and is one thing that the movie deserves at least some credit for), the above-mentioned chainsaw scene, and the scene where one character gets his head sawed almost in half at the ear level, although, as we later find out, does not kill him. If this is not enough for you, watch Day of the Dead. And if THAT is not enough for you, watch the news. There are plenty of videos coming from al Qaeda that are truly, truly disturbing.Viggo Mortensen, although he almost didn't get the part because his audition just didn't go very well, was outstanding as Tex, who is essentially the character that Matthew McConaughey plays in Texas Chainsaw 4, which is by leaps and bounds the worst of the series, including the 2003 remake (which I have not seen at the time of this writing, but it is physically impossible that it was worse than that ridiculous mess). There is one scene where Tex nails the heroine's hands to a wooden chair, and then casually asks her how she likes Texas. Pretty disturbing, but it doesn't make you want to slap your forehead, as McConaughey does from start to finish in part 4.Well, I'm sure she's having a blast, although the movie was filmed in California, incidentally about a 30-minute drive from where I live in Los Angeles. That's bike-riding distance for me. I was also impressed with the heroine in the movie, the obligatory girl who is the last to survive running from Leatherface (although this movie makes a slight variation on this trend at the end of the film). She manages to walk the fine line between sufficiently expressing her terror and not screaming mercilessly to the point where you just want her to get killed so she'll shut the hell up, and that is not an easy line to walk. I hope I'm not being misogynistic, but there is nothing worse in a horror film than the hysterical woman who simply screams and moans and won't respond when someone is trying to help her. I hate that. I have to admit that I was disappointed that the fancy new chainsaw, inscribed with the infamous quote 'The Saw is Family' and the most famous thing about this movie, was put to so little use. Not only is it not introduced until the majority of the killings are already done with another, much less shiny and interesting, chainsaw. And to make matters worse, not only is it underwater when it does its flesh-hacking (I guess the ability to run underwater was another of its special features), but the one character that it is allowed to sink its teeth into turns up not dead at the end of the film. Disappointing, true, but I have to say that Texas Chainsaw III is one of the better TCM films. Not as good as the original, but as good as the first sequel and light years better than the third sequel.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099994/reviews-91

ur0562732

title: What about part II? review: At the end of Texas Chainsaw II, there was something of a variation on the ending of the original film. The girl who spends most of her time trying to escape the family of crazed maniacs with her life ends up holding the chainsaw herself, swinging it around like a lunatic exactly like Leatherface did at the end of the original film, which led me to believe that it would suggest a general direction that the movies would take in any further sequels. Instead, Texas Chainsaw III, one of the more controversial entries in the series, seems to be unaware of its predecessors.I hesitate to condemn the entire film just because it is seriously lacking in the quality department, if only because I watched the 'Making Of' featurettes on the DVD and found that the cast and crew actually went through some serious trouble getting the thing made, and the cause of a lot of the drops in quality was some things that they had to cut or change in order to get an R rather than X rating. You would think that all they have to do is cut out excessive blood or guts or nudity to tame the rating a bit, but they had to completely change scenes in order for the blasted MPAA to allow them to release it. Wes Craven went through similar troubles in some of his earlier films, like Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes, and when you learn what they deal with it's not so hard to figure out why the MPAA is not popular with horror filmmakers.(spoilers)One thing that had to be changed, for example, was the ending. This is why you see a character show up grinning at the end of the film, despite the fact that we watched him get his head chainsawed in half earlier in the movie. Before you yank the DVD out of your DVD player and try to stick it in the wall, take a few minutes to watch the making of documentary, which essentially is 30 minutes of the cast and crew trying to explain why the movie was so bad. One verbose reviewer who calls himself Duke De Mondo writes a hilarious review in which he asserts that the Texas Chainsaw sequels all seem to pay homage to the original film as though it were some kind of urban legend, constantly reshuffling everything except Leatherface, the only character who is expected to be in any Texas Chainsaw movie. Hence, in part III, Leatherface is the only returning character, and as the director explains on the accompanying documentary, everyone else is some sort of surrogate family brought together my similar deviations from sanity. Still a pretty weak explanation for the little blonde girl, I should think.Speaking of which, it should be mentioned that at one point in the film, two people get chainsawed to death minutes apart, and it is not until I saw that little girl standing at the top of the stairs that I was even slightly apprehensive. What is it about little kids that makes them so scary? It's the worst when they are dressed in cute little outfits that just clash so strongly with their surroundings, like the little girl in this movie or, probably most famously, the twin girls in The Shining, who I still think are some of the creepiest kids ever captured on film. This girl turns out to be an aspiring member of the family, eager for her turn to put the meat hooks and sledge hammers to good use, and who decorates her room not with flowers or Barbie's or anything even remotely pink, but with human bones and skulls, presumably left over from the original Texas Chainsaw and, subsequently, The Hills Have Eyes. And this is to say nothing of her doll. You know, Jodie Foster had to undergo counseling in preparation for her role as a 12-year-old prostitute in Taxi Driver. I really wonder if there were similar concerns for this girl, whose film-making ordeal can't have been much less damaging.As far as the gore, Texas Chainsaw III is famous for being disappointing, but this is explained by the whole ratings fiasco. On the other hand, there was much talk about death scene of the girl who had already been running from the crazed family for five days or so when this movie started. Supposedly she was sawed in half from the stomach up, but this is simply not true, even in the unrated version that I watched. Yes, there is a vast quantity of blood in the scene, and yes, she does get brutally killed with the saw, but no, she does not get sawed in half and then her body peel off in two directions, having been split down the middle. It just doesn't happen. Nevertheless, I should think there is sufficient gore in the movie to satisfy all but the most depraved horror and Chainsaw fans, especially considering the sledge-hammer scene (which is based on a real police photo of Ed Gein's basement, and is one thing that the movie deserves at least some credit for), the above-mentioned chainsaw scene, and the scene where one character gets his head sawed almost in half at the ear level, although, as we later find out, does not kill him. If this is not enough for you, watch Day of the Dead. And if THAT is not enough for you, watch the news. There are plenty of videos coming from al Qaeda that are truly, truly disturbing.Viggo Mortensen, although he almost didn't get the part because his audition just didn't go very well, was outstanding as Tex, who is essentially the character that Matthew McConaughey plays in Texas Chainsaw 4, which is by leaps and bounds the worst of the series, including the 2003 remake (which I have not seen at the time of this writing, but it is physically impossible that it was worse than that ridiculous mess). There is one scene where Tex nails the heroine's hands to a wooden chair, and then casually asks her how she likes Texas. Pretty disturbing, but it doesn't make you want to slap your forehead, as McConaughey does from start to finish in part 4.Well, I'm sure she's having a blast, although the movie was filmed in California, incidentally about a 30-minute drive from where I live in Los Angeles. That's bike-riding distance for me. I was also impressed with the heroine in the movie, the obligatory girl who is the last to survive running from Leatherface (although this movie makes a slight variation on this trend at the end of the film). She manages to walk the fine line between sufficiently expressing her terror and not screaming mercilessly to the point where you just want her to get killed so she'll shut the hell up, and that is not an easy line to walk. I hope I'm not being misogynistic, but there is nothing worse in a horror film than the hysterical woman who simply screams and moans and won't respond when someone is trying to help her. I hate that. I have to admit that I was disappointed that the fancy new chainsaw, inscribed with the infamous quote 'The Saw is Family' and the most famous thing about this movie, was put to so little use. Not only is it not introduced until the majority of the killings are already done with another, much less shiny and interesting, chainsaw. And to make matters worse, not only is it underwater when it does its flesh-hacking (I guess the ability to run underwater was another of its special features), but the one character that it is allowed to sink its teeth into turns up not dead at the end of the film. Disappointing, true, but I have to say that Texas Chainsaw III is one of the better TCM films. Not as good as the original, but as good as the first sequel and light years better than the third sequel.

Part 2 was Awful...This is just the icing.

tt0099994

Okay, maybe I was too harsh on Part 2 of the Leatherface films. I called it vile. Vile. A word I rarely describe a movie.Sure Part 2 was bad. Terrible, even. But Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III…is…actually worse. Thankfully, they toned down the gore – yeah, not much, but more so – and yet, still just made a complete mess of a film. A lesson on how NOT to make a movie.There were enough plot holes in part two to fit six chainsaws through simultaneously; this has room for four more. Again, I made myself to finish through the end so I can report on this and hopefully make sure no one else has to endure such pain. (And on a side note, the characters in the film that do have such torture inflicted on themselves don't know half of the pain the audience has to endure.) In this "exciting" chapter we have multiple characters being haunted by the killer who was seriously killed in part 2. (Sure, no consistency, but neither is the whole movie.) Apparently with no rhyme or reason, he's with a new family of sadists who take hostage the female lead and put her at the head of the table at dinner like the other movies in this degrading sequel.Okay, number one: Thank GOD, Viggo Mortensen became a more established actor; he can ignore such a poor choice in performances. Number two: no one else has the excuse of actually acting their way out of a wet paper bag.This movie brings nothing new to the table. It contains awful acting, unoriginal dialogue and ideas, bland ideas and a title that suggests it contains more depth to a psychopath yet delivers no such character development. It's awful. It's just plain stupid. And as bad as Part 2 is, it makes that segment look like a Disney film comparatively speaking. Skip this movie. There is absolutely no reason to watch it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099994/reviews-141

ur17825945

title: Part 2 was Awful...This is just the icing. review: Okay, maybe I was too harsh on Part 2 of the Leatherface films. I called it vile. Vile. A word I rarely describe a movie.Sure Part 2 was bad. Terrible, even. But Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III…is…actually worse. Thankfully, they toned down the gore – yeah, not much, but more so – and yet, still just made a complete mess of a film. A lesson on how NOT to make a movie.There were enough plot holes in part two to fit six chainsaws through simultaneously; this has room for four more. Again, I made myself to finish through the end so I can report on this and hopefully make sure no one else has to endure such pain. (And on a side note, the characters in the film that do have such torture inflicted on themselves don't know half of the pain the audience has to endure.) In this "exciting" chapter we have multiple characters being haunted by the killer who was seriously killed in part 2. (Sure, no consistency, but neither is the whole movie.) Apparently with no rhyme or reason, he's with a new family of sadists who take hostage the female lead and put her at the head of the table at dinner like the other movies in this degrading sequel.Okay, number one: Thank GOD, Viggo Mortensen became a more established actor; he can ignore such a poor choice in performances. Number two: no one else has the excuse of actually acting their way out of a wet paper bag.This movie brings nothing new to the table. It contains awful acting, unoriginal dialogue and ideas, bland ideas and a title that suggests it contains more depth to a psychopath yet delivers no such character development. It's awful. It's just plain stupid. And as bad as Part 2 is, it makes that segment look like a Disney film comparatively speaking. Skip this movie. There is absolutely no reason to watch it.

Another fun, though lesser sequel is a baby step up from part 2

tt0099994

Well here we are in the land of chainsaw-wielding lunatics again folks! No longer in the hands of the original creators, this was a new leap for the series. Unfortunately by this point times had changed for horror films and the MPAA was cracking down on the violence in them. This film was target and suffered greatly. It ended up different from the vision of writer David Schow and director Jeff Burr and the closest we've ever gotten to what they intended to make is an Un-rated version. This isn't saying much though since this version is only slightly longer than the R-rated one. Does this mean the film is no good? Not at all. In fact, this second sequel is in some ways better than part 2 and so far is the best of the sequels.Pros: Nice work by the cast. Solid musical score, plus a cool Heavy Metal tune over the closing credits. Stunning photography. Briskly-paced. Some good chilling moments. Though closer in tone to the original, this film has some good twisted humor. Fair amount of blood and gore. Good job on the make-up and special effects. Nail-biting last few minutes.Cons: Brings nothing new to the table. Lacks the raw terror of the original. Not much plot. Unnecessary set-up for another sequel.Final thoughts: By the time this film came out the slasher genre had run out of steam, but this still managed to be a solid film and sequel. It's still no match for the original, but it's not a washout either. Despite the cuts and changes made, an above average horror film still shines through.My rating: 3.5/5

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099994/reviews-137

ur4597795

title: Another fun, though lesser sequel is a baby step up from part 2 review: Well here we are in the land of chainsaw-wielding lunatics again folks! No longer in the hands of the original creators, this was a new leap for the series. Unfortunately by this point times had changed for horror films and the MPAA was cracking down on the violence in them. This film was target and suffered greatly. It ended up different from the vision of writer David Schow and director Jeff Burr and the closest we've ever gotten to what they intended to make is an Un-rated version. This isn't saying much though since this version is only slightly longer than the R-rated one. Does this mean the film is no good? Not at all. In fact, this second sequel is in some ways better than part 2 and so far is the best of the sequels.Pros: Nice work by the cast. Solid musical score, plus a cool Heavy Metal tune over the closing credits. Stunning photography. Briskly-paced. Some good chilling moments. Though closer in tone to the original, this film has some good twisted humor. Fair amount of blood and gore. Good job on the make-up and special effects. Nail-biting last few minutes.Cons: Brings nothing new to the table. Lacks the raw terror of the original. Not much plot. Unnecessary set-up for another sequel.Final thoughts: By the time this film came out the slasher genre had run out of steam, but this still managed to be a solid film and sequel. It's still no match for the original, but it's not a washout either. Despite the cuts and changes made, an above average horror film still shines through.My rating: 3.5/5

Watchable but boring Leatherface installment

tt0099994

This one goes back to the serious tone revolving a crazy family and a psychotic chainsaw wielding psycho. It's nowhere near raw and chaotic as the first one, nor does it come to the same level of scare factor. Sure, it doesn't have that tension and suspense. The title of this movie has Leatherface in it, but he isn't in it as much and his persona isn't really shown in this. I have no idea why it's called Leatherface, because Leatherface plays a small part in the whole thing. Actually it does show a bit of Leatherface persona, but the more it tries the less intimidating he gets. I know, it's to show the innocence of Leatherface, but the more it does it makes Leatherface less intimidating more than interesting. The build up is drawn-out and boring and I just couldn't care for any of the characters. Even if the acting in it is alright. Also I am not sure if the heavy metal tracks actually elevated the chainsaw scenes or not either. I think they should get rid of the prologue part, because after the first one the next 3 sequels are just plain out silly in my opinion. Overall this is a watchable sequel that isn't awful, but doesn't stand out among other slashers.4.3/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099994/reviews-164

ur22171966

title: Watchable but boring Leatherface installment review: This one goes back to the serious tone revolving a crazy family and a psychotic chainsaw wielding psycho. It's nowhere near raw and chaotic as the first one, nor does it come to the same level of scare factor. Sure, it doesn't have that tension and suspense. The title of this movie has Leatherface in it, but he isn't in it as much and his persona isn't really shown in this. I have no idea why it's called Leatherface, because Leatherface plays a small part in the whole thing. Actually it does show a bit of Leatherface persona, but the more it tries the less intimidating he gets. I know, it's to show the innocence of Leatherface, but the more it does it makes Leatherface less intimidating more than interesting. The build up is drawn-out and boring and I just couldn't care for any of the characters. Even if the acting in it is alright. Also I am not sure if the heavy metal tracks actually elevated the chainsaw scenes or not either. I think they should get rid of the prologue part, because after the first one the next 3 sequels are just plain out silly in my opinion. Overall this is a watchable sequel that isn't awful, but doesn't stand out among other slashers.4.3/10

Not enough Leatherface goodies but still a sequel to praise.

tt0099994

"Leatherface" is the real sequel to "Texas Chainsaw Massacre"; one of the most important Horror movies of all time. This sequel focuses more on the gore and raw factor. There's some room for cheesy black humor and cheesy one-liners from characters that take a "bad-ass" attitude. Also, I need to urge you to get the UNRATED version.; that is the real Leatherface experience. Although the movie goes by the name of "Leatherface"; he has not that much chainsaw action or memorable sequences. In fact, his look has little to do with the one from the previous TCM movies. Sure, he has his good amount of kill scenes, and even a cheesy scene featuring a spelling machine for kids but there isn't enough Leatherface on-screen time. Leatherface even gets his own song, trailer, and more. He even gets a brand new, spectacular, memorable big shinny yellow chainsaw. That's a chainsaw I would even like to use. But I would praise director Jeff Burr for continuity details. For example, Leatherface has an electronic device in his right leg; following the ending of the original TCM. And some other little details that you will find about. The new characters have a different personality but are obviously inspired by The Cook and Chop-Top. But still each of the new characters are really likable and their personal features are to dig about. The little girl steals the show with her sadistic behavior. Ken Foree reprises his role from "Dawn Of The Dead" with a few differences. He does not wear a soldier outfit (although at some point he is asked by a girl if he's a soldier!), and he does not have a powerful weapon. He changes army glamour for old Texas country music and primitive fighting style. Heck, the man gets beaten by almost every member of the Saywer family, he gets a chainsaw through his skull, and other things but he manages to survive. Not even the zombies from the Romero 1978 masterpiece were able to keep him down. Foree delivers a great performance as the badass lead. Jeff Burr does a great job as director. He creates tension, unsettling atmosphere, and violence in most of the scenes. He has a good vision and demonstrates it. "Leatherface" is a dark movie with great direction and fast pacing. Talking about the movie's pace; I think it's decent enough because it goes directly to the point and covers the basic aspects a Horror movie needs to have. There's a decent amount of great gore, action, and tension sequences. Great job. The torture sequences were greatly done.Now, this movie is heavily underrated and has been critizied for it's "part III" label. Give it a try. You won't regret. Recommended for TCM fans or Horror followers overall. It's not just another slasher flick although some cheesy lines and scenes pop-up. For example: "why do you do this to us?" "Because he have to eat". "Have you ever heard about pizza??!". Gee. The movie starts as the other "Massacre" movies. You know, people on their car have the bad luck to stop at the "Last Gas Station" and that's when everything starts. A couple who is on their way to Florida stops there and suddenly are insulted and spied (who will understand later) by Alfredo; and there they meet Tex; a Texas cowboy. Little they know that they perform a fake act in order to lead them to the infamous death route that always ends in the Saywers house. On the road, they are attacked by Leatherface, they crash their car against a black rude man with a horrible attitude but with a good heart named Benny, and they find their fatal fates. Not the trip they planned huh? Join the couple, the black tough guy, and the favorite cannibal family in the ultimate Chainsaw movie. This is how a Horror movie from the 90's should be.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099994/reviews-106

ur2843647

title: Not enough Leatherface goodies but still a sequel to praise. review: "Leatherface" is the real sequel to "Texas Chainsaw Massacre"; one of the most important Horror movies of all time. This sequel focuses more on the gore and raw factor. There's some room for cheesy black humor and cheesy one-liners from characters that take a "bad-ass" attitude. Also, I need to urge you to get the UNRATED version.; that is the real Leatherface experience. Although the movie goes by the name of "Leatherface"; he has not that much chainsaw action or memorable sequences. In fact, his look has little to do with the one from the previous TCM movies. Sure, he has his good amount of kill scenes, and even a cheesy scene featuring a spelling machine for kids but there isn't enough Leatherface on-screen time. Leatherface even gets his own song, trailer, and more. He even gets a brand new, spectacular, memorable big shinny yellow chainsaw. That's a chainsaw I would even like to use. But I would praise director Jeff Burr for continuity details. For example, Leatherface has an electronic device in his right leg; following the ending of the original TCM. And some other little details that you will find about. The new characters have a different personality but are obviously inspired by The Cook and Chop-Top. But still each of the new characters are really likable and their personal features are to dig about. The little girl steals the show with her sadistic behavior. Ken Foree reprises his role from "Dawn Of The Dead" with a few differences. He does not wear a soldier outfit (although at some point he is asked by a girl if he's a soldier!), and he does not have a powerful weapon. He changes army glamour for old Texas country music and primitive fighting style. Heck, the man gets beaten by almost every member of the Saywer family, he gets a chainsaw through his skull, and other things but he manages to survive. Not even the zombies from the Romero 1978 masterpiece were able to keep him down. Foree delivers a great performance as the badass lead. Jeff Burr does a great job as director. He creates tension, unsettling atmosphere, and violence in most of the scenes. He has a good vision and demonstrates it. "Leatherface" is a dark movie with great direction and fast pacing. Talking about the movie's pace; I think it's decent enough because it goes directly to the point and covers the basic aspects a Horror movie needs to have. There's a decent amount of great gore, action, and tension sequences. Great job. The torture sequences were greatly done.Now, this movie is heavily underrated and has been critizied for it's "part III" label. Give it a try. You won't regret. Recommended for TCM fans or Horror followers overall. It's not just another slasher flick although some cheesy lines and scenes pop-up. For example: "why do you do this to us?" "Because he have to eat". "Have you ever heard about pizza??!". Gee. The movie starts as the other "Massacre" movies. You know, people on their car have the bad luck to stop at the "Last Gas Station" and that's when everything starts. A couple who is on their way to Florida stops there and suddenly are insulted and spied (who will understand later) by Alfredo; and there they meet Tex; a Texas cowboy. Little they know that they perform a fake act in order to lead them to the infamous death route that always ends in the Saywers house. On the road, they are attacked by Leatherface, they crash their car against a black rude man with a horrible attitude but with a good heart named Benny, and they find their fatal fates. Not the trip they planned huh? Join the couple, the black tough guy, and the favorite cannibal family in the ultimate Chainsaw movie. This is how a Horror movie from the 90's should be.

underrated and deserves to be underrated

tt0099994

Well it wasn't horrible but it wasn't great. No where near as good as the original. It kinda tried to hard to be the first movie. I think it needed a better director. The opening title sequence was cheesy. Some the acting was cheesy except for Viggo Mortensen. Leatherface wasn't that scary in this movie, he was a million times more scary in the original and its 2003 remake and the 2006 prequel. It could have been better. The trailer was kinda cool though. This is a very underrated movies and it deserves it. The ending made no sense when Ken Fore's character died by Leatherface in the pond and had his head cut off by the chainsaw. Then he came back to life at the end and we see that it was only a little cut on his head. Wow this is so unrealistic. If you got your head cut off by a chainsaw you are not just gonna get a small cut your gonna be bleeding very bad! And another thing that was stupid about this movie is that it's a hole new family in this movie. It's not the same family of cannibals from the original Chainsaw Massacre. What is the deal with that? Leatherface can't get adapted. And wow there is only so many cannibalistic families in Texas! Give me a break! And another ridiculous thing about this movie is that it's called part 3 and it's the same plot as the original. It's more of a remake. All the Chainsaw Massacre movies all have the same plot.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099994/reviews-136

ur21218938

title: underrated and deserves to be underrated review: Well it wasn't horrible but it wasn't great. No where near as good as the original. It kinda tried to hard to be the first movie. I think it needed a better director. The opening title sequence was cheesy. Some the acting was cheesy except for Viggo Mortensen. Leatherface wasn't that scary in this movie, he was a million times more scary in the original and its 2003 remake and the 2006 prequel. It could have been better. The trailer was kinda cool though. This is a very underrated movies and it deserves it. The ending made no sense when Ken Fore's character died by Leatherface in the pond and had his head cut off by the chainsaw. Then he came back to life at the end and we see that it was only a little cut on his head. Wow this is so unrealistic. If you got your head cut off by a chainsaw you are not just gonna get a small cut your gonna be bleeding very bad! And another thing that was stupid about this movie is that it's a hole new family in this movie. It's not the same family of cannibals from the original Chainsaw Massacre. What is the deal with that? Leatherface can't get adapted. And wow there is only so many cannibalistic families in Texas! Give me a break! And another ridiculous thing about this movie is that it's called part 3 and it's the same plot as the original. It's more of a remake. All the Chainsaw Massacre movies all have the same plot.

Whilst covering a couple of genres and delivering an interesting study or two, the film retains a heartfelt and innocent quality that still works.

tt0101414

Beauty and the Beast is a classic fairytale if ever there was one. It's a film about discovery; about adventure; about venturing off and away from home or a comfort zone to explore and discover. This exploration will be littered with danger and threat but it will evoke an element of magic and the unreal for equal measure although the smart move Disney make in Beauty and the Beast is that they do not clearly define who the 'villain' is and nor do they dumb down this role. In fact Disney bring an air of study and greater extent to the material other than shoddy metaphorical content, something that they very rarely did so before this and thus; Beauty and the Beast earns its place amongst the circles when talking about some of their best films.The film could be read as if told to us aurally, that is to say the immediate beginning is being narrated to us and we have rough sketches that look as if they're straight out of the Medieval era presented to us in story book fashion. These still images confirm to us of a Prince's back-story of how he became so hideous in appearance and how his castle and its inhabitants became so equally physically deformed, some of which are transformed into items that resemble their role in the castle whereas some others are not. Here is an interesting study of character 'bodies' within film, a brief reference to centuries ago during which what you wore would immediately tell others of your 'role' in the world ie; Royalty, jesters and peasants would all clearly be labelled by the clothes they wore – this is significant due to the various items the castle's workers are transformed into and the manner in which the 'style' of the early images are presented to us in that mock, Medieval fashion.So if characters like Mrs. Potts (Lansbury) are transformed into a teapot because she's the maid that makes and brings the tea; the Stove (Cummings) is transformed into his namesake since he is the chef and the flirtatious French maid is transformed into a brush to signify her job as a cleaner then it's possible to read into the fact the two individuals we the audience follow more often than not, those being Cogsworth (Ogden Stiers) and Lumiere (Orbach), are of a certain elevated level since it's difficult to place a candelabra and a clock into a realm of profession within the domestic environment. If there's one thing people have had fun in reading into over the years then it's Disney and their particular animation styling they choose; characters with lean or fat builds can signify one thing; characters with very astute or pointed expressions another whereas a rounded character with a big smile and bright blue eyes could easily be associated with heroic tendencies.The Beast (Benson) himself is not necessarily transformed into something as he is turned inside out. The character of the Prince is an unkind 'beast' on the inside and has these psychological characteristics switched so he must physically resemble a 'beast' or a monster, cruel and consuming none-the-less. But Beauty and the Beast is more so a character study of the mind rather than just how fancy Disney can make and force us to identify with each character's animation. As a character, Belle (O'Hara) plays the protagonist and like most female Disney protagonists, she lacks a motherly figure but does her very best to figure out what's right anyway. As a character with a persona she is smart and outgoing, an independent woman who will not conform to stereotypes but will maintain an attitude that has an element of feminism throughout.Her mission through the film changes a few times, on one occasion actually reverting back to a prior one. Initially she sets out to rescue her father, Maurice (Everhart), after he is kept in the very castle the Beast inhabits following a similar exchange comparable to that of the enchanted woman at the beginning when she also requested shelter from outside forces. Things take a turn for the worst and Belle's new goal having achieved the last one is to stay behind with the Beast after which she must get used to. Belle begins the film within the filmic space that is 'the farm'; a simplistic and rural setting which is located within 'the village', a setting in which all inside is 'good' and everything outside is 'evil' or at least unknown and mysterious. Belle doesn't conform to the caricature she should do within these spaces and this is highlighted with a wonderful early musical number in which the villagers call her 'strange' and 'funny' because she's a free thinker and she reads books.Completing a future love triangle is Gaston (White), a physically powerful and space dominating character who possesses so much love for Belle, it leads to obsession – you get the feeling in the real world if Belle had developed a relationship with someone else in the village, Gaston may well have challenged them because of it. He dominates his assistant Lefou (Corti) in the same manner Beast dominates his assistants initially within the castle planting a seed in the audience's mind to do with power struggles and what would happen if these two came up against each other. But Beast becomes more human when he seems to treat the assistants with more respect and is presented in compromising situations such as looking daft following a bath, whereas Gaston goes the other way. The film is a great study for certain things and will no doubt remain highly rated in years to come.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-256

ur0855231

title: Whilst covering a couple of genres and delivering an interesting study or two, the film retains a heartfelt and innocent quality that still works. review: Beauty and the Beast is a classic fairytale if ever there was one. It's a film about discovery; about adventure; about venturing off and away from home or a comfort zone to explore and discover. This exploration will be littered with danger and threat but it will evoke an element of magic and the unreal for equal measure although the smart move Disney make in Beauty and the Beast is that they do not clearly define who the 'villain' is and nor do they dumb down this role. In fact Disney bring an air of study and greater extent to the material other than shoddy metaphorical content, something that they very rarely did so before this and thus; Beauty and the Beast earns its place amongst the circles when talking about some of their best films.The film could be read as if told to us aurally, that is to say the immediate beginning is being narrated to us and we have rough sketches that look as if they're straight out of the Medieval era presented to us in story book fashion. These still images confirm to us of a Prince's back-story of how he became so hideous in appearance and how his castle and its inhabitants became so equally physically deformed, some of which are transformed into items that resemble their role in the castle whereas some others are not. Here is an interesting study of character 'bodies' within film, a brief reference to centuries ago during which what you wore would immediately tell others of your 'role' in the world ie; Royalty, jesters and peasants would all clearly be labelled by the clothes they wore – this is significant due to the various items the castle's workers are transformed into and the manner in which the 'style' of the early images are presented to us in that mock, Medieval fashion.So if characters like Mrs. Potts (Lansbury) are transformed into a teapot because she's the maid that makes and brings the tea; the Stove (Cummings) is transformed into his namesake since he is the chef and the flirtatious French maid is transformed into a brush to signify her job as a cleaner then it's possible to read into the fact the two individuals we the audience follow more often than not, those being Cogsworth (Ogden Stiers) and Lumiere (Orbach), are of a certain elevated level since it's difficult to place a candelabra and a clock into a realm of profession within the domestic environment. If there's one thing people have had fun in reading into over the years then it's Disney and their particular animation styling they choose; characters with lean or fat builds can signify one thing; characters with very astute or pointed expressions another whereas a rounded character with a big smile and bright blue eyes could easily be associated with heroic tendencies.The Beast (Benson) himself is not necessarily transformed into something as he is turned inside out. The character of the Prince is an unkind 'beast' on the inside and has these psychological characteristics switched so he must physically resemble a 'beast' or a monster, cruel and consuming none-the-less. But Beauty and the Beast is more so a character study of the mind rather than just how fancy Disney can make and force us to identify with each character's animation. As a character, Belle (O'Hara) plays the protagonist and like most female Disney protagonists, she lacks a motherly figure but does her very best to figure out what's right anyway. As a character with a persona she is smart and outgoing, an independent woman who will not conform to stereotypes but will maintain an attitude that has an element of feminism throughout.Her mission through the film changes a few times, on one occasion actually reverting back to a prior one. Initially she sets out to rescue her father, Maurice (Everhart), after he is kept in the very castle the Beast inhabits following a similar exchange comparable to that of the enchanted woman at the beginning when she also requested shelter from outside forces. Things take a turn for the worst and Belle's new goal having achieved the last one is to stay behind with the Beast after which she must get used to. Belle begins the film within the filmic space that is 'the farm'; a simplistic and rural setting which is located within 'the village', a setting in which all inside is 'good' and everything outside is 'evil' or at least unknown and mysterious. Belle doesn't conform to the caricature she should do within these spaces and this is highlighted with a wonderful early musical number in which the villagers call her 'strange' and 'funny' because she's a free thinker and she reads books.Completing a future love triangle is Gaston (White), a physically powerful and space dominating character who possesses so much love for Belle, it leads to obsession – you get the feeling in the real world if Belle had developed a relationship with someone else in the village, Gaston may well have challenged them because of it. He dominates his assistant Lefou (Corti) in the same manner Beast dominates his assistants initially within the castle planting a seed in the audience's mind to do with power struggles and what would happen if these two came up against each other. But Beast becomes more human when he seems to treat the assistants with more respect and is presented in compromising situations such as looking daft following a bath, whereas Gaston goes the other way. The film is a great study for certain things and will no doubt remain highly rated in years to come.

Life Before and After "Beauty and the Beast"

tt0101414

To date, my favorite animated Disney film.In 1938, Walt Disney received a special Academy Award for producing "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" and bringing a new standard to motion picture cartoons. Then in 1941, the Academy gave "Fantasia" a couple of special awards as another watermark animated film. "Beauty and the Beast" deserves to stand along side both of those films as one that changed animated films forever. For me, there are animated films before "Beauty" and after. Not since Disney's very first animated films ("Snow White," "Pinnochio") had one blended music and story so masterfully. But what sets "Beauty" apart from others is, strangely enough, the acting. The voice work is so perfectly matched with the way the characters are drawn that it's almost possible to forget you're watching two-dimensional creations.An enchanting film.Grade: A+

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-259

ur4532636

title: Life Before and After "Beauty and the Beast" review: To date, my favorite animated Disney film.In 1938, Walt Disney received a special Academy Award for producing "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" and bringing a new standard to motion picture cartoons. Then in 1941, the Academy gave "Fantasia" a couple of special awards as another watermark animated film. "Beauty and the Beast" deserves to stand along side both of those films as one that changed animated films forever. For me, there are animated films before "Beauty" and after. Not since Disney's very first animated films ("Snow White," "Pinnochio") had one blended music and story so masterfully. But what sets "Beauty" apart from others is, strangely enough, the acting. The voice work is so perfectly matched with the way the characters are drawn that it's almost possible to forget you're watching two-dimensional creations.An enchanting film.Grade: A+

Lovely Disney film!

tt0101414

While The Little Mermaid takes my number one spot on favourite Disney animated films, Beauty and the Beast is a close second. Jodi Benson has a beautiful voice as Ariel and Page O'Hara is just as incredible as Belle.What makes me love Beauty and the Beast so much is not the musical aspect, although Howard Ashman's lyrics are genuine and Alan Menken's scores are some of my favourite, beside Danny Elfman, it's the plot of Beauty and the Beast that wins my heart.Beauty and the Beast is a typical story of the ugly duckling (Beast) winning the affections of the beauty (Belle). While in most cases back in the day, the roles were reversed and it would be Belle who was unattractive winning the heart of a handsome prince. In these modern times, it's so rare to see a beautiful girl with an average looking or under-average looking guy.Disney goes beyond the normal lengths of this basic premise and really touches our hearts. Belle comes to love the Beast's inner beauty. Sure, it's not realistic as a beast like a bear cannot speak, nor could a human fall in love with an animal. I put aside the realism need I have, and just enjoy the film for it's entertainment purposes.Musically, this is my top film from Disney. It's not Page O'Hara alone that wins me over, but it's the entire cast. Alan Menken is my second favourite composer and each one of his film scores are different. Aladdin and Mermaid aren't anything alike, but it's by him. Howard's lyrics are unforgettable. I think the great part of Beauty and the Beast, musically, is that out of ninety minutes of film, eighty-five minutes have some form of music in it.Aside from plot and music, Beauty and the Beast is well-crafted animation-wise. It's so perfect and gives me chills at certain moments. I love to listen to the soundtrack, but when I watch the film, I get all tingly. Angela Landsbury's performance is outstanding, my favourite scene has got to be the transformation. It's depressing and lovely. It's a hauntingly beautiful and tragic scene that lifts your spirits when the fireworks kick in.It's a great film for the family, especially the kids. It's not just for kids, though, because at the age of 21, I'm giving it an eight out of ten and I still love it to this day and I still listen to the soundtrack all the time. Disney is meant for everyone. Beauty and the Beast is a classic and will never be forgotten.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-295

ur6732597

title: Lovely Disney film! review: While The Little Mermaid takes my number one spot on favourite Disney animated films, Beauty and the Beast is a close second. Jodi Benson has a beautiful voice as Ariel and Page O'Hara is just as incredible as Belle.What makes me love Beauty and the Beast so much is not the musical aspect, although Howard Ashman's lyrics are genuine and Alan Menken's scores are some of my favourite, beside Danny Elfman, it's the plot of Beauty and the Beast that wins my heart.Beauty and the Beast is a typical story of the ugly duckling (Beast) winning the affections of the beauty (Belle). While in most cases back in the day, the roles were reversed and it would be Belle who was unattractive winning the heart of a handsome prince. In these modern times, it's so rare to see a beautiful girl with an average looking or under-average looking guy.Disney goes beyond the normal lengths of this basic premise and really touches our hearts. Belle comes to love the Beast's inner beauty. Sure, it's not realistic as a beast like a bear cannot speak, nor could a human fall in love with an animal. I put aside the realism need I have, and just enjoy the film for it's entertainment purposes.Musically, this is my top film from Disney. It's not Page O'Hara alone that wins me over, but it's the entire cast. Alan Menken is my second favourite composer and each one of his film scores are different. Aladdin and Mermaid aren't anything alike, but it's by him. Howard's lyrics are unforgettable. I think the great part of Beauty and the Beast, musically, is that out of ninety minutes of film, eighty-five minutes have some form of music in it.Aside from plot and music, Beauty and the Beast is well-crafted animation-wise. It's so perfect and gives me chills at certain moments. I love to listen to the soundtrack, but when I watch the film, I get all tingly. Angela Landsbury's performance is outstanding, my favourite scene has got to be the transformation. It's depressing and lovely. It's a hauntingly beautiful and tragic scene that lifts your spirits when the fireworks kick in.It's a great film for the family, especially the kids. It's not just for kids, though, because at the age of 21, I'm giving it an eight out of ten and I still love it to this day and I still listen to the soundtrack all the time. Disney is meant for everyone. Beauty and the Beast is a classic and will never be forgotten.

One of Disney's best, and my favorite.

tt0101414

This is what I think one of Disney's best animated features, either cartoon short or full-length animated feature film. It is also my favorite Disney movie, about a Beast (an enchanted prince) who has been losing hope to learn to love and be loved in return in order to break the enchanted spell, until he meets Belle. Belle offers to stay in the castle with the Beast in exchange for her imprisoned father to be set free. What follows is a beautiful love story in how Belle attempts to tame the Beast as he learns the proper manners to be a gentleman from her, and attempting to learn to love and be loved in return.Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise did a marvelous job directing this movie, providing a solid plot that offered a captivating, exciting and heartwarming story of adventure, courage and love. The chemistry between Belle and the Beast will capture your heart and probably put a lump in your throat; it is captured in a way that sent a strong message of changing one's way for the better, humility and acts of selflessness.The characters, especially the enchanted objects, are very lovable and extraordinary, each one giving his/her own unique charm, including: Lumiere, a lovestruck, suave-talking candelabra; Cogsworth, a pompous and prim table clock; Mrs. Potts, the kind-hearted and warm teapot; and Chip, Mrs. Potts' son and an inquisitive teacup. I love the constant competition between Lumiere and Cogsworth as they try to win Belle's liking and command of the castle's duties. All the objects provided the right touch of humor and comedy for a dramatic love story.Alan Menken did a great job on the music score - very spirited, lively and moving. And, my hat is off to some of the greatest songs, by Menken and Howard Ashman, in cinema history: Be Our Guest and Beauty and the Beast. Lumiere and Mrs. Potts (Jerry Orbach and Angela Lansbury) sang "Be Our Guest" during a grand dinner for Belle. As the enchanted objects performed dances and acrobats to the song, it gave what I think are some of the best pieces of animation work in history. Just the unveiling of the chandelier and the Eiffel Tower forming under a bevy of wineglasses are breathtaking. And, the song "Beauty and the Beast," sung by Mrs. Potts (Lansbury), is a beautiful and stirring song that basically summarizes the entire movie - "tale as old as time," "sweet and strength," "finding you can change," "Beauty and the Beast." Other memorable characters I like to mention are the conceited and villainous Gaston (Richard White), the slapstick and somewhat clueless LeFou (Jesse Corti) and the brilliant and bold inventor Maurice (Rex Everhart).There is never a slow or dull moment in this movie - it is thoroughly entertaining and exciting from start to finish. This movie definitely has that "Disney touch," which makes it that much more special. It is the perfect one for audiences of all ages, one to watch again and again and, for myself, will remain my favorite Disney film, animated feature in general and one of my favorite movies of all time.Grade A+

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-371

ur0437174

title: One of Disney's best, and my favorite. review: This is what I think one of Disney's best animated features, either cartoon short or full-length animated feature film. It is also my favorite Disney movie, about a Beast (an enchanted prince) who has been losing hope to learn to love and be loved in return in order to break the enchanted spell, until he meets Belle. Belle offers to stay in the castle with the Beast in exchange for her imprisoned father to be set free. What follows is a beautiful love story in how Belle attempts to tame the Beast as he learns the proper manners to be a gentleman from her, and attempting to learn to love and be loved in return.Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise did a marvelous job directing this movie, providing a solid plot that offered a captivating, exciting and heartwarming story of adventure, courage and love. The chemistry between Belle and the Beast will capture your heart and probably put a lump in your throat; it is captured in a way that sent a strong message of changing one's way for the better, humility and acts of selflessness.The characters, especially the enchanted objects, are very lovable and extraordinary, each one giving his/her own unique charm, including: Lumiere, a lovestruck, suave-talking candelabra; Cogsworth, a pompous and prim table clock; Mrs. Potts, the kind-hearted and warm teapot; and Chip, Mrs. Potts' son and an inquisitive teacup. I love the constant competition between Lumiere and Cogsworth as they try to win Belle's liking and command of the castle's duties. All the objects provided the right touch of humor and comedy for a dramatic love story.Alan Menken did a great job on the music score - very spirited, lively and moving. And, my hat is off to some of the greatest songs, by Menken and Howard Ashman, in cinema history: Be Our Guest and Beauty and the Beast. Lumiere and Mrs. Potts (Jerry Orbach and Angela Lansbury) sang "Be Our Guest" during a grand dinner for Belle. As the enchanted objects performed dances and acrobats to the song, it gave what I think are some of the best pieces of animation work in history. Just the unveiling of the chandelier and the Eiffel Tower forming under a bevy of wineglasses are breathtaking. And, the song "Beauty and the Beast," sung by Mrs. Potts (Lansbury), is a beautiful and stirring song that basically summarizes the entire movie - "tale as old as time," "sweet and strength," "finding you can change," "Beauty and the Beast." Other memorable characters I like to mention are the conceited and villainous Gaston (Richard White), the slapstick and somewhat clueless LeFou (Jesse Corti) and the brilliant and bold inventor Maurice (Rex Everhart).There is never a slow or dull moment in this movie - it is thoroughly entertaining and exciting from start to finish. This movie definitely has that "Disney touch," which makes it that much more special. It is the perfect one for audiences of all ages, one to watch again and again and, for myself, will remain my favorite Disney film, animated feature in general and one of my favorite movies of all time.Grade A+

best 3D movie of all times you will enjoy this movie i can feel it

tt0101414

it is the best 3D movie of all times you will enjoy this movie i can feel it you will cry through this wonderful animated classic it is a two thumbs up movie it got 4 out of 4 stars in the paper it is the best 3D movie i have ever seen if you like Disney than you will like the new version of Beauty And The Beast in 3D you and your kids will have a great time watching this enchanted story it is the perfect family movie it really is a golden global it really should win a golden global for the best animated movie and for the best drama and the best musical it is a hoot it is a great family movie you got to see this recommended movie for the whole family it is defiantly a must see for 3D movies if you like good old time movies that got work on than you will love the stuff that they did to this classic you want believe for eyes this movie is a miracle i never saw a movie like this before you will die when you see what they did to this awesome movie have a amazing day0 you won't be sorry

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-338

ur25362190

title: best 3D movie of all times you will enjoy this movie i can feel it review: it is the best 3D movie of all times you will enjoy this movie i can feel it you will cry through this wonderful animated classic it is a two thumbs up movie it got 4 out of 4 stars in the paper it is the best 3D movie i have ever seen if you like Disney than you will like the new version of Beauty And The Beast in 3D you and your kids will have a great time watching this enchanted story it is the perfect family movie it really is a golden global it really should win a golden global for the best animated movie and for the best drama and the best musical it is a hoot it is a great family movie you got to see this recommended movie for the whole family it is defiantly a must see for 3D movies if you like good old time movies that got work on than you will love the stuff that they did to this classic you want believe for eyes this movie is a miracle i never saw a movie like this before you will die when you see what they did to this awesome movie have a amazing day0 you won't be sorry

Best Disney movie ever

tt0101414

I have seen Beauty and the Beast about 25 times. I own it on DVD, and Blu-ray. I still own my old video copy of it. I am obsessed with Disney and Beauty and the Beast is my favorite animated Disney film and it is my favorite Disney film of all time. I have seen the stage version at Hollywood studios and I've seen the Broadway version. I love everything about the film except the villain Gaston. Gaston is one of the most vile villains ever to appear in a movie. He is one of the only Disney villains that I hate. I like the Beauty and the Beast was romantic, funny, full of adventure and drama and I think it is the saddest movie I have ever seen. I always cry at the end. Beauty and the Beast is the most romantic film ever made, it is my favorite musical of all time and one of my most favorite films. The Beast was mean and resentful at first but it was his fault that he was this way. He was miserable and wanted everyone else to be too. He turns out to be charming and funny, sweet and romantic. One of the best scenes is when he gives Belle his library. I love when Belle and the Beast dance to the title song. The battle between the Beast and Gaston was another great scene. I also love when Belle tends to his wounds after he saves her from the wolves. My favorite character is the Beast, but I also love Belle, Mrs. Potts, and Lumiere. I hate Gaston but his theme song is good and The Mob song is a well-written hate song. He only wanted to kill the Beast because he had a rival for Belle'a affections. At the end he completely deserved to die. My favorite songs are Beauty and the Beast, Be our Guest and Something there. Beauty and the Beast had an amazing cast. Robby Benson, Paige o'Hara, Richard White, Jerry Orbach, Angela Lansbury, David Ogden Steirs, Tony Jay,and Bradley Pierce all did a wonderful job. I'v always loved Angela Lansbury mostly because of her being Mrs. Potts. I like Beast so much that I even like Beauty and the Beast 2-the enchanted Christmas. I may own the movie but I plan on seeing the 3d version. I could debate with anyone who does not love Beauty and the Beast. It is one of the greatest films I've ever seen and I think it is the best animated film I have ever seen or will ever see. On IMDb I give it ten stars but in reality I give it 170 stars.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-328

ur29008800

title: Best Disney movie ever review: I have seen Beauty and the Beast about 25 times. I own it on DVD, and Blu-ray. I still own my old video copy of it. I am obsessed with Disney and Beauty and the Beast is my favorite animated Disney film and it is my favorite Disney film of all time. I have seen the stage version at Hollywood studios and I've seen the Broadway version. I love everything about the film except the villain Gaston. Gaston is one of the most vile villains ever to appear in a movie. He is one of the only Disney villains that I hate. I like the Beauty and the Beast was romantic, funny, full of adventure and drama and I think it is the saddest movie I have ever seen. I always cry at the end. Beauty and the Beast is the most romantic film ever made, it is my favorite musical of all time and one of my most favorite films. The Beast was mean and resentful at first but it was his fault that he was this way. He was miserable and wanted everyone else to be too. He turns out to be charming and funny, sweet and romantic. One of the best scenes is when he gives Belle his library. I love when Belle and the Beast dance to the title song. The battle between the Beast and Gaston was another great scene. I also love when Belle tends to his wounds after he saves her from the wolves. My favorite character is the Beast, but I also love Belle, Mrs. Potts, and Lumiere. I hate Gaston but his theme song is good and The Mob song is a well-written hate song. He only wanted to kill the Beast because he had a rival for Belle'a affections. At the end he completely deserved to die. My favorite songs are Beauty and the Beast, Be our Guest and Something there. Beauty and the Beast had an amazing cast. Robby Benson, Paige o'Hara, Richard White, Jerry Orbach, Angela Lansbury, David Ogden Steirs, Tony Jay,and Bradley Pierce all did a wonderful job. I'v always loved Angela Lansbury mostly because of her being Mrs. Potts. I like Beast so much that I even like Beauty and the Beast 2-the enchanted Christmas. I may own the movie but I plan on seeing the 3d version. I could debate with anyone who does not love Beauty and the Beast. It is one of the greatest films I've ever seen and I think it is the best animated film I have ever seen or will ever see. On IMDb I give it ten stars but in reality I give it 170 stars.

Lovely

tt0101414

A beautiful animated film. I think any child would love this, even all of the family maybe, it is such a good "classic" animated film. Everyone will know the story, i remember watching it as a child and it being one of my all time favourite stories/animated films.A lovely "love" story that is very touching.I would recommend to people mainly with children, i think they are more likely to enjoy this type of animated film (adults may like it too, whatever genre you are into).Worth a 7 out of 10 at least.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-378

ur51107252

title: Lovely review: A beautiful animated film. I think any child would love this, even all of the family maybe, it is such a good "classic" animated film. Everyone will know the story, i remember watching it as a child and it being one of my all time favourite stories/animated films.A lovely "love" story that is very touching.I would recommend to people mainly with children, i think they are more likely to enjoy this type of animated film (adults may like it too, whatever genre you are into).Worth a 7 out of 10 at least.

The bookworm and the beast.

tt0101414

Belle lives with her father who is an inventor and he has to go to an invention fair so he leaves Belle by herself. He father takes a wrong turn and ends up at a castle which is inhabited by a beast. Her father ends up prisoned and when Belle comes to find him, she ends up traded while her father goes home. The thing is, the beast has to get Belle to fall in love with him or he will become a beast forever.Disney doesn't make movies like this anymore and I think that it is kind of sad. The storyline of the movie was excellent and the drawing was excellent. The love story was wonderful as well. The only downside to this movie is that there are annoying tea cups and candle sticks that make jokes. Disney always has something with eyes and a jabbering mouth and it can get weird.I liked the part where Gaston has that wedding and he hasn't even proposed to the bride or went on one date with her. How stupid and funny is that? Be this movies guest!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-199

ur10123981

title: The bookworm and the beast. review: Belle lives with her father who is an inventor and he has to go to an invention fair so he leaves Belle by herself. He father takes a wrong turn and ends up at a castle which is inhabited by a beast. Her father ends up prisoned and when Belle comes to find him, she ends up traded while her father goes home. The thing is, the beast has to get Belle to fall in love with him or he will become a beast forever.Disney doesn't make movies like this anymore and I think that it is kind of sad. The storyline of the movie was excellent and the drawing was excellent. The love story was wonderful as well. The only downside to this movie is that there are annoying tea cups and candle sticks that make jokes. Disney always has something with eyes and a jabbering mouth and it can get weird.I liked the part where Gaston has that wedding and he hasn't even proposed to the bride or went on one date with her. How stupid and funny is that? Be this movies guest!

Strangely touching

tt0101414

There was a time when Walt Disney could no no wrong. But then came DuckTales and stuff like that. And things were in turmoil for a while. Seriously, how many people watched "Oliver and Company"? I know I didn't, and I have watched every single animated feature of the company (except that one).That's the reason Beauty and the Beast is such a welcome surprise. This film, and "Lion King" are true masterpieces. I cannot say the same about Tarzan, or "Hunchback of Notre Dame" or "Aladdin". But there is something in this film that makes me cry every single time I watch it.What could it be? Maybe that, since the beginning, you learn to care for the Beast and his loneliness. Or you admire Belle for her will to be something more. And you cannot forget the sadness of the inhabitants of the castle, who know that they might be doomed forever.And then... and then Belle and the Beast dance in the ballroom sequence, and they glance at each other, and you can feel the love they have for each other. But how? This is only a cartoon, isn't it? Fact is, the drawings themselves have an incredible power in them; the facial expressions are simply perfect, and the terse, beautiful song enhances the feeling. Movie magic at its best. Beauty and the Beast is a cartoon that makes you forget you are watching one. It's full of love, passion and drama. Should have been nominated for Best Picture. Sadly, the Academy hasn't (yet!) learned to appreciate the power of animated art.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-35

ur0508954

title: Strangely touching review: There was a time when Walt Disney could no no wrong. But then came DuckTales and stuff like that. And things were in turmoil for a while. Seriously, how many people watched "Oliver and Company"? I know I didn't, and I have watched every single animated feature of the company (except that one).That's the reason Beauty and the Beast is such a welcome surprise. This film, and "Lion King" are true masterpieces. I cannot say the same about Tarzan, or "Hunchback of Notre Dame" or "Aladdin". But there is something in this film that makes me cry every single time I watch it.What could it be? Maybe that, since the beginning, you learn to care for the Beast and his loneliness. Or you admire Belle for her will to be something more. And you cannot forget the sadness of the inhabitants of the castle, who know that they might be doomed forever.And then... and then Belle and the Beast dance in the ballroom sequence, and they glance at each other, and you can feel the love they have for each other. But how? This is only a cartoon, isn't it? Fact is, the drawings themselves have an incredible power in them; the facial expressions are simply perfect, and the terse, beautiful song enhances the feeling. Movie magic at its best. Beauty and the Beast is a cartoon that makes you forget you are watching one. It's full of love, passion and drama. Should have been nominated for Best Picture. Sadly, the Academy hasn't (yet!) learned to appreciate the power of animated art.

An Absorbing, Magical Piece of Art

tt0101414

I, like several others, grew up with films like this as a child, and this was one of those that always stood out. When I first saw it I was about five and I think you can tell that a few of the scenes scared me quite a bit, given the Beast's anger-filled scenes with the darker parts of the film. But seeing the film again for the first time in over ten years it was both refreshing and easy to still remember.The story, style and execution all feel like something out of a Shakespearean play, and while I've never been much of a fan of old William I do tend to like other stories that have similar styles to him, which I will admit to being both a testament to this film and Shakespeare. One of the film's strongest points is that it easily manages to make several emotions arise out of the viewer, ranging from laughter to sorrow and several others (with a fair number of these instances coming out of the most briefest of scenes, a very rare case for any film). There are several scenes in the film that are both serious and dark with others that are light and funny; it seems that for every serious moment there's a scene of clever comic relief to balance the mood out.While I was certainly curious and excited to see this film once again now that I would understand it much easier, one part that I wasn't looking forward to were the singing sections, with me not being a fan of musicals. There actually wasn't as much singing in the film as I remember, I'd say about 40% to 50% of the movie is singing with the rest being dialogue. Even though I can't say that the songs were exactly necessary to the film they do compliment the given scenes very well and while this may be the case with any musical film, the singing sections of this film give it a personality in a positive way, unlike several others.If there was any word I could really use to describe this film it would likely be ironic, not due to anything in the movie itself but more how it compares to others. What's ironic is that this film has a heart and the characters, despite being computer animations and creations with little visual detail (compared to the CGI-heavy films by companies like Pixar) and half the characters being enchanted utensils they still come off as far more human than countless actors in several live action films. Heck, even the Beast comes off as one of the more human characters once his inner feelings and emotions start to come out. If it's not clear by now, the voice-acting in this film is simply superb and, along with the film's beautiful and magical art style is probably its strongest point.Of course that's not to say every other aspect is any less worthy of praise, because this film is one that almost feels like no number of compliments would be enough to justify it. The story, style, acting, score, music, pacing and really every other aspect you could pinpoint in this film are nothing short of superb. If there really is anything that I could say holds the film from perfection it would be that the ending feels rather rushed. While there really isn't much more they probably could've done with the last five minutes beyond what there was it still felt like it went by rather quickly compared to the rest of the film.But this is really the smallest of complaints and something that really does little to detract from the film. When you hear someone say that this is a film for all ages, they're not lying, anyone of any age can love and appreciate this film with ease. This film, along with a number of others, show that Disney were truly at their best before 21st century. With the exception of maybe Pinocchio and The Lion King I can't think of any other film with the same style and genre that is as magical and marvelous as this. If you haven't seen this film in a while or at all and are struggling to find a good film for the whole family, be sure you keep your eye out for this one.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-253

ur9014548

title: An Absorbing, Magical Piece of Art review: I, like several others, grew up with films like this as a child, and this was one of those that always stood out. When I first saw it I was about five and I think you can tell that a few of the scenes scared me quite a bit, given the Beast's anger-filled scenes with the darker parts of the film. But seeing the film again for the first time in over ten years it was both refreshing and easy to still remember.The story, style and execution all feel like something out of a Shakespearean play, and while I've never been much of a fan of old William I do tend to like other stories that have similar styles to him, which I will admit to being both a testament to this film and Shakespeare. One of the film's strongest points is that it easily manages to make several emotions arise out of the viewer, ranging from laughter to sorrow and several others (with a fair number of these instances coming out of the most briefest of scenes, a very rare case for any film). There are several scenes in the film that are both serious and dark with others that are light and funny; it seems that for every serious moment there's a scene of clever comic relief to balance the mood out.While I was certainly curious and excited to see this film once again now that I would understand it much easier, one part that I wasn't looking forward to were the singing sections, with me not being a fan of musicals. There actually wasn't as much singing in the film as I remember, I'd say about 40% to 50% of the movie is singing with the rest being dialogue. Even though I can't say that the songs were exactly necessary to the film they do compliment the given scenes very well and while this may be the case with any musical film, the singing sections of this film give it a personality in a positive way, unlike several others.If there was any word I could really use to describe this film it would likely be ironic, not due to anything in the movie itself but more how it compares to others. What's ironic is that this film has a heart and the characters, despite being computer animations and creations with little visual detail (compared to the CGI-heavy films by companies like Pixar) and half the characters being enchanted utensils they still come off as far more human than countless actors in several live action films. Heck, even the Beast comes off as one of the more human characters once his inner feelings and emotions start to come out. If it's not clear by now, the voice-acting in this film is simply superb and, along with the film's beautiful and magical art style is probably its strongest point.Of course that's not to say every other aspect is any less worthy of praise, because this film is one that almost feels like no number of compliments would be enough to justify it. The story, style, acting, score, music, pacing and really every other aspect you could pinpoint in this film are nothing short of superb. If there really is anything that I could say holds the film from perfection it would be that the ending feels rather rushed. While there really isn't much more they probably could've done with the last five minutes beyond what there was it still felt like it went by rather quickly compared to the rest of the film.But this is really the smallest of complaints and something that really does little to detract from the film. When you hear someone say that this is a film for all ages, they're not lying, anyone of any age can love and appreciate this film with ease. This film, along with a number of others, show that Disney were truly at their best before 21st century. With the exception of maybe Pinocchio and The Lion King I can't think of any other film with the same style and genre that is as magical and marvelous as this. If you haven't seen this film in a while or at all and are struggling to find a good film for the whole family, be sure you keep your eye out for this one.

Best Disney movie

tt0101414

This is without a doubt Disney's best movie ever. It was almost the first animated movie to win a best picture Oscar (Silence of the Lambs deserved to win). It is a beautifully animated movie in the tradition of the great Walt Disney. Everything about it is top-notch from the acting to the story, to the direction. I just wish Disney would do more movies like this.A word about the current state of Disney. There are now other studios (namely Dreamworks) that are willing (and able) to throw money into big-budget animated movies, and many have succeeded. Movies like Titan AE, Iron Giant (a Fox movie), and Antz are all examples of great animated movies that have features that Disney animated movies don't. First and foremost, these movies (and others like them) are NOT movies for just kids. This is one thing that made Beauty and the Beast so wonderful, and also what has made Disney movies after it so terrible. PLEASE Disney make more movies that appeal to both kids AND adults.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-57

ur0100964

title: Best Disney movie review: This is without a doubt Disney's best movie ever. It was almost the first animated movie to win a best picture Oscar (Silence of the Lambs deserved to win). It is a beautifully animated movie in the tradition of the great Walt Disney. Everything about it is top-notch from the acting to the story, to the direction. I just wish Disney would do more movies like this.A word about the current state of Disney. There are now other studios (namely Dreamworks) that are willing (and able) to throw money into big-budget animated movies, and many have succeeded. Movies like Titan AE, Iron Giant (a Fox movie), and Antz are all examples of great animated movies that have features that Disney animated movies don't. First and foremost, these movies (and others like them) are NOT movies for just kids. This is one thing that made Beauty and the Beast so wonderful, and also what has made Disney movies after it so terrible. PLEASE Disney make more movies that appeal to both kids AND adults.

Be our guest.

tt0101414

'Beauty and the Beast' remains the first, and likely only, animated film to ever be nominated for the Oscar's Best Picture. It is perhaps the highest accolade ever bestowed on the world of animation, that they could compete with the best of Hollywood's live-action batch. It was and still is an honor very much deserved by this Disney classic. And years later, 'Beauty and the Beast' stands as a remarkable testament to the power of cinema.In a scene where Pixar appropriately dominates the field with stellar computer animation and heart-warming stories for kids and adults, it takes a film like 'Beauty and the Beast' to remind us all of the wonders Disney was able to accomplish. Of all the classics they have churned out throughout the years, this must be one of their finest. It is a simple story, but one that will sweep you off your feet with magic and enchantment.A classic story of unexpected love, a tale as old as time. One prince's curse to find the inner beauty leaves him a hideous beast, trapped to a lonely life in a vast castle. The arrival of Belle, a charming local, in a quest to find her father sparks the beginning of a true fairytale as she herself struggles to find the tenderness beneath the Beast's thick skin. It is a story for the ages, with sparks of magical imagination found in every beautiful frame of Disney's animation. It is not limited only to the youngsters, as 'Beauty and the Beast' has enough carefully constructed layers that will appeal to viewers of all ages.Touched with treasures of charm, romance, wit, and dazzling musical numbers, 'Beauty and the Beast' is an unforgettable portrait of love filled with memorable characters. From our two main characters to an castle full of enchanted objects. The brilliant presence of Lumiere, Cogsworth, Mrs. Potts, and Chip light up the screen and bring a smile to your face. 'Beauty and the Beast' is a film to be cherished time after time, a truly great film with a warm message of love and acceptance. A breathtaking and spellbinding experience that remains a timeless classic.More reviews: rottentomatoes.com/vine/journal_view.php?journalid=219276&view=public

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-260

ur3603551

title: Be our guest. review: 'Beauty and the Beast' remains the first, and likely only, animated film to ever be nominated for the Oscar's Best Picture. It is perhaps the highest accolade ever bestowed on the world of animation, that they could compete with the best of Hollywood's live-action batch. It was and still is an honor very much deserved by this Disney classic. And years later, 'Beauty and the Beast' stands as a remarkable testament to the power of cinema.In a scene where Pixar appropriately dominates the field with stellar computer animation and heart-warming stories for kids and adults, it takes a film like 'Beauty and the Beast' to remind us all of the wonders Disney was able to accomplish. Of all the classics they have churned out throughout the years, this must be one of their finest. It is a simple story, but one that will sweep you off your feet with magic and enchantment.A classic story of unexpected love, a tale as old as time. One prince's curse to find the inner beauty leaves him a hideous beast, trapped to a lonely life in a vast castle. The arrival of Belle, a charming local, in a quest to find her father sparks the beginning of a true fairytale as she herself struggles to find the tenderness beneath the Beast's thick skin. It is a story for the ages, with sparks of magical imagination found in every beautiful frame of Disney's animation. It is not limited only to the youngsters, as 'Beauty and the Beast' has enough carefully constructed layers that will appeal to viewers of all ages.Touched with treasures of charm, romance, wit, and dazzling musical numbers, 'Beauty and the Beast' is an unforgettable portrait of love filled with memorable characters. From our two main characters to an castle full of enchanted objects. The brilliant presence of Lumiere, Cogsworth, Mrs. Potts, and Chip light up the screen and bring a smile to your face. 'Beauty and the Beast' is a film to be cherished time after time, a truly great film with a warm message of love and acceptance. A breathtaking and spellbinding experience that remains a timeless classic.More reviews: rottentomatoes.com/vine/journal_view.php?journalid=219276&view=public

not a classic Disney film

tt0101414

Howard Ashman and Alan Menken's songs provide the cornerstone of this cartoon, inspired in part by the 1940s film by Jean Cocteau. Much of the settings mirror those in the classic film.This film was a major money spinner for the Disney corporation, but for me wasn't up to the standards of the days when Walt Disney was alive. However, it was an enjoyable cartoon with interesting characters and a Broadway feel - indeed, it enjoys a second flush of fame as a stage musical today.I think 'Beauty and the Beast' was the last really good Disney film - 'Aladdin', which followed, was just disappointing. The legend survives intact - Belle and her Beast dance in a ballroom dripping with chandeliers; the teapot and cups sing a welcome when she arrives; and the girl gets her Prince to the swirling sounds of musical Americana.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-164

ur0137908

title: not a classic Disney film review: Howard Ashman and Alan Menken's songs provide the cornerstone of this cartoon, inspired in part by the 1940s film by Jean Cocteau. Much of the settings mirror those in the classic film.This film was a major money spinner for the Disney corporation, but for me wasn't up to the standards of the days when Walt Disney was alive. However, it was an enjoyable cartoon with interesting characters and a Broadway feel - indeed, it enjoys a second flush of fame as a stage musical today.I think 'Beauty and the Beast' was the last really good Disney film - 'Aladdin', which followed, was just disappointing. The legend survives intact - Belle and her Beast dance in a ballroom dripping with chandeliers; the teapot and cups sing a welcome when she arrives; and the girl gets her Prince to the swirling sounds of musical Americana.

An exceptional, beautiful animated film

tt0101414

Anyone can tell you that 1991's "Beauty and the Beast," the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed animated film from that year, is a modern-day classic. "Beauty and the Beast" is a film I saw throughout my childhood growing up in the '90s (I was six when the film was originally released in 1991), and I often regarded it as just another Disney fairy tale movie.Boy, was I wrong.Yes, "Beauty and the Beast" is an animated Disney fairy tale, but it's an animated Disney fairy tale like no other. The film came out during a time that is often regarded in film history as the Disney Renaissance period, when the company was putting out top-of-the-line animated features that were of the highest degree of excellence after a nearly-30-year decline in quality, had stellar production values and animation, stellar star/no-name voice talent, and the films were just of overall better quality than in times past. As a result, Disney was beginning to see critical acclaim and box office profits that at the time were unprecedented in the company's history, or animated-film history, for that matter.It supposedly began with "The Little Mermaid" (1989) and ended with "Tarzan" in 1999 (and I also don't want to forget about 1992's "Aladdin" or 1994's "The Lion King"; "Beauty and the Beast" is easily the best film from this time."Beauty and the Beast" is of course an adaptation of the classic French fairy tale, and the animation screenplay here (ultimately penned by Linda Woolverton and co-directed by Gary Trousdale & Kirk Wise) is credited to no less than 11 writers. In the film, an unnamed and selfish young prince (Robby Benson) is transformed into a Beast by a beautiful young enchantress who had disguised herself as an old hag. This curse has not only transformed him into a monster closely resembling a humanoid lion, but it has affected his entire castle - turning it into a darkly ominous and Gothic house of horrors (that is obviously meant to match his inner turmoil, hatred, and contempt for the world) and turned his servants and everyone else in it into everyday household items like silverware, furniture, and other decorations.In the nearby town, Belle (Paige O'Hara), the town beauty who is regarded as somewhat of an oddball and a goof - due to her love of books and gaining knowledge (my kind of woman, personally!) - is growing tired of her assigned lot in life and wonders if there's anything better out there. Still, she is generally pleased with what she already has, living with her eccentric inventor father Maurice (Rex Everhart). When Maurice leaves town to attend a nearby science exhibition, he gets lost and winds up at the Beast's castle. The angry Beast takes him prisoner, but agrees to let him go in exchange for letting Belle remain in his castle forever.Although Belle is initially repulsed by the Beast, not so much by his looks but by his violent temper, she gradually begins to warm up to him and his kindly staff who begin tending to her every need. Underneath his horrid exterior, she begins to see that he is indeed a kind and gentle soul, and a very lonely one at that, and predictably begins to fall in love with him and vice-versa. Meanwhile back in town, forces led by the town's ultra-vain hot-shot alpha-male, Gaston (Richard White), are conspiring to get Belle to marry him at any cost, while also masterminding the Beast's downfall."Beauty and the Beast" is an extraordinary motion picture event, which had the distinction of being the first animated film to be nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars (that was until Pixar's "Up" in 2010). It was also one of the earliest pictures to make use of hand-drawn imagery that was seamless integrated with computer-generated special effects. To me, while I usually detest musicals and even though "Beauty and the Beast" has some musical numbers in it, by Alan Menken and the late Howard Ashman, the songs don't slow the film down at all. In fact, they actually enhance the film by actually continuing to tell the story (and they are in fact pretty catchy, which is a rarity in films like this - I might actually go out and by the soundtrack pretty soon).Another aspect of the film that makes it so extraordinary is how dark it is, and also worth mentioning is the fleeting violence of the film's climax (which does include a slapstick showdown at the Beast's castle between the household staff and Gaston's goons, but I'm specifically referring to the climatic fight between the Beast and Gaston on the roof of his castle). And the Beast himself is actually quite scary, especially in the film's earliest moments. I'm quite surprised that "Beauty and the Beast" didn't receive at least a "PG" rating considering how dark this picture is, both in its subject matter and presentation. Notice how ugly and how drenched in darkness the Beast's castle is when the story begins. But the story is also about beauty, specifically the love of inner beauty. The film and Beast's castle begin to brighten up and come back to life once Belle arrives and begins falling for the Beast.It may be rated "G," but it's still a mature-minded animated feature that doesn't play dumb to its audience and spoon-feed them crappy, sugar-coated moralistic messages about the true ugliness that is sometimes referred to as life."Beauty and the Beast" is very easily one of my favorite Disney animated films, very easily one of my favorite animated films of all time, for sure. I especially appreciated its message about inner beauty, a theme that has always been particularly of interest to me in the few love stories I actually like but has never been realized so brilliantly as it has been here.A true Disney classic.10/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-320

ur0892646

title: An exceptional, beautiful animated film review: Anyone can tell you that 1991's "Beauty and the Beast," the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed animated film from that year, is a modern-day classic. "Beauty and the Beast" is a film I saw throughout my childhood growing up in the '90s (I was six when the film was originally released in 1991), and I often regarded it as just another Disney fairy tale movie.Boy, was I wrong.Yes, "Beauty and the Beast" is an animated Disney fairy tale, but it's an animated Disney fairy tale like no other. The film came out during a time that is often regarded in film history as the Disney Renaissance period, when the company was putting out top-of-the-line animated features that were of the highest degree of excellence after a nearly-30-year decline in quality, had stellar production values and animation, stellar star/no-name voice talent, and the films were just of overall better quality than in times past. As a result, Disney was beginning to see critical acclaim and box office profits that at the time were unprecedented in the company's history, or animated-film history, for that matter.It supposedly began with "The Little Mermaid" (1989) and ended with "Tarzan" in 1999 (and I also don't want to forget about 1992's "Aladdin" or 1994's "The Lion King"; "Beauty and the Beast" is easily the best film from this time."Beauty and the Beast" is of course an adaptation of the classic French fairy tale, and the animation screenplay here (ultimately penned by Linda Woolverton and co-directed by Gary Trousdale & Kirk Wise) is credited to no less than 11 writers. In the film, an unnamed and selfish young prince (Robby Benson) is transformed into a Beast by a beautiful young enchantress who had disguised herself as an old hag. This curse has not only transformed him into a monster closely resembling a humanoid lion, but it has affected his entire castle - turning it into a darkly ominous and Gothic house of horrors (that is obviously meant to match his inner turmoil, hatred, and contempt for the world) and turned his servants and everyone else in it into everyday household items like silverware, furniture, and other decorations.In the nearby town, Belle (Paige O'Hara), the town beauty who is regarded as somewhat of an oddball and a goof - due to her love of books and gaining knowledge (my kind of woman, personally!) - is growing tired of her assigned lot in life and wonders if there's anything better out there. Still, she is generally pleased with what she already has, living with her eccentric inventor father Maurice (Rex Everhart). When Maurice leaves town to attend a nearby science exhibition, he gets lost and winds up at the Beast's castle. The angry Beast takes him prisoner, but agrees to let him go in exchange for letting Belle remain in his castle forever.Although Belle is initially repulsed by the Beast, not so much by his looks but by his violent temper, she gradually begins to warm up to him and his kindly staff who begin tending to her every need. Underneath his horrid exterior, she begins to see that he is indeed a kind and gentle soul, and a very lonely one at that, and predictably begins to fall in love with him and vice-versa. Meanwhile back in town, forces led by the town's ultra-vain hot-shot alpha-male, Gaston (Richard White), are conspiring to get Belle to marry him at any cost, while also masterminding the Beast's downfall."Beauty and the Beast" is an extraordinary motion picture event, which had the distinction of being the first animated film to be nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars (that was until Pixar's "Up" in 2010). It was also one of the earliest pictures to make use of hand-drawn imagery that was seamless integrated with computer-generated special effects. To me, while I usually detest musicals and even though "Beauty and the Beast" has some musical numbers in it, by Alan Menken and the late Howard Ashman, the songs don't slow the film down at all. In fact, they actually enhance the film by actually continuing to tell the story (and they are in fact pretty catchy, which is a rarity in films like this - I might actually go out and by the soundtrack pretty soon).Another aspect of the film that makes it so extraordinary is how dark it is, and also worth mentioning is the fleeting violence of the film's climax (which does include a slapstick showdown at the Beast's castle between the household staff and Gaston's goons, but I'm specifically referring to the climatic fight between the Beast and Gaston on the roof of his castle). And the Beast himself is actually quite scary, especially in the film's earliest moments. I'm quite surprised that "Beauty and the Beast" didn't receive at least a "PG" rating considering how dark this picture is, both in its subject matter and presentation. Notice how ugly and how drenched in darkness the Beast's castle is when the story begins. But the story is also about beauty, specifically the love of inner beauty. The film and Beast's castle begin to brighten up and come back to life once Belle arrives and begins falling for the Beast.It may be rated "G," but it's still a mature-minded animated feature that doesn't play dumb to its audience and spoon-feed them crappy, sugar-coated moralistic messages about the true ugliness that is sometimes referred to as life."Beauty and the Beast" is very easily one of my favorite Disney animated films, very easily one of my favorite animated films of all time, for sure. I especially appreciated its message about inner beauty, a theme that has always been particularly of interest to me in the few love stories I actually like but has never been realized so brilliantly as it has been here.A true Disney classic.10/10

The Golden Age of Disney!

tt0101414

Along with Lion King and Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast is widely considered by most as Disney's finest film. That is simply a completely fair observation considering how good everything about the film is.The film follows the story of a man who was turned into a beast by a witch after he failed to help her due to her hideous appearance and a sweet young lady named Belle. As Belle is held prisoner by the Beast, both begin to discover what each other are deep down. Why do I absolutely love this film? Simply said, I love everything about the film. I love the voice acting, I love the classical animations, I love the story itself and the characters and also find the songs surprisingly good! This film has a magical taste to it. It just has this sweetness to it that many film nowadays attempt to accomplish but obviously fail, most notably Twilight. The relationship between Beauty and the Beast works so well during the film and it also adds a lot of comedy to it. I loved the pacing of the film and find that this is one of the most enjoyable movies of all time!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-349

ur28221379

title: The Golden Age of Disney! review: Along with Lion King and Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast is widely considered by most as Disney's finest film. That is simply a completely fair observation considering how good everything about the film is.The film follows the story of a man who was turned into a beast by a witch after he failed to help her due to her hideous appearance and a sweet young lady named Belle. As Belle is held prisoner by the Beast, both begin to discover what each other are deep down. Why do I absolutely love this film? Simply said, I love everything about the film. I love the voice acting, I love the classical animations, I love the story itself and the characters and also find the songs surprisingly good! This film has a magical taste to it. It just has this sweetness to it that many film nowadays attempt to accomplish but obviously fail, most notably Twilight. The relationship between Beauty and the Beast works so well during the film and it also adds a lot of comedy to it. I loved the pacing of the film and find that this is one of the most enjoyable movies of all time!

It was Good, but kinda overrated

tt0101414

I first saw Beauty and the Beast when the Diamond edition came out last year, when I was 17 years old. Maybe that's the reason I don't like this movie as much as everyone does, but I doubt it since I also saw Wall-e the same night and absolutely loved that film. Now when I first saw it, I was prepared to give this film a 6/10, but after thinking about it and listening to many peoples reasons why they love it I think it deserves at least a 7.The story is of two opposites that have a bad first impression but eventually fall in love. Simple, but it works. There are a few things that bother me about this film though. For one I feel that when the beast wasn't a jerk, he was really boring and bland, sorta the same thing that happened with Simba in the Lion King. I hate Lumiere alright, he is just a prick. And the songs aren't what they're hyped up to be. Be our guest is the only song that I loved, the rest are good, but I wouldn't sing along, and to be honest I don't see myself singing to Be our Guest either.But there are more good things, the love isn't just love at first sight, the rest of the characters are cool and the animation is stunning. Overall, good film, but not my favorite in the Disney Movie library.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-312

ur20621243

title: It was Good, but kinda overrated review: I first saw Beauty and the Beast when the Diamond edition came out last year, when I was 17 years old. Maybe that's the reason I don't like this movie as much as everyone does, but I doubt it since I also saw Wall-e the same night and absolutely loved that film. Now when I first saw it, I was prepared to give this film a 6/10, but after thinking about it and listening to many peoples reasons why they love it I think it deserves at least a 7.The story is of two opposites that have a bad first impression but eventually fall in love. Simple, but it works. There are a few things that bother me about this film though. For one I feel that when the beast wasn't a jerk, he was really boring and bland, sorta the same thing that happened with Simba in the Lion King. I hate Lumiere alright, he is just a prick. And the songs aren't what they're hyped up to be. Be our guest is the only song that I loved, the rest are good, but I wouldn't sing along, and to be honest I don't see myself singing to Be our Guest either.But there are more good things, the love isn't just love at first sight, the rest of the characters are cool and the animation is stunning. Overall, good film, but not my favorite in the Disney Movie library.

Such a Belle after All These Years

tt0101414

You know, two of the best aspects of Disney's version of Beauty & the Beast, seemed small and insignificant to most, but have stuck with me since I saw this in 1991. #1 They freely admit that this is a "tale as old as time" – they're not hiding that fact and #2 they're also completely up front with stating "she's the one" to break the curse, i.e. they don't make us wait until the end (LIKE MOVIES DO ALL THE TIME) to reveal what we've known from minute one. I respect that.Those are just two things of, I dunno, 50 great things about this near-masterpiece of filmmaking. A beautiful score, fantastic and timeless songs, gorgeous cinematography, hilarious dialogue and "sidekicks" and secondary characters, a story very moving, strong leads, adventure, suspense, love, fun…this movie is all of those plus so much more.Watching it (for the 20th+ time but) now in the usual-Disney "We Want Even More of Your Dollars" way, the re-release, of course in 3D, it still held up for me. My friend and I in the theatre were rocking back and forth with the wonderful musical segments while mouthing the words – trying desperately, albeit probably failing, not to disturb other movie-goers.I will say this, despite my 10/10 Star rating…the movie did look 21 years old, unfortunately. Some of the background characters did not move while the foreground was in motion. This was, sadly, unintentionally humorous. That said, I am a huge supporter of hand-drawn animation, or, movies people put their heart, soul, sweat & tears in VS clicking the mouse. This was old-school animation and I am fine with that. I just think this was better served, in 2012, at home to appreciate.Sure, I love re-watching classics or even movies I just like a lot, on the silver screen, but this wasn't one of those. Anyone that knows me knows I do like 3D, but I have NOT seen a single Disney 3D movie that impressed me. Especially converted ones. The ONLY good 3D imagery here was the rain & snow, and I said the same thing about The Nightmare Before Christmas's re-release in 3D. Sad, there were a lot more 3D to choose from, but I ONLY liked the rain & snow which, to me, was the only 3D that had depth.So I will NOT recommend this to be seen in theatres. I will NOT go see another Disney Classic on the big screen converted to 3D and I am no longer upset I missed The Lion King's same 3D re-issue last year. I will, however see Finding Nemo's 3D re-release later this year for several reasons: I DO NOT consider that Disney, it's my favorite Pixar film – though I haven't seen it since the original release in 2003 and the less than 2 minute preview before Beauty & the Beast looked far better in 3D than ALL of Beauty & the Beast. (On a side note, it's absolutely easier to convert that – it was 100% digital and computerized.)Stick with this classic on BluRay. I just hope they put that fantastically hilarious Tangled Ever After short (shown before this movie in the theatre.) It was a lot of fun and had us cracking up.For the movie itself: 10/10 Stars. For the 3D conversion: 2/10 Stars.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-331

ur17825945

title: Such a Belle after All These Years review: You know, two of the best aspects of Disney's version of Beauty & the Beast, seemed small and insignificant to most, but have stuck with me since I saw this in 1991. #1 They freely admit that this is a "tale as old as time" – they're not hiding that fact and #2 they're also completely up front with stating "she's the one" to break the curse, i.e. they don't make us wait until the end (LIKE MOVIES DO ALL THE TIME) to reveal what we've known from minute one. I respect that.Those are just two things of, I dunno, 50 great things about this near-masterpiece of filmmaking. A beautiful score, fantastic and timeless songs, gorgeous cinematography, hilarious dialogue and "sidekicks" and secondary characters, a story very moving, strong leads, adventure, suspense, love, fun…this movie is all of those plus so much more.Watching it (for the 20th+ time but) now in the usual-Disney "We Want Even More of Your Dollars" way, the re-release, of course in 3D, it still held up for me. My friend and I in the theatre were rocking back and forth with the wonderful musical segments while mouthing the words – trying desperately, albeit probably failing, not to disturb other movie-goers.I will say this, despite my 10/10 Star rating…the movie did look 21 years old, unfortunately. Some of the background characters did not move while the foreground was in motion. This was, sadly, unintentionally humorous. That said, I am a huge supporter of hand-drawn animation, or, movies people put their heart, soul, sweat & tears in VS clicking the mouse. This was old-school animation and I am fine with that. I just think this was better served, in 2012, at home to appreciate.Sure, I love re-watching classics or even movies I just like a lot, on the silver screen, but this wasn't one of those. Anyone that knows me knows I do like 3D, but I have NOT seen a single Disney 3D movie that impressed me. Especially converted ones. The ONLY good 3D imagery here was the rain & snow, and I said the same thing about The Nightmare Before Christmas's re-release in 3D. Sad, there were a lot more 3D to choose from, but I ONLY liked the rain & snow which, to me, was the only 3D that had depth.So I will NOT recommend this to be seen in theatres. I will NOT go see another Disney Classic on the big screen converted to 3D and I am no longer upset I missed The Lion King's same 3D re-issue last year. I will, however see Finding Nemo's 3D re-release later this year for several reasons: I DO NOT consider that Disney, it's my favorite Pixar film – though I haven't seen it since the original release in 2003 and the less than 2 minute preview before Beauty & the Beast looked far better in 3D than ALL of Beauty & the Beast. (On a side note, it's absolutely easier to convert that – it was 100% digital and computerized.)Stick with this classic on BluRay. I just hope they put that fantastically hilarious Tangled Ever After short (shown before this movie in the theatre.) It was a lot of fun and had us cracking up.For the movie itself: 10/10 Stars. For the 3D conversion: 2/10 Stars.

Beautiful, a classic Disney masterpiece...

tt0101414

I like Disney movies. Either they're a fanciful adaptation of a fairy tale, or if not, they are visually exciting. Beauty and the Beast is by far one of Disney's best. It's an adorable story with romance, comedy, and a little slapstick action. The characters are really well developed, particularly Belle, the Beast and the many implements of the house that play significant roles. They also provide the humor. The clock Cogsworth and the Candlestick Lumiere have a dynamic friendship with a brotherly knack for irritating each other.The motherly teapot, voiced by Angela Lansbury, is the calm, steady minded member of the house, and more often than not she can sets things straight.This really is a magical, beautiful film, almost more a work of art. I think it deserved it's best picture nomination.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-151

ur2186751

title: Beautiful, a classic Disney masterpiece... review: I like Disney movies. Either they're a fanciful adaptation of a fairy tale, or if not, they are visually exciting. Beauty and the Beast is by far one of Disney's best. It's an adorable story with romance, comedy, and a little slapstick action. The characters are really well developed, particularly Belle, the Beast and the many implements of the house that play significant roles. They also provide the humor. The clock Cogsworth and the Candlestick Lumiere have a dynamic friendship with a brotherly knack for irritating each other.The motherly teapot, voiced by Angela Lansbury, is the calm, steady minded member of the house, and more often than not she can sets things straight.This really is a magical, beautiful film, almost more a work of art. I think it deserved it's best picture nomination.

a wonderful and timeless musical

tt0101414

'Beauty and the Beast' is a classic love story that anyone will enjoy, whether you're a small child, a teenager, an adult, or an elderly person. It's a film that's charming, elegant, and sweet, not to mention funny. The songs are fantastic, and share the honor with 'Aladdin' and 'The Lion King' of having the best lineup of songs. I guarantee you'll remember at least three of them for years to come, including 'Be Our Guest', and the classic 'Beauty and the Beast'. The story follows Belle, a beautiful girl living in an rural area. She has always lived to assist her father, a desperate inventor who seems to be losing his marbles. When he goes off to an inventor's show and gets lost, Maurice's horse returns to Belle, and they set off to find him. Maurice is discovered in a colossal castle, filled with mysterious inhabitants, including the master, a fierce and horrifying beast. Belle persuades the Beast to take her instead of her father, and thus the story begins. Belle soon discovers there could be so much more to this beast than rage and hair (laughs). Filled with excellent actors including the late Jerry Orbach and Angela Lansbury, B&B is simply excellent, a beautiful romance that will attract any viewer to its unavoidable charm. As quoted in the song, it's a tale as old time, song as old as rhyme, Beauty and the Beast.8/10 --spy

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-202

ur4506876

title: a wonderful and timeless musical review: 'Beauty and the Beast' is a classic love story that anyone will enjoy, whether you're a small child, a teenager, an adult, or an elderly person. It's a film that's charming, elegant, and sweet, not to mention funny. The songs are fantastic, and share the honor with 'Aladdin' and 'The Lion King' of having the best lineup of songs. I guarantee you'll remember at least three of them for years to come, including 'Be Our Guest', and the classic 'Beauty and the Beast'. The story follows Belle, a beautiful girl living in an rural area. She has always lived to assist her father, a desperate inventor who seems to be losing his marbles. When he goes off to an inventor's show and gets lost, Maurice's horse returns to Belle, and they set off to find him. Maurice is discovered in a colossal castle, filled with mysterious inhabitants, including the master, a fierce and horrifying beast. Belle persuades the Beast to take her instead of her father, and thus the story begins. Belle soon discovers there could be so much more to this beast than rage and hair (laughs). Filled with excellent actors including the late Jerry Orbach and Angela Lansbury, B&B is simply excellent, a beautiful romance that will attract any viewer to its unavoidable charm. As quoted in the song, it's a tale as old time, song as old as rhyme, Beauty and the Beast.8/10 --spy

3-D Re-Release

tt0101414

I finally have a legitimate excuse to review this movie. One of the great ones. One of the greatest animated masterpieces of all time. There's no real reason to hate on this movie; it really is a gem. It's been talked about to death that all I can hope to do is bring my own opinion to the table.The story is still good. It's perfectly paced and excellently executed. The best scenes involve Belle and the Beast falling in love. One of the best elements in the movie is the romance. Unlike most Disney romances where the couple meets, falls in love, and gets married a few days later, Beauty and the Beast takes its time. You never know how long it takes the couple to fall in love; it could be weeks, maybe even months, so its open for debate and allows the viewer to draw his/her own conclusions. The characters are still memorable. Belle is beautiful (duh, the title tells you that), but she never flaunts it. She is constantly taunted and mocked, but does she care? No. On top of that, she's smart, kind, and anything else you look for in a Disney princess. The Beast is drawn great and you do believe he's evolved throughout the course of the film. Gaston is one of the best villains of all time. I love how egocentric he is, and when he doesn't get his way, he becomes this vengeful, hateful person. His transformation is just as believable as the Beasts.The side characters...do I need to say anything about these guys? You all remember the quick-witted Lumière, the snobby Cogsworth, the gentle Ms. Potts, and the hilariously stupid LeFou. They're all memorable and I don't need to say anymore about them.I guess I'll talk about the things that I don't like about the film. The first thing is the design of the human version of the Beast, or as Disney so persistently calls him, Adam. It looks goofy and unlike Disney males of the past. Adam looks very out of place, but that's just nit-picking. The 3-D is another gripe I have with the movie. I did not want to see the movie in 3-D, not because it's not a good film, but because I own the movie. Why would I want to pay $13.50 for a ticket when I could pop it into my DVD player FOR FREE? But, after the 3-D Re-release of the Lion King, everyone began to praise the 3-D animation. So, I spent the money on the ticket, and within the first 5 minutes of the film, I regretted it. The 3-D isn't a cheap conversion like The Last Airbender or Clash of the Titans, as I am told that Disney put a lot of money into re-releasing the movie in 3-D. But still, the movie is so clearly NOT shot in 3-D that it just doesn't look good. The opening shot in the forest looked great, but that's it.Final verdict: Though I don't think the movie is worth seeing in 3-D, still take your kids to see it. The animation, the characters, the story, and the music is perfect. It's a better alternative than something like The Smurfs. Raise your children on stuff like this, parents of America. I hear some theaters show the 2-D version, and by all means, go see that. For the problems I have with the 3-D, I won't deny that it was great seeing this film on the big screen. Do yourself a favor this weekend and go.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-335

ur28757769

title: 3-D Re-Release review: I finally have a legitimate excuse to review this movie. One of the great ones. One of the greatest animated masterpieces of all time. There's no real reason to hate on this movie; it really is a gem. It's been talked about to death that all I can hope to do is bring my own opinion to the table.The story is still good. It's perfectly paced and excellently executed. The best scenes involve Belle and the Beast falling in love. One of the best elements in the movie is the romance. Unlike most Disney romances where the couple meets, falls in love, and gets married a few days later, Beauty and the Beast takes its time. You never know how long it takes the couple to fall in love; it could be weeks, maybe even months, so its open for debate and allows the viewer to draw his/her own conclusions. The characters are still memorable. Belle is beautiful (duh, the title tells you that), but she never flaunts it. She is constantly taunted and mocked, but does she care? No. On top of that, she's smart, kind, and anything else you look for in a Disney princess. The Beast is drawn great and you do believe he's evolved throughout the course of the film. Gaston is one of the best villains of all time. I love how egocentric he is, and when he doesn't get his way, he becomes this vengeful, hateful person. His transformation is just as believable as the Beasts.The side characters...do I need to say anything about these guys? You all remember the quick-witted Lumière, the snobby Cogsworth, the gentle Ms. Potts, and the hilariously stupid LeFou. They're all memorable and I don't need to say anymore about them.I guess I'll talk about the things that I don't like about the film. The first thing is the design of the human version of the Beast, or as Disney so persistently calls him, Adam. It looks goofy and unlike Disney males of the past. Adam looks very out of place, but that's just nit-picking. The 3-D is another gripe I have with the movie. I did not want to see the movie in 3-D, not because it's not a good film, but because I own the movie. Why would I want to pay $13.50 for a ticket when I could pop it into my DVD player FOR FREE? But, after the 3-D Re-release of the Lion King, everyone began to praise the 3-D animation. So, I spent the money on the ticket, and within the first 5 minutes of the film, I regretted it. The 3-D isn't a cheap conversion like The Last Airbender or Clash of the Titans, as I am told that Disney put a lot of money into re-releasing the movie in 3-D. But still, the movie is so clearly NOT shot in 3-D that it just doesn't look good. The opening shot in the forest looked great, but that's it.Final verdict: Though I don't think the movie is worth seeing in 3-D, still take your kids to see it. The animation, the characters, the story, and the music is perfect. It's a better alternative than something like The Smurfs. Raise your children on stuff like this, parents of America. I hear some theaters show the 2-D version, and by all means, go see that. For the problems I have with the 3-D, I won't deny that it was great seeing this film on the big screen. Do yourself a favor this weekend and go.

This film truly is a beauty

tt0101414

Beauty and the Beast is a fantastic film. The animation is beautiful, the emotional power is huge, the writing is great, the characters are memorable, the songs are all classics, and when I say this is one of Disney's best I really do mean that when I think of the best Disney film I think of this a lot. It moves along at a perfect pace. It never moves to fast, and never feels slow. Voice acting all around is really good. Jokes do work really well in the film too. I love "The Hunchback", but I thoughts its main flaw was that the one comedic gargoyle always took away so much drama in the dramatic moments. In this they have comedic moments that don't take anything at all away from the drama. The jokes also are nice. The Beauty and the Beast is a true masterpiece classic.4 stars out of 4

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-296

ur23619158

title: This film truly is a beauty review: Beauty and the Beast is a fantastic film. The animation is beautiful, the emotional power is huge, the writing is great, the characters are memorable, the songs are all classics, and when I say this is one of Disney's best I really do mean that when I think of the best Disney film I think of this a lot. It moves along at a perfect pace. It never moves to fast, and never feels slow. Voice acting all around is really good. Jokes do work really well in the film too. I love "The Hunchback", but I thoughts its main flaw was that the one comedic gargoyle always took away so much drama in the dramatic moments. In this they have comedic moments that don't take anything at all away from the drama. The jokes also are nice. The Beauty and the Beast is a true masterpiece classic.4 stars out of 4

Spectacular. Magical, touching, and a little dark.

tt0101414

This is Disney's masterpiece in terms of fairy tales. It tells a story where moral takes an important role as it's demonstrated that inner beauty is what matters in humans and not humans.The plot is simple but interesting enough for those who enjoy fairy tales. The story turns dark when we get to explore the castle and the beast because we see some creepy things such as paintings, broken mirrors, and more. The animation is top level. The music is just beautiful. The f/x were great for it's time. The dancing sequence speaks for itself.The ending where townspeople led by Gaston fight against enchanted objects it's pure adrenaline and humor. My absolute favorite moment. This is a masterpiece on every aspect. Please give it a chance. It's a timeless movie for all ages.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-318

ur2843647

title: Spectacular. Magical, touching, and a little dark. review: This is Disney's masterpiece in terms of fairy tales. It tells a story where moral takes an important role as it's demonstrated that inner beauty is what matters in humans and not humans.The plot is simple but interesting enough for those who enjoy fairy tales. The story turns dark when we get to explore the castle and the beast because we see some creepy things such as paintings, broken mirrors, and more. The animation is top level. The music is just beautiful. The f/x were great for it's time. The dancing sequence speaks for itself.The ending where townspeople led by Gaston fight against enchanted objects it's pure adrenaline and humor. My absolute favorite moment. This is a masterpiece on every aspect. Please give it a chance. It's a timeless movie for all ages.

Pure Beauty.

tt0101414

Beauty and the beast is beautiful. It may sound a little gay to some, but they can go to hell. Beauty and the beast is one of the best animated films. I mean before Pixar came along, it was one of the best animated films ever. I was one of the rare few who loved The Aristorcats, my favorite. Beauty and the beast is a sad and romantic epic that was actually nominated for Best picture. Not best animated picture, best picture. Might I say, it damn well deserved it. Beauty and the beast was my favorite film of 1991. I ma sorry to say this, but I'm not going to go into the plot with you because I don't want to spoil any of the beauty for you. There aren't many voice talents, but they are great anyways. Angela Lansbury(Murder, she wrote), who I think has a cute voice, is cute as a teapot. Jerry Orbach is pretty funny as the candle. Those are really the only famous voice talents. The film is fantastic enough without voice talents. Like The Little Mermaid, the film is cute and an eyeful. I really had a great time with Beauty and the beast. it's a great film filled with story and it's one of the best animated films ever. Beauty and the Beast is true beauty and it's a beauty film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-281

ur21821220

title: Pure Beauty. review: Beauty and the beast is beautiful. It may sound a little gay to some, but they can go to hell. Beauty and the beast is one of the best animated films. I mean before Pixar came along, it was one of the best animated films ever. I was one of the rare few who loved The Aristorcats, my favorite. Beauty and the beast is a sad and romantic epic that was actually nominated for Best picture. Not best animated picture, best picture. Might I say, it damn well deserved it. Beauty and the beast was my favorite film of 1991. I ma sorry to say this, but I'm not going to go into the plot with you because I don't want to spoil any of the beauty for you. There aren't many voice talents, but they are great anyways. Angela Lansbury(Murder, she wrote), who I think has a cute voice, is cute as a teapot. Jerry Orbach is pretty funny as the candle. Those are really the only famous voice talents. The film is fantastic enough without voice talents. Like The Little Mermaid, the film is cute and an eyeful. I really had a great time with Beauty and the beast. it's a great film filled with story and it's one of the best animated films ever. Beauty and the Beast is true beauty and it's a beauty film.

Tale as old as time

tt0101414

A rude Prince refuses a poor elderly woman's present of a rose, and he is cursed to look like an animal, until he shares love with a woman, and if he doesn't make it before his 21st birthday, his appearance will never change back. When he finds a man trespassing in his castle(seeking shelter from the weather and the pack of wolves that always seem to hang around right outside the gate), he locks him up in his prison. The daughter finds out about this, and offers herself in his place. Belle is beautiful and could have anyone in her village for a husband, but she loves books, doesn't want to settle down, and wants adventure(...yeah, she does come off slightly ingrateful for the quite nice life she has for herself, anyway, she's interesting). Meanwhile, Gaston, the best and most handsome hunter around wants to marry her, which she isn't open to. The main theme explored here is, of course, that one should look underneath and not judge superficially. And as such, aforementioned Zapp Branigan type would be the hero in any other Disney piece. He isn't even really the villain right away. He doesn't look like a monster, his behavior makes him one. And the opposite is true(at least in time), of Beast(albeit his manners and temper need work), who is treated to a magnificent design, that allows him to be terrifying as well as express insecurity. That goes for his voice, as well, which is pitch perfect(literally). The underlying softness to it is fantastic. This keeps to a great pace, the plot is moving, characters are developed, things are never standing still(and humor is injected all over, without it costing(much) dramatic effect... whether you find it funny is like with much else from this studio, and for family films, a lot of it is for, or at least meant to also work for, kids). It's genuinely exciting and you want to know what happens next. The moral lesson is present without it being preachy, and it comes across rather well. Roles are all well-cast. This is a musical, and the songs can be pretty catchy. The dialog is good. This is animated well and with passion and energy. There aren't a lot of negatives. I would argue that LeFou doesn't look like he belongs, he's too cartoony among all these realistic-looking humans. There are the usual points about fairie tales and the conventions belonging to the genre. As an example, the romance is out of necessity, first and foremost(the magic has to be reversed, and within a set amount of time), as relationships tended to be back when this was originally conceived(hundreds of years ago, not the development of this interpretation). I personally can't help notice the disturbing(and not the only thing in this that is, either) nature of all the living furniture. If you drink from the living mugs, are you kissing the people they used to be? What if a plate is dropped on the floor, does that kill the person it is? And in the sequences where there are hints of hundreds of items that are alive, do they just sit around doing absolutely nothing when not being eaten out of or the like? Does the bottom cup in the pile get a bad back from the weight of the others? These are questions that shouldn't be asked, of course(and then one can choose to apply psychology, and wonder if this is a case of Stockholm Syndrome). I think a bigger issue is the timeline... from what happens in the small town, it comes off as this all happening over two, maybe three days. Is that really long enough for all that takes place in the fortress? Still, these are not big enough problems to take away from this being a remarkable piece, that hasn't aged a day in 20 years. The Diamond Edition 2-Disc DVD set comes with an amusing and informational commentary(with directors, composer, producer), a Sing-Along track, the well-done, tightly edited and compelling(somehow, the special features garner far more laughs than the flick itself…) documentaries Beyond Beauty(51 minutes, it goes into the people who created this), The Story Behind The Story(26 minutes, and since it has its own page here on the site, I will be reviewing it there), Composing A Classic(19 and a half minutes), "animation"(13 and a half minutes), Broadway Beginnings(12 and a half minutes), deleted scenes(27 minutes, the first two thirds of which completely change the approach and render it darker), deleted song(7 minutes, and 1 and a half minutes intro), alternate version: "be our guest"(5 minutes), 2 music videos(3 and a half minutes and 4 and a half minutes), early presentation reel(3 minutes), 4 TV spots(2 minutes), camera move test(2 minutes), alternate score: the transformation(2 minutes), games(Simon, and a personality test), Trailers(Tangled, Toy Story 3, A Christmas Carol, Hannah Montana Forever, Bambi, two for this(4 and a half minutes total, with intro by Don Hahn)) and a promo for BluRay. I recommend this to essentially everyone, as almost anyone will be entertained, engaged and endeared. 8/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-329

ur2093818

title: Tale as old as time review: A rude Prince refuses a poor elderly woman's present of a rose, and he is cursed to look like an animal, until he shares love with a woman, and if he doesn't make it before his 21st birthday, his appearance will never change back. When he finds a man trespassing in his castle(seeking shelter from the weather and the pack of wolves that always seem to hang around right outside the gate), he locks him up in his prison. The daughter finds out about this, and offers herself in his place. Belle is beautiful and could have anyone in her village for a husband, but she loves books, doesn't want to settle down, and wants adventure(...yeah, she does come off slightly ingrateful for the quite nice life she has for herself, anyway, she's interesting). Meanwhile, Gaston, the best and most handsome hunter around wants to marry her, which she isn't open to. The main theme explored here is, of course, that one should look underneath and not judge superficially. And as such, aforementioned Zapp Branigan type would be the hero in any other Disney piece. He isn't even really the villain right away. He doesn't look like a monster, his behavior makes him one. And the opposite is true(at least in time), of Beast(albeit his manners and temper need work), who is treated to a magnificent design, that allows him to be terrifying as well as express insecurity. That goes for his voice, as well, which is pitch perfect(literally). The underlying softness to it is fantastic. This keeps to a great pace, the plot is moving, characters are developed, things are never standing still(and humor is injected all over, without it costing(much) dramatic effect... whether you find it funny is like with much else from this studio, and for family films, a lot of it is for, or at least meant to also work for, kids). It's genuinely exciting and you want to know what happens next. The moral lesson is present without it being preachy, and it comes across rather well. Roles are all well-cast. This is a musical, and the songs can be pretty catchy. The dialog is good. This is animated well and with passion and energy. There aren't a lot of negatives. I would argue that LeFou doesn't look like he belongs, he's too cartoony among all these realistic-looking humans. There are the usual points about fairie tales and the conventions belonging to the genre. As an example, the romance is out of necessity, first and foremost(the magic has to be reversed, and within a set amount of time), as relationships tended to be back when this was originally conceived(hundreds of years ago, not the development of this interpretation). I personally can't help notice the disturbing(and not the only thing in this that is, either) nature of all the living furniture. If you drink from the living mugs, are you kissing the people they used to be? What if a plate is dropped on the floor, does that kill the person it is? And in the sequences where there are hints of hundreds of items that are alive, do they just sit around doing absolutely nothing when not being eaten out of or the like? Does the bottom cup in the pile get a bad back from the weight of the others? These are questions that shouldn't be asked, of course(and then one can choose to apply psychology, and wonder if this is a case of Stockholm Syndrome). I think a bigger issue is the timeline... from what happens in the small town, it comes off as this all happening over two, maybe three days. Is that really long enough for all that takes place in the fortress? Still, these are not big enough problems to take away from this being a remarkable piece, that hasn't aged a day in 20 years. The Diamond Edition 2-Disc DVD set comes with an amusing and informational commentary(with directors, composer, producer), a Sing-Along track, the well-done, tightly edited and compelling(somehow, the special features garner far more laughs than the flick itself…) documentaries Beyond Beauty(51 minutes, it goes into the people who created this), The Story Behind The Story(26 minutes, and since it has its own page here on the site, I will be reviewing it there), Composing A Classic(19 and a half minutes), "animation"(13 and a half minutes), Broadway Beginnings(12 and a half minutes), deleted scenes(27 minutes, the first two thirds of which completely change the approach and render it darker), deleted song(7 minutes, and 1 and a half minutes intro), alternate version: "be our guest"(5 minutes), 2 music videos(3 and a half minutes and 4 and a half minutes), early presentation reel(3 minutes), 4 TV spots(2 minutes), camera move test(2 minutes), alternate score: the transformation(2 minutes), games(Simon, and a personality test), Trailers(Tangled, Toy Story 3, A Christmas Carol, Hannah Montana Forever, Bambi, two for this(4 and a half minutes total, with intro by Don Hahn)) and a promo for BluRay. I recommend this to essentially everyone, as almost anyone will be entertained, engaged and endeared. 8/10

A true Disney classic,

tt0101414

Beauty And The Beast is an absolute classic from Disney,I saw the movie in theaters in its 3D re-release this week,I don't really care for 3D and didn't find the 3D in this great,but I went to see because it is a childhood favorite of mine,Be Our Guest is one of my favorite movie songs and Lumiere is one of my favorite cartoon characters.A girl named Belle is trapped away in a castle after saving her fathers life with a prince who has turned into a beast and his friends who turned into cups,candles,clocks,etc.,Belle doesn't like it there st first but the beast and Belle start to fall for each other,the items try to make sure it happens because the beast finding true love is the only way the spell can be broken.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-343

ur23055365

title: A true Disney classic, review: Beauty And The Beast is an absolute classic from Disney,I saw the movie in theaters in its 3D re-release this week,I don't really care for 3D and didn't find the 3D in this great,but I went to see because it is a childhood favorite of mine,Be Our Guest is one of my favorite movie songs and Lumiere is one of my favorite cartoon characters.A girl named Belle is trapped away in a castle after saving her fathers life with a prince who has turned into a beast and his friends who turned into cups,candles,clocks,etc.,Belle doesn't like it there st first but the beast and Belle start to fall for each other,the items try to make sure it happens because the beast finding true love is the only way the spell can be broken.

Like its heroine, Beauty and the Beast steps out of the comfort zone and thus it succeeds magically in taking people off into their hearts and children within.

tt0101414

It has been said that the pen is mightier than the sword, but when this age-old phrase is converted to modern times, it translates to "the desktop is mightier than the pencil." There's no denying that the computer has become a tool used across the world, whether for political reasons, or for business or especially for educational purposes. Computers have also been adopted by the film industry to give their works of art a shinier feel and along with the visual effects wizards, the filmmakers who use these electronic devices the most are the animators. After a while, it was uncertain whether the cel-based animation used to create such classics like The Little Mermaid and Pinocchio would be completely dropped in favour of the quicker and slicker style. While studios like DreamWorks may have given up on them, the folks at the world's pioneering animation studio are still behind the pencil-and-paper animation that has enchanted families for generations. Looking back at one of their essential works, Beauty and the Beast brings back memories of not only nostalgia, but also warmth. Quite possibly the greatest love story ever told, this "tale as old as time" has always been told by bringing pen to paper. From its candle-lit beginnings by a French writer many years ago to the Disney animators who brought joys to people of all ages, Beauty and the Beast has always touched the heart.The main part of what makes Beauty and the Beast such a brilliant film is the fact that the relationship between the two title characters doesn't feel artificial or one-dimensional, even though they're drawn on paper. Unlike other famous fairy tales, Beauty and the Beast feels quite realistic in its definition of love. The story breaks all conventions by not going the "love at first sight" route and letting the romance progress at a reasonable pace. Belle also proves to be the most interesting Disney heroine, as she doesn't fit the norm of typical princesses like Snow White and Sleeping Beauty. Unlike the aforementioned characters, Belle is not bland, but actually as a personality. She defines individuality and seeks to do more than just marry a prince. Her annoyance at Gaston is not only humorous, but also shows that her ideas of romance don't consist of "a rustic hunting lodge... my latest kill roasting on the fire... and my little wife, massaging my feet... while the little ones play on the floor with the dogs... we'll have six or seven," as Gaston puts it. The Beast is also a rather stubborn, but loving personality. Despite his tough exterior is a nice person at heart which Belle begins to realise the more into the relationship they enter.Adding to the brilliance of the chemistry between Beauty and the Beast are the songs from Alan Menken and the late Howard Ashman. Although both did terrific work on The Little Mermaid and their cult musical Little Shop of Horrors, the music in Beauty and the Beast stands as their best. The title theme song is quite possibly one of the most romantic songs ever written, combining beautiful lyrics with a very memorable melody. This song enhances the film's famous ballroom scene to ever impressive heights, already helped by the breathtaking animation in the sequence. "Beauty and the Beast" was not written as just a way to sell soundtracks and win Oscars. It adds another dimension to the characters as they continue to fall deeply in love with each other. It is both moving and deep. The other songs provided by the team also contribute wonderfully to the film, from a show-stopping Broadway number called "Be Our Guest" to the very funny ode to "Gaston." They're bursting with energy and humour made even more poignant by the fact they would feature the last lyrics written by Ashman (who had also already contributed some work to Aladdin). It's a brilliant way to end his career and the end credits homage him perfectly: "To our friend, Howard, who gave a mermaid her voice and a beast his soul, we will be forever grateful. Howard Ashman (1950-1991)"Probably one of the most important ingredients that make Beauty and the Beast such a success is the startling animation. The animators at Disney did a terrific job at making everything absolutely perfect, from the character designs to the sets. Each character has their feel, whether comedic or dramatic, and the animators allow them to breath, seamlessly combining the actor's voice to the moving drawings. The sets are also worthy of mention, particularly the look of the Beast's castle. The Gothic castle is drawn and painted beautifully from top to behind, so much so you're forgetting you're watching an animated film. The film is bright and colourful, but also dark and dreary when necessary. As mentioned before, the ballroom sequence combines Menken and Ashman's music with the animation flawlessly, giving a completely magical feel to it. When computers are brought into the scene, it seams in perfectly, not feeling distracted in the least. Beauty and the Beast most certainly stands as Disney animation at its finest.Some of the best animated films in the world have come from the Walt Disney studios and Beauty and the Beast is deservedly one of their crown jewels. At the film's release, it was honoured with an Oscar nomination for Best Picture, a rare feat for an animated film. It proves that like its heroine, Beauty and the Beast steps out of the comfort zone and thus it succeeds magically in taking people off into their hearts and children within.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-240

ur12656329

title: Like its heroine, Beauty and the Beast steps out of the comfort zone and thus it succeeds magically in taking people off into their hearts and children within. review: It has been said that the pen is mightier than the sword, but when this age-old phrase is converted to modern times, it translates to "the desktop is mightier than the pencil." There's no denying that the computer has become a tool used across the world, whether for political reasons, or for business or especially for educational purposes. Computers have also been adopted by the film industry to give their works of art a shinier feel and along with the visual effects wizards, the filmmakers who use these electronic devices the most are the animators. After a while, it was uncertain whether the cel-based animation used to create such classics like The Little Mermaid and Pinocchio would be completely dropped in favour of the quicker and slicker style. While studios like DreamWorks may have given up on them, the folks at the world's pioneering animation studio are still behind the pencil-and-paper animation that has enchanted families for generations. Looking back at one of their essential works, Beauty and the Beast brings back memories of not only nostalgia, but also warmth. Quite possibly the greatest love story ever told, this "tale as old as time" has always been told by bringing pen to paper. From its candle-lit beginnings by a French writer many years ago to the Disney animators who brought joys to people of all ages, Beauty and the Beast has always touched the heart.The main part of what makes Beauty and the Beast such a brilliant film is the fact that the relationship between the two title characters doesn't feel artificial or one-dimensional, even though they're drawn on paper. Unlike other famous fairy tales, Beauty and the Beast feels quite realistic in its definition of love. The story breaks all conventions by not going the "love at first sight" route and letting the romance progress at a reasonable pace. Belle also proves to be the most interesting Disney heroine, as she doesn't fit the norm of typical princesses like Snow White and Sleeping Beauty. Unlike the aforementioned characters, Belle is not bland, but actually as a personality. She defines individuality and seeks to do more than just marry a prince. Her annoyance at Gaston is not only humorous, but also shows that her ideas of romance don't consist of "a rustic hunting lodge... my latest kill roasting on the fire... and my little wife, massaging my feet... while the little ones play on the floor with the dogs... we'll have six or seven," as Gaston puts it. The Beast is also a rather stubborn, but loving personality. Despite his tough exterior is a nice person at heart which Belle begins to realise the more into the relationship they enter.Adding to the brilliance of the chemistry between Beauty and the Beast are the songs from Alan Menken and the late Howard Ashman. Although both did terrific work on The Little Mermaid and their cult musical Little Shop of Horrors, the music in Beauty and the Beast stands as their best. The title theme song is quite possibly one of the most romantic songs ever written, combining beautiful lyrics with a very memorable melody. This song enhances the film's famous ballroom scene to ever impressive heights, already helped by the breathtaking animation in the sequence. "Beauty and the Beast" was not written as just a way to sell soundtracks and win Oscars. It adds another dimension to the characters as they continue to fall deeply in love with each other. It is both moving and deep. The other songs provided by the team also contribute wonderfully to the film, from a show-stopping Broadway number called "Be Our Guest" to the very funny ode to "Gaston." They're bursting with energy and humour made even more poignant by the fact they would feature the last lyrics written by Ashman (who had also already contributed some work to Aladdin). It's a brilliant way to end his career and the end credits homage him perfectly: "To our friend, Howard, who gave a mermaid her voice and a beast his soul, we will be forever grateful. Howard Ashman (1950-1991)"Probably one of the most important ingredients that make Beauty and the Beast such a success is the startling animation. The animators at Disney did a terrific job at making everything absolutely perfect, from the character designs to the sets. Each character has their feel, whether comedic or dramatic, and the animators allow them to breath, seamlessly combining the actor's voice to the moving drawings. The sets are also worthy of mention, particularly the look of the Beast's castle. The Gothic castle is drawn and painted beautifully from top to behind, so much so you're forgetting you're watching an animated film. The film is bright and colourful, but also dark and dreary when necessary. As mentioned before, the ballroom sequence combines Menken and Ashman's music with the animation flawlessly, giving a completely magical feel to it. When computers are brought into the scene, it seams in perfectly, not feeling distracted in the least. Beauty and the Beast most certainly stands as Disney animation at its finest.Some of the best animated films in the world have come from the Walt Disney studios and Beauty and the Beast is deservedly one of their crown jewels. At the film's release, it was honoured with an Oscar nomination for Best Picture, a rare feat for an animated film. It proves that like its heroine, Beauty and the Beast steps out of the comfort zone and thus it succeeds magically in taking people off into their hearts and children within.

Widely Loved Disney Adaptation of a Classic Love Story.

tt0101414

As is Disney's way, this timeless classic has been adapted to animation complete with talking furniture, dancing dinner wear, and the most villainous villains. All wrapped up with a musical score worthy of the most highly funded Broadway show.This is one of the most endearing works Disney's animation crew has put out in years. As a romantic adventure, it's far above par, even for Disney, and rivals even Snow White in enchanting sweetness.While it's not my personal favorite, it is easily Disney's best animated romantic musical, and as such, it rates a 9.4/10 from...the Fiend :.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-222

ur2626332

title: Widely Loved Disney Adaptation of a Classic Love Story. review: As is Disney's way, this timeless classic has been adapted to animation complete with talking furniture, dancing dinner wear, and the most villainous villains. All wrapped up with a musical score worthy of the most highly funded Broadway show.This is one of the most endearing works Disney's animation crew has put out in years. As a romantic adventure, it's far above par, even for Disney, and rivals even Snow White in enchanting sweetness.While it's not my personal favorite, it is easily Disney's best animated romantic musical, and as such, it rates a 9.4/10 from...the Fiend :.

Beauty and the Beast!!! Best Animated movie ever done!!!

tt0101414

Beauty and the Beast is truly the best animated movie of all time. Tonight I watched again after 4 or 5 years and it just opened my eyes. If all of my brothers weren't watching it with me I would have cried so much. The story is incredible, but what really makes this movie so wonderful and beautiful is the music. The songs are great, especially " Beauty and the Beast", Alan Menken did a great job on this movie( Songs and score). I'm very happy that it won 2 Oscars, and got nominated for best picture, I think it should have won. Beauty and the Beast is a movie for all ages, it will make you happy when you're child, and make you cry when you're older. In conclusion, I believe that this movie is one of the greatest ever made and I'm surprised it's not in IMDb's top 250 'cause it really should be, anyway, to all of you who still didn't get the chance to see it or thought that it was to silly and childish, believe me it's not, it's a true masterpiece. I love it!!! And I know you will. 10/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/reviews-244

ur17949504

title: Beauty and the Beast!!! Best Animated movie ever done!!! review: Beauty and the Beast is truly the best animated movie of all time. Tonight I watched again after 4 or 5 years and it just opened my eyes. If all of my brothers weren't watching it with me I would have cried so much. The story is incredible, but what really makes this movie so wonderful and beautiful is the music. The songs are great, especially " Beauty and the Beast", Alan Menken did a great job on this movie( Songs and score). I'm very happy that it won 2 Oscars, and got nominated for best picture, I think it should have won. Beauty and the Beast is a movie for all ages, it will make you happy when you're child, and make you cry when you're older. In conclusion, I believe that this movie is one of the greatest ever made and I'm surprised it's not in IMDb's top 250 'cause it really should be, anyway, to all of you who still didn't get the chance to see it or thought that it was to silly and childish, believe me it's not, it's a true masterpiece. I love it!!! And I know you will. 10/10

Talker

tt0079944

The opening scenes are incredibly drab, filmed in sepia tone, as some characters engage in uninteresting conversations in a gray, depressing, and filthy city. After a while, the characters escape to a forbidden place known as the Zone, which is in color (like Oz) and has trees, flowers, and flowing streams. While the change in scenery is welcome, the characters continue to blabber on and on and on, sprouting boring and pointless philosophy. Tarkovsky has to be one of the most self-indulgent directors ever. It's torture having to sit through this heavy-handed and depressing film, especially at a length of nearly three hours. Put a restraining order on this stalker.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/reviews-193

ur2590596

title: Talker review: The opening scenes are incredibly drab, filmed in sepia tone, as some characters engage in uninteresting conversations in a gray, depressing, and filthy city. After a while, the characters escape to a forbidden place known as the Zone, which is in color (like Oz) and has trees, flowers, and flowing streams. While the change in scenery is welcome, the characters continue to blabber on and on and on, sprouting boring and pointless philosophy. Tarkovsky has to be one of the most self-indulgent directors ever. It's torture having to sit through this heavy-handed and depressing film, especially at a length of nearly three hours. Put a restraining order on this stalker.

A complex masterpiece.

tt0079944

A guide leads two men through an area known as the Zone to find a room that grants wishes. Near a gray and unnamed city is the Zone, an alien place guarded by barbed wire and soldiers. Over his wife's objections, a man rises in the early morning and leaves her with their disabled daughter to meet two men. He's a Stalker, one of a handful who have the mental gifts (and who risk imprisonment) to lead people into the Zone to the Room, a place where one's secret hopes come true. His clients are a burned out popular writer, cynical, and questioning his talent; and a quiet scientist more concerned about his knapsack than the journey. In the deserted Zone, the approach to the Room must be indirect. As they draw near, the rules seem to change and the stalker faces a crisis. A beautiful, great and puzzling film. But then if it revealed all its secrets straight off then, apart from the beautiful visuals and the soundtrack it would be pointless watching it again. Great art only leaches out its secrets gradually and only to those with the desire to learn them.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/reviews-309

ur26897720

title: A complex masterpiece. review: A guide leads two men through an area known as the Zone to find a room that grants wishes. Near a gray and unnamed city is the Zone, an alien place guarded by barbed wire and soldiers. Over his wife's objections, a man rises in the early morning and leaves her with their disabled daughter to meet two men. He's a Stalker, one of a handful who have the mental gifts (and who risk imprisonment) to lead people into the Zone to the Room, a place where one's secret hopes come true. His clients are a burned out popular writer, cynical, and questioning his talent; and a quiet scientist more concerned about his knapsack than the journey. In the deserted Zone, the approach to the Room must be indirect. As they draw near, the rules seem to change and the stalker faces a crisis. A beautiful, great and puzzling film. But then if it revealed all its secrets straight off then, apart from the beautiful visuals and the soundtrack it would be pointless watching it again. Great art only leaches out its secrets gradually and only to those with the desire to learn them.

First Tarkovsky film

tt0079944

Okay, If you ask me about Tarkovsky I will only know about this movie here. Anything else, you would have completely lost me. As a director goes he is actually pretty good, my ONE complaint is that the writing didn't really get me into it's grasp until near the very end, but no matter. When it got me into the grasp I love the questioning of the wishing. It's very Ingmar Bergman-ish (which is funny because Tarkovsky is influenced by Bergman).Here is also a warning for any sci-fi lovers who are expecting to see the CGI extravaganzas will be thoroughly disappointed. Stalker is one that leans more on the dialogue rather than what Hollywood has managed to think up (as far as which type I prefer - I'll go with neither depending on what they are).So if you like Ingmar Bergman or any other type of film where the questions are the films underlying message then I will hand this to you. I will watch more Tarkovsky in the future though, That makes it THREE directors who live up to their reputation (Ingmar Bergman, Akira Kurosawa and Andrei Tarkovsky).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/reviews-254

ur20815663

title: First Tarkovsky film review: Okay, If you ask me about Tarkovsky I will only know about this movie here. Anything else, you would have completely lost me. As a director goes he is actually pretty good, my ONE complaint is that the writing didn't really get me into it's grasp until near the very end, but no matter. When it got me into the grasp I love the questioning of the wishing. It's very Ingmar Bergman-ish (which is funny because Tarkovsky is influenced by Bergman).Here is also a warning for any sci-fi lovers who are expecting to see the CGI extravaganzas will be thoroughly disappointed. Stalker is one that leans more on the dialogue rather than what Hollywood has managed to think up (as far as which type I prefer - I'll go with neither depending on what they are).So if you like Ingmar Bergman or any other type of film where the questions are the films underlying message then I will hand this to you. I will watch more Tarkovsky in the future though, That makes it THREE directors who live up to their reputation (Ingmar Bergman, Akira Kurosawa and Andrei Tarkovsky).

Stalker is more than a film; it is an act of Faith.

tt0079944

Some say the zone was born from the crash of a meteorite, some say the zone is a gift from an Alien civilization. Whatever they say the zone is a miracle.An unnamed rainy city and in its surrounding is the Zone, in this Zone is a Room, and "here we are at the threshold. This is the most important moment of your lives. You have to know that here your most cherished wish, the most sincere one, the one reached through suffering" is about to come true.If we don't make the effort to change our point of view we may pass on a tremendously poetic experiment. In fact "Stalker" may very well appear as three hours bore fest... But if we take five minutes of our precious time to confront our questioning then we would witness how cinema connects directly with our heart and maybe with our Soul.In "Stalker" we follow three different persons who share a unique goal, reaching the zone but have very different reasons to do so. The stalker is a guide who takes the willing to the 'zone'. One is a professor. It seems his motivation is to see the scientific significance of the area. He believes in science and in science only. He is a realist. The second is a writer who wants to recover his lost inspiration. He only believes in facts and in facts only. He is a cynic. They are both hopeless and looking to reveal the secret of the zone...But does the zone bare any secret? And if so how could someone incapable of Hope, reveal a secret based on a simple wish?The film is a voyage not only from a town to the zone but also from monochrome browns to realistic colors and more importantly from shadow to enlightenmentAs mentioned the stalker is the guide, he is genuinely searching for the right path through the zone and to the room. He is pondering every decision he takes, not rushing through the zone but testing the path and approaching side ways. He proceeds in a caution manner guided it seems only by his intuition. It is so irrational that it irritates the writer who decides to go through the zone in a more straight forward fashion. But as we understand the zone like Life is not straight forward, not always rational as it reflects our fears, our despairs and our disbelieves. In short life is dangerous and so is the zone... The professor says it himself "going forward is scary but going back is shameful" so maybe the stalker's way is the only possible way. Unlike the two intellectuals he has the intuition of what reality is.Eventually it seems our three protagonists are involved in a spiritual struggle. The problem is the scientist and the writer are in denial of this spirituality and the stalker is an intuitive being who can't put a name on his spiritual search. For them Reality "is at best the result of the soul rubbing against the material world" and at worst sequences of facts. So in essence if you go looking for something you don't really believe in or you can't apprehend...would you find it?At the doorstep of the room our three protagonists refuse to go in. The Professor wants to destroy the room; he is scared of what he can't comprehend. The writer endorses the Professor's choice to destroy the room. He is scared of facing his own shadows. They both lack Faith in Humanity. The Stalker doesn't go in either. His place in this world is to guide people his hope lies in others not in himself. He has Faith in Humanity. But the Stalker can't let the so called intellectuals destroy the last place where people can hope and believe again. He reminds them that Hope is "all people have got left on this earth". Hope is what makes us Human…The disappointment of the Stalker is as big as his hope in the professor and the writer was, he had chosen carefully those two in the hope they will be able to put a name on his Faith, unfortunately they can't as if science and intelligence have nothing to do with Faith.A thunderstorm breaks out and rain starts to pore from the roof. Our three searchers sit down behind a water curtain reflecting on their incapability to hope and believe in the better of themselves. Everyday when I wake up I have endless doubts but every night when I go to sleep I have recover my Faith in me, in others…Everyday I search through the Zone of my Life and every night I stand at the doorstep of the Room

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/reviews-176

ur0728175

title: Stalker is more than a film; it is an act of Faith. review: Some say the zone was born from the crash of a meteorite, some say the zone is a gift from an Alien civilization. Whatever they say the zone is a miracle.An unnamed rainy city and in its surrounding is the Zone, in this Zone is a Room, and "here we are at the threshold. This is the most important moment of your lives. You have to know that here your most cherished wish, the most sincere one, the one reached through suffering" is about to come true.If we don't make the effort to change our point of view we may pass on a tremendously poetic experiment. In fact "Stalker" may very well appear as three hours bore fest... But if we take five minutes of our precious time to confront our questioning then we would witness how cinema connects directly with our heart and maybe with our Soul.In "Stalker" we follow three different persons who share a unique goal, reaching the zone but have very different reasons to do so. The stalker is a guide who takes the willing to the 'zone'. One is a professor. It seems his motivation is to see the scientific significance of the area. He believes in science and in science only. He is a realist. The second is a writer who wants to recover his lost inspiration. He only believes in facts and in facts only. He is a cynic. They are both hopeless and looking to reveal the secret of the zone...But does the zone bare any secret? And if so how could someone incapable of Hope, reveal a secret based on a simple wish?The film is a voyage not only from a town to the zone but also from monochrome browns to realistic colors and more importantly from shadow to enlightenmentAs mentioned the stalker is the guide, he is genuinely searching for the right path through the zone and to the room. He is pondering every decision he takes, not rushing through the zone but testing the path and approaching side ways. He proceeds in a caution manner guided it seems only by his intuition. It is so irrational that it irritates the writer who decides to go through the zone in a more straight forward fashion. But as we understand the zone like Life is not straight forward, not always rational as it reflects our fears, our despairs and our disbelieves. In short life is dangerous and so is the zone... The professor says it himself "going forward is scary but going back is shameful" so maybe the stalker's way is the only possible way. Unlike the two intellectuals he has the intuition of what reality is.Eventually it seems our three protagonists are involved in a spiritual struggle. The problem is the scientist and the writer are in denial of this spirituality and the stalker is an intuitive being who can't put a name on his spiritual search. For them Reality "is at best the result of the soul rubbing against the material world" and at worst sequences of facts. So in essence if you go looking for something you don't really believe in or you can't apprehend...would you find it?At the doorstep of the room our three protagonists refuse to go in. The Professor wants to destroy the room; he is scared of what he can't comprehend. The writer endorses the Professor's choice to destroy the room. He is scared of facing his own shadows. They both lack Faith in Humanity. The Stalker doesn't go in either. His place in this world is to guide people his hope lies in others not in himself. He has Faith in Humanity. But the Stalker can't let the so called intellectuals destroy the last place where people can hope and believe again. He reminds them that Hope is "all people have got left on this earth". Hope is what makes us Human…The disappointment of the Stalker is as big as his hope in the professor and the writer was, he had chosen carefully those two in the hope they will be able to put a name on his Faith, unfortunately they can't as if science and intelligence have nothing to do with Faith.A thunderstorm breaks out and rain starts to pore from the roof. Our three searchers sit down behind a water curtain reflecting on their incapability to hope and believe in the better of themselves. Everyday when I wake up I have endless doubts but every night when I go to sleep I have recover my Faith in me, in others…Everyday I search through the Zone of my Life and every night I stand at the doorstep of the Room

Geeky Randy's summary

tt0079944

An industrial art house film—typical of Eastern European cinema—that's about as sci-fi as A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Title character Kaidanovsky guides intellectuals Grinko and Solonitsyn through "the Zone"—an area where the laws of physics don't apply—so that they may encounter a "Room" that grants wishes to whoever enters it. Tarkovsky's signature long-takes slow the movie down, but not enough for it to seem overlong. The film's overriding flaw is the lack of payoff; even with a modestly budgeted dialogue-driven film, Tarkovsky should have found a way for the Zone to live up to what Kaidanovsky's character built it up to be. Final shot is terrific enough not to be left too disappointed and Artemyev's subtle score fits perfectly.**½ (out of four)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/reviews-277

ur0756238

title: Geeky Randy's summary review: An industrial art house film—typical of Eastern European cinema—that's about as sci-fi as A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Title character Kaidanovsky guides intellectuals Grinko and Solonitsyn through "the Zone"—an area where the laws of physics don't apply—so that they may encounter a "Room" that grants wishes to whoever enters it. Tarkovsky's signature long-takes slow the movie down, but not enough for it to seem overlong. The film's overriding flaw is the lack of payoff; even with a modestly budgeted dialogue-driven film, Tarkovsky should have found a way for the Zone to live up to what Kaidanovsky's character built it up to be. Final shot is terrific enough not to be left too disappointed and Artemyev's subtle score fits perfectly.**½ (out of four)

"The Zone wants to be respected. Otherwise it will punish."

tt0079944

Like a solemn and reflective piece of poetry, Andrei Tarkovsky's 'Stalker' moves forward slowly. Though loosely based on an undeniable straight science-fiction novel, 'Roadside Picnic' by Boris and Arkady Strugatsky, the film is less concerned with science than it is with pondering the philosophical and metaphysical notions of personal faith and desire. 'Stalker' was released in 1979 after a trouble-plagued production, during which vast portions of the film had to be re-shot due to errors during negative development, and amidst crumbling relations with the original cinematographer, Georgi Rerberg.Most of the film takes place in a wilderness area cordoned off by the government, known as "The Zone." Strictly guarded by armed soldiers who fear to enter it, The Zone is believed to have been the site of a meteor strike, a nuclear accident or even a UFO landing (as in the original novel). One man, known as Stalker (Aleksandr Kajdanovsky), living in a grey and dreary town on the outskirts of The Zone, makes a living out of leading men into the perilous heart of the area, specifically to a room with the alleged ability to grant a man's most innermost desires.On this occasion, against the wishes of his wife (Alisa Frejndlikh), Stalker accompanies two men into The Zone, respectively known as Writer (Anatoli Solonitsyn) – a skeptical author looking for inspiration – and Professor (Nikolai Grinko) – a man of science with ambiguous motives. Once they have bypassed the armed security on the outskirts of the area, Stalker informs his clients that they are to obey his every command if the three of them are to avoid the unspeakable perils of The Zone. These dangers do not appear immediately obvious, with the vast surrounding landscape seemingly peaceful and serene, with the quiet calls of birds and insects occasionally pierced by the distant howl of a wolf or dog. Indeed, it is here that Stalker appears to find complete and utter solace, stretching himself amongst the thickly-scented vegetation to absorb the sights, sounds and smells of the only place that makes him feel human.Writer is initially quite skeptical of the so-called dangers of The Zone, but Stalker's passionate pleas for cooperation eventually convince him to do as he is told. The characters make their journey to The Room slowly, sometimes infuriatingly so, but there is always an underlying sense of peril with every tentative step that they take. Out of a seemingly peaceful and benign environment, Tarkovsky has inspired foreboding. The slow and deliberate pacing of the film most certainly plays a part in this. Tarkovsky's characteristically long takes, coupled with the slow and subtle movement of the camera, successfully create a dream world, a perspective of the story that appears far removed from reality. The trio's journey towards The Room is not so much a journey into the heart of the forest, but a journey into the very depths of the human mind.Softly shot in a sort of dreary metallic sepia, 'Stalker' is a surprisingly beautiful film to look at. Through his extended takes – some as long as six minutes in length – Tarkovsky leaves every image on screen long enough, not just for us to notice it, but for its beauty to inspire, to inhabit us. Tarkovsky notably despised the use of quick cuts or montage to achieve artificial dramatic peaks, and, at 163 minutes, 'Stalker' is not the most accessible of films. Admittedly, I did catch myself sneaking a glance at my clock on a couple of occasions, but, once we reached that breathtaking conclusion, I couldn't help but think that the entire journey was very much worthwhile.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/reviews-151

ur10334028

title: "The Zone wants to be respected. Otherwise it will punish." review: Like a solemn and reflective piece of poetry, Andrei Tarkovsky's 'Stalker' moves forward slowly. Though loosely based on an undeniable straight science-fiction novel, 'Roadside Picnic' by Boris and Arkady Strugatsky, the film is less concerned with science than it is with pondering the philosophical and metaphysical notions of personal faith and desire. 'Stalker' was released in 1979 after a trouble-plagued production, during which vast portions of the film had to be re-shot due to errors during negative development, and amidst crumbling relations with the original cinematographer, Georgi Rerberg.Most of the film takes place in a wilderness area cordoned off by the government, known as "The Zone." Strictly guarded by armed soldiers who fear to enter it, The Zone is believed to have been the site of a meteor strike, a nuclear accident or even a UFO landing (as in the original novel). One man, known as Stalker (Aleksandr Kajdanovsky), living in a grey and dreary town on the outskirts of The Zone, makes a living out of leading men into the perilous heart of the area, specifically to a room with the alleged ability to grant a man's most innermost desires.On this occasion, against the wishes of his wife (Alisa Frejndlikh), Stalker accompanies two men into The Zone, respectively known as Writer (Anatoli Solonitsyn) – a skeptical author looking for inspiration – and Professor (Nikolai Grinko) – a man of science with ambiguous motives. Once they have bypassed the armed security on the outskirts of the area, Stalker informs his clients that they are to obey his every command if the three of them are to avoid the unspeakable perils of The Zone. These dangers do not appear immediately obvious, with the vast surrounding landscape seemingly peaceful and serene, with the quiet calls of birds and insects occasionally pierced by the distant howl of a wolf or dog. Indeed, it is here that Stalker appears to find complete and utter solace, stretching himself amongst the thickly-scented vegetation to absorb the sights, sounds and smells of the only place that makes him feel human.Writer is initially quite skeptical of the so-called dangers of The Zone, but Stalker's passionate pleas for cooperation eventually convince him to do as he is told. The characters make their journey to The Room slowly, sometimes infuriatingly so, but there is always an underlying sense of peril with every tentative step that they take. Out of a seemingly peaceful and benign environment, Tarkovsky has inspired foreboding. The slow and deliberate pacing of the film most certainly plays a part in this. Tarkovsky's characteristically long takes, coupled with the slow and subtle movement of the camera, successfully create a dream world, a perspective of the story that appears far removed from reality. The trio's journey towards The Room is not so much a journey into the heart of the forest, but a journey into the very depths of the human mind.Softly shot in a sort of dreary metallic sepia, 'Stalker' is a surprisingly beautiful film to look at. Through his extended takes – some as long as six minutes in length – Tarkovsky leaves every image on screen long enough, not just for us to notice it, but for its beauty to inspire, to inhabit us. Tarkovsky notably despised the use of quick cuts or montage to achieve artificial dramatic peaks, and, at 163 minutes, 'Stalker' is not the most accessible of films. Admittedly, I did catch myself sneaking a glance at my clock on a couple of occasions, but, once we reached that breathtaking conclusion, I couldn't help but think that the entire journey was very much worthwhile.

Welcome to THE ZONE

tt0079944

Probably my favorite Tarkovsky film. This is an examination of the conscience. He physically takes us to a place that represents our conscience, appropriately called The Zone. A place where obviously the government fears us entering. The Stalker here is a Christ-like figure amongst the two men, one is an artist, a writer and the other is a scientist, a professor, both characters questioning existence and the meaning of life from their own separate but not entirely different perspectives. The Stalker feels that they both have the ultimate potential to be fine candidates to enter The Zone, a place where for very intensely personal reasons only he can venture or escort anybody who he deems fit. The naive chick with her fur coat and sports car was told that she better go back to where she came from upon introduction. However even the most wretched must know how to behave themselves in The Zone. We are confused because we are not entirely sure what it is that we want due to the conflict between our mind and our heart. Our conscience plays with us, The Zone is tricky. A stray dog without the gift of human spirit is allowed to wonder freely. We have to be like children again in The Zone.....its all poetic and Biblical, an extremely spiritual movie. I like the slow pace in which he takes us deeper and deeper to find some understanding. This is the ideal way to approach and make a science-fiction movie. This is a spiritual experience.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/reviews-126

ur9619380

title: Welcome to THE ZONE review: Probably my favorite Tarkovsky film. This is an examination of the conscience. He physically takes us to a place that represents our conscience, appropriately called The Zone. A place where obviously the government fears us entering. The Stalker here is a Christ-like figure amongst the two men, one is an artist, a writer and the other is a scientist, a professor, both characters questioning existence and the meaning of life from their own separate but not entirely different perspectives. The Stalker feels that they both have the ultimate potential to be fine candidates to enter The Zone, a place where for very intensely personal reasons only he can venture or escort anybody who he deems fit. The naive chick with her fur coat and sports car was told that she better go back to where she came from upon introduction. However even the most wretched must know how to behave themselves in The Zone. We are confused because we are not entirely sure what it is that we want due to the conflict between our mind and our heart. Our conscience plays with us, The Zone is tricky. A stray dog without the gift of human spirit is allowed to wonder freely. We have to be like children again in The Zone.....its all poetic and Biblical, an extremely spiritual movie. I like the slow pace in which he takes us deeper and deeper to find some understanding. This is the ideal way to approach and make a science-fiction movie. This is a spiritual experience.

Slow-breathing cinema tackling the big targets

tt0079944

I first saw this film seven years ago on DVD. Don't do this yourself. Stalker is a film that needs a big screen. Not a mammoth, IMAXy, peripheral vision-saturating screen. Just something that allows the film its breadth of composition, its 160 minute, grand-themed, fog-drift poetry the space it needs to work.Stalker is a film about many things. It's about tension - the hope afforded by the Room at the centre of a mysterious Zone that grants all wishes and a very human reticence to use it. It's about faith - the persuasive certainty of the zealot which is bizarrely limp in practise... and it's about art, where the creative individual beats a path where religious conviction falters.It's also a film that uses the viscera of modern industry to help make its point. The landscape of Stalker could be the industrial slag plain of communist-dreg Russia or a war zone. It's equally an allegory for the conflict within a man's heart for the bucolic beauty and mystery, and the pride of industrial advancement and convenience.Tarkovaky shoots this all in black and white and then colour. But the black and white also has subtle filters and the colours also glow and shift with a livid dynamism. This all happens at the slow and settled pace of exhalation, of meditation. The images are beautiful, not least on the faces of the three fine actors and the other characters who bookend the bulk of the film.It's not a slow film though, be careful. The film moves at the speeds it needs to state its purpose. The opening keystone cop car chase is bizarre and frenzied but only to say these two things. After this the expansiveness increases to accommodate the density of the content and argument. Latter in-camera image tricks are thunderclap-coups at this meticulous pace. It's also funny, as vital a component as the deep breaths of the cinematography itself.The final tableau is a consequently concentrated parable, almost unbearably condensed. It's a fine film 8/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/reviews-244

ur2206551

title: Slow-breathing cinema tackling the big targets review: I first saw this film seven years ago on DVD. Don't do this yourself. Stalker is a film that needs a big screen. Not a mammoth, IMAXy, peripheral vision-saturating screen. Just something that allows the film its breadth of composition, its 160 minute, grand-themed, fog-drift poetry the space it needs to work.Stalker is a film about many things. It's about tension - the hope afforded by the Room at the centre of a mysterious Zone that grants all wishes and a very human reticence to use it. It's about faith - the persuasive certainty of the zealot which is bizarrely limp in practise... and it's about art, where the creative individual beats a path where religious conviction falters.It's also a film that uses the viscera of modern industry to help make its point. The landscape of Stalker could be the industrial slag plain of communist-dreg Russia or a war zone. It's equally an allegory for the conflict within a man's heart for the bucolic beauty and mystery, and the pride of industrial advancement and convenience.Tarkovaky shoots this all in black and white and then colour. But the black and white also has subtle filters and the colours also glow and shift with a livid dynamism. This all happens at the slow and settled pace of exhalation, of meditation. The images are beautiful, not least on the faces of the three fine actors and the other characters who bookend the bulk of the film.It's not a slow film though, be careful. The film moves at the speeds it needs to state its purpose. The opening keystone cop car chase is bizarre and frenzied but only to say these two things. After this the expansiveness increases to accommodate the density of the content and argument. Latter in-camera image tricks are thunderclap-coups at this meticulous pace. It's also funny, as vital a component as the deep breaths of the cinematography itself.The final tableau is a consequently concentrated parable, almost unbearably condensed. It's a fine film 8/10

Good

tt0079944

Andrei Tarkovsky's 1979 film Stalker (Сталкер) is not the great nor masterful film its most ardent critical supporters proclaim, nor is it the slow, boring Eurotrash that its most vocal critics counterclaim. It lies somewhere in between- a film that risks and occasionally fails, although it is far closer to greatness than trash. That's because Tarkovsky has crafted a film of unusual visuals with even more unusual power. There are scenes that recall the old telefilm The Lathe Of Heaven, released the same year as this film, 1979; Carl Theodor Dreyer's great Vampyr, in its use of shadows and fog; the 1976 sci fi classic Logan's Run, in that the three leads of the film are running away from their society; Tarkovsky's earlier Solaris, in its mix of color and sepia images; and, most of all, with Alex Proyas' 1998 sci fi classic Dark City, which, like Stalker, creates a wholly believable alternate world unlike any other put on screen. Visually, Stalker most reminds me of the human portraits of the great Austrian painter Egon Schiele, with its myriad of gaunt, pallid, balding, dirty, twisted characters.But, as in most Tarkovsky films, it is not the visuals that dominate, rather the philosophic depth of the characters. What they don't say or dream is almost always as important as what they do say and dream. Stalker succeeds because its ellipses are more brilliant than its fodder. Stalker misses greatness, however, because its fodder some times fails . Of course, there are the usual misreadings by critics, who praise the very things that do not work- like the ending, or imbue their own interpretations of Stalker as a Christ-like figure (his being a religious character makes him no stand-in for a religious figure), when the film is surprisingly shorn of any religious mumbo jumbo (humanist philosophy and religion are not analogues), and the three lead characters are in no way merely symbols- of Christian Wise Men, the Trinity, nor any tripartite invocation. Do they bear some symbolism? Of course, since they are known only by their professions. But, each is a unique character, not a caricaturization. Thus, Stalker achieves a rare intimacy in film, one absent from most films, Hollywood or foreign, and if not a great film, certainly it is an excellent film, and one of the most unique visions committed to screen. See for yourself how even failure can fail better than most.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/reviews-184

ur12394529

title: Good review: Andrei Tarkovsky's 1979 film Stalker (Сталкер) is not the great nor masterful film its most ardent critical supporters proclaim, nor is it the slow, boring Eurotrash that its most vocal critics counterclaim. It lies somewhere in between- a film that risks and occasionally fails, although it is far closer to greatness than trash. That's because Tarkovsky has crafted a film of unusual visuals with even more unusual power. There are scenes that recall the old telefilm The Lathe Of Heaven, released the same year as this film, 1979; Carl Theodor Dreyer's great Vampyr, in its use of shadows and fog; the 1976 sci fi classic Logan's Run, in that the three leads of the film are running away from their society; Tarkovsky's earlier Solaris, in its mix of color and sepia images; and, most of all, with Alex Proyas' 1998 sci fi classic Dark City, which, like Stalker, creates a wholly believable alternate world unlike any other put on screen. Visually, Stalker most reminds me of the human portraits of the great Austrian painter Egon Schiele, with its myriad of gaunt, pallid, balding, dirty, twisted characters.But, as in most Tarkovsky films, it is not the visuals that dominate, rather the philosophic depth of the characters. What they don't say or dream is almost always as important as what they do say and dream. Stalker succeeds because its ellipses are more brilliant than its fodder. Stalker misses greatness, however, because its fodder some times fails . Of course, there are the usual misreadings by critics, who praise the very things that do not work- like the ending, or imbue their own interpretations of Stalker as a Christ-like figure (his being a religious character makes him no stand-in for a religious figure), when the film is surprisingly shorn of any religious mumbo jumbo (humanist philosophy and religion are not analogues), and the three lead characters are in no way merely symbols- of Christian Wise Men, the Trinity, nor any tripartite invocation. Do they bear some symbolism? Of course, since they are known only by their professions. But, each is a unique character, not a caricaturization. Thus, Stalker achieves a rare intimacy in film, one absent from most films, Hollywood or foreign, and if not a great film, certainly it is an excellent film, and one of the most unique visions committed to screen. See for yourself how even failure can fail better than most.

Its Cinematography Is Astounding, The Narrative Is Scare

tt0079944

"Stalker", I can only describe as a love it or hate it experience. Its narrative and hidden motif's I'll get to in a second, but what I want to say upfront is this. "I enjoyed the "Heart of Darkness" like attitude in it, but I also think this movie is grossly overrated considering Tarkovsky's earlier works". I want to say upfront immediately it is not because of the movies quiet, linear storytelling. I really enjoyed "The Mirror" (1975), and that was so ambiguous had you no knowledge of its autobiographical moments you wouldn't nearly enjoy it as much. It's not my least favourite Tarkovsky picture, but it certainly is an acquired taste and even its meanings remain shrouded today. Is it about the Gulags? The eventual Chernobyl disaster? Even some have made comparisons to "The Wizard of Oz" (1939). What I can say with assurance, is that "Stalker" feels somewhat more connected to nature than any other fiction movie out there.An expedition takes place led by a man known only as the 'Stalker' (Aleksandr Kaidanovsky), who has the ability to navigate the "Zone", a site that has a specific area that has the supposed ability to fulfil desire. His task is to escort two clients into the area, one is a writer (Anatoli Solonitsyn) seeking motivation, and the other a professor (Nikolai Grinko) seeking scientific discovery. The trio travels through these areas filled with ruins of modern society, whilst arguing with each other about the practicality of the "Zone", and the arguable aura around it.The infamous history behind this film is that Tarkovsky and Cinematographer Georgy Rerberg, had already spent a year filming all the outdoor scenes only to return to Moscow and find all the footage unusable due to a defect in film stock. Tarkovsky of course was despondent and wanted to abandon it, and soon Russian film boards were about to write it off until Tarkovsky hired Cinematographer Aleksandr Knyazhinsky, and began work again after making a deal with the company. The finished narrative was drastically different compared to the original vision. Its Sepia tones hauntingly fit its urban settings well, the "density" of time actually feels present and the colours of the natural world look astounding. I found the talks of philosophy nowhere near as deep as "Solaris" (1972), even with that movies large quantities of "techno-babble" I enjoyed them. I'll also admit that the payoff and my expectations on the discoveries made felt underwhelming. Tarkovsky was approached about the nature of the movie and how the audience may react to it, to which he uttered this quote I somewhat adore the man for saying: "I am only interested in the views of two people: one is called Bresson and one called Bergman".The film is crafted with particularly well executed long takes, and its sounds never betray the atmosphere the creators desired. The acting is strong and the dialogue is somewhat delivered well, given such an opaque narrative. There are moments where the fourth wall is broken both directly and ambiguously, and the film leaves many pleasant questions for you to decipher as Tarkovsky (I guess) intended. I suppose the final piece of trivia to mention is that several people involved in the film production including Tarkovsky, had met tragic deaths which has been debated that it was due to the fact this movie was filmed near a half-functioning hydroelectric station (Tarkovsky, his wife and actor Anatoli Solonitsyn all sadly died of the same cancer).Final Verdict: I believe it comes off as a little pretentious, but on repeated viewings I warmed up to it a little more. I stand by what I've said in this review, in no way did I hate it, but I would advise you to seek out the other directors work before seeing "Stalker". I don't know why, but a lot of production notes come into my reviews when it comes to Tarkovsky. All his movies are visually stunning works of art, but I also found his later pictures to be somewhat colder. 7/10.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/reviews-312

ur48102834

title: Its Cinematography Is Astounding, The Narrative Is Scare review: "Stalker", I can only describe as a love it or hate it experience. Its narrative and hidden motif's I'll get to in a second, but what I want to say upfront is this. "I enjoyed the "Heart of Darkness" like attitude in it, but I also think this movie is grossly overrated considering Tarkovsky's earlier works". I want to say upfront immediately it is not because of the movies quiet, linear storytelling. I really enjoyed "The Mirror" (1975), and that was so ambiguous had you no knowledge of its autobiographical moments you wouldn't nearly enjoy it as much. It's not my least favourite Tarkovsky picture, but it certainly is an acquired taste and even its meanings remain shrouded today. Is it about the Gulags? The eventual Chernobyl disaster? Even some have made comparisons to "The Wizard of Oz" (1939). What I can say with assurance, is that "Stalker" feels somewhat more connected to nature than any other fiction movie out there.An expedition takes place led by a man known only as the 'Stalker' (Aleksandr Kaidanovsky), who has the ability to navigate the "Zone", a site that has a specific area that has the supposed ability to fulfil desire. His task is to escort two clients into the area, one is a writer (Anatoli Solonitsyn) seeking motivation, and the other a professor (Nikolai Grinko) seeking scientific discovery. The trio travels through these areas filled with ruins of modern society, whilst arguing with each other about the practicality of the "Zone", and the arguable aura around it.The infamous history behind this film is that Tarkovsky and Cinematographer Georgy Rerberg, had already spent a year filming all the outdoor scenes only to return to Moscow and find all the footage unusable due to a defect in film stock. Tarkovsky of course was despondent and wanted to abandon it, and soon Russian film boards were about to write it off until Tarkovsky hired Cinematographer Aleksandr Knyazhinsky, and began work again after making a deal with the company. The finished narrative was drastically different compared to the original vision. Its Sepia tones hauntingly fit its urban settings well, the "density" of time actually feels present and the colours of the natural world look astounding. I found the talks of philosophy nowhere near as deep as "Solaris" (1972), even with that movies large quantities of "techno-babble" I enjoyed them. I'll also admit that the payoff and my expectations on the discoveries made felt underwhelming. Tarkovsky was approached about the nature of the movie and how the audience may react to it, to which he uttered this quote I somewhat adore the man for saying: "I am only interested in the views of two people: one is called Bresson and one called Bergman".The film is crafted with particularly well executed long takes, and its sounds never betray the atmosphere the creators desired. The acting is strong and the dialogue is somewhat delivered well, given such an opaque narrative. There are moments where the fourth wall is broken both directly and ambiguously, and the film leaves many pleasant questions for you to decipher as Tarkovsky (I guess) intended. I suppose the final piece of trivia to mention is that several people involved in the film production including Tarkovsky, had met tragic deaths which has been debated that it was due to the fact this movie was filmed near a half-functioning hydroelectric station (Tarkovsky, his wife and actor Anatoli Solonitsyn all sadly died of the same cancer).Final Verdict: I believe it comes off as a little pretentious, but on repeated viewings I warmed up to it a little more. I stand by what I've said in this review, in no way did I hate it, but I would advise you to seek out the other directors work before seeing "Stalker". I don't know why, but a lot of production notes come into my reviews when it comes to Tarkovsky. All his movies are visually stunning works of art, but I also found his later pictures to be somewhat colder. 7/10.

Completely different movie...

tt0079944

"Stalker" is a drama movie - Science Fiction movie in which we watch one man guide two men through an area known as the 'Zone' to find a Room that grants wishes. There everything can happen and everything can change. But in this 'Zone' it's really difficult to approach the Room and when they approach everything change and of course the rules are not the same.I have a neutral opinion about this movie I neither like it nor hate it or I did not like it. There were some points that I like and some points that I did not like in this movie. It's a completely different movie than the movies that I have seen and this was something that I like on it. On the other hand I did not like the big duration of non speaking and no action or something and just to watch the actors thinking and considering something.Finally I have to say that "Stalker" is a movie that either you are going to love it or you are going not to like it but I also believe that some people will have the same opinion as me which will be a neutral opinion about it. It's a movie from these that it will make you think and consider many things about hope and ambition not for things but for life in general.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/reviews-311

ur33907744

title: Completely different movie... review: "Stalker" is a drama movie - Science Fiction movie in which we watch one man guide two men through an area known as the 'Zone' to find a Room that grants wishes. There everything can happen and everything can change. But in this 'Zone' it's really difficult to approach the Room and when they approach everything change and of course the rules are not the same.I have a neutral opinion about this movie I neither like it nor hate it or I did not like it. There were some points that I like and some points that I did not like in this movie. It's a completely different movie than the movies that I have seen and this was something that I like on it. On the other hand I did not like the big duration of non speaking and no action or something and just to watch the actors thinking and considering something.Finally I have to say that "Stalker" is a movie that either you are going to love it or you are going not to like it but I also believe that some people will have the same opinion as me which will be a neutral opinion about it. It's a movie from these that it will make you think and consider many things about hope and ambition not for things but for life in general.

Like Stalking Quicksand

tt0079944

I hated this movie so much. I can appreciate Takovsky trying to make us all aware of times passing, but we shouldn't be looking down at our watches either. The underground sets are interesting. I can appreciate the prophetic nature of the piece set y...(read more)ears before Chernobyl, but it was a needlessly long film about faith.I was really excited to watch this (I liked "Solaris", and appreciated "Andrei Rublev" til I fell alseep), but this just didn't give back what it asks of it's audience. It still sticks in my head, and though I can appreciate it in memory it's one of the most unenjoyable experiences I've ever had actually watching a movie.I don't dislike this film because I don't get the intent, I just think the movie still would have made sense, maintained it's mystery, with an hour or so removed. The slow aesthetics of the film just don't suite the material here. Disappointing.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/reviews-164

ur15982856

title: Like Stalking Quicksand review: I hated this movie so much. I can appreciate Takovsky trying to make us all aware of times passing, but we shouldn't be looking down at our watches either. The underground sets are interesting. I can appreciate the prophetic nature of the piece set y...(read more)ears before Chernobyl, but it was a needlessly long film about faith.I was really excited to watch this (I liked "Solaris", and appreciated "Andrei Rublev" til I fell alseep), but this just didn't give back what it asks of it's audience. It still sticks in my head, and though I can appreciate it in memory it's one of the most unenjoyable experiences I've ever had actually watching a movie.I don't dislike this film because I don't get the intent, I just think the movie still would have made sense, maintained it's mystery, with an hour or so removed. The slow aesthetics of the film just don't suite the material here. Disappointing.

More Tarkovsky brilliance

tt0079944

Stalker may not be my favourite of Andrei Tarkovsky's films, that belongs to Andrei Rublev, which is from personal opinion the greatest Soviet film ever made. It's also not his most accessible(Ivan's Childhood), if anything only Solaris is more divisive. However Stalker is still an outstanding film, it loses momentum ever so slightly at the end but not enough for it to hurt the film.As with all Tarkovsky films, Stalker is brilliantly made. It is grittier and more muted in colour than with his other films, but still maintains that hypnotic dream-like quality that the cinematography in his films have. The scenery is evocatively atmospheric, mundane but in a good way. Tarkovsky's direction again is nigh-on impeccable, showing a mastery of visuals and mood. Stalker is hauntingly scored but never in a too obvious way, while of all his films to me it was Stalker that had the most thought-provoking writing. Not all of it is easy to understand at first but a lot of the lines really makes one think a long while after. The story is not for everyone, with some finding the deliberate pacing too much for them but the storytelling is actually very suspenseful and there is a chilling atmosphere throughout, the film is slow but the suspense, atmosphere and cinematography kept this viewer glued to the seat. The acting's of the kind with the actors having times where they don't say a lot or anything but their body language, eyes and expressions communicate an awful lot, which is every bit as powerful as when speaking.Overall, an outstanding film if not Tarkovsky's best or most accessible. If you are a fan of Tarkovsky, or at least familiar with him ,you shouldn't have too much trouble getting into Stalker. 9.5/10 Bethany Cox

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/reviews-308

ur20552756

title: More Tarkovsky brilliance review: Stalker may not be my favourite of Andrei Tarkovsky's films, that belongs to Andrei Rublev, which is from personal opinion the greatest Soviet film ever made. It's also not his most accessible(Ivan's Childhood), if anything only Solaris is more divisive. However Stalker is still an outstanding film, it loses momentum ever so slightly at the end but not enough for it to hurt the film.As with all Tarkovsky films, Stalker is brilliantly made. It is grittier and more muted in colour than with his other films, but still maintains that hypnotic dream-like quality that the cinematography in his films have. The scenery is evocatively atmospheric, mundane but in a good way. Tarkovsky's direction again is nigh-on impeccable, showing a mastery of visuals and mood. Stalker is hauntingly scored but never in a too obvious way, while of all his films to me it was Stalker that had the most thought-provoking writing. Not all of it is easy to understand at first but a lot of the lines really makes one think a long while after. The story is not for everyone, with some finding the deliberate pacing too much for them but the storytelling is actually very suspenseful and there is a chilling atmosphere throughout, the film is slow but the suspense, atmosphere and cinematography kept this viewer glued to the seat. The acting's of the kind with the actors having times where they don't say a lot or anything but their body language, eyes and expressions communicate an awful lot, which is every bit as powerful as when speaking.Overall, an outstanding film if not Tarkovsky's best or most accessible. If you are a fan of Tarkovsky, or at least familiar with him ,you shouldn't have too much trouble getting into Stalker. 9.5/10 Bethany Cox

Lovely String of Soliloques in Which the Film's Subject is Actually Irrelevant

tt0079944

Stalker, like most of Tarkovsky's work, is almost unsurpassed in visual quality and sensory aesthetics. Also in-keeping with the great director's tradition, the film features a lot of philosophical discourses delivered in sombre, almost depressingly serious tones, and exploits ambiguity very well.Stalker develops a cyberpunk atmosphere but is much more than the standard cyberpunk adventure. A Stalker is a person who can find the path into the Zone and is able to bring people back from it. The Zone is a forbidden place from which most people never return. It is rumored to grant those who can reach it their most profound desire. Most of the film takes place en route to the Zone, detailing the journey of three men - a science professor, a writer, and our stalker. The acting is superb.Every scene is a work of art and the minimalist soundscape and very heavy dialog complement the visuals very well. The film's setting is a major component of its themes. The setting was inspired by an abandoned town which suffered a nuclear accident in the 1950s, and it seems likely that the film was actually made in that same location. Tarkovsky makes a point in this film, and unlike many art films, the point is really not very open to interpretation. It is also a little surprising given the content of most of the film. No spoiler - so I won't tell you what it is. Despite the fact that I recommend Stalker very highly for thoughtful viewers with good attention spans, I can not recommend it to the average film watcher - it can be tedious and confounding to those used to films which do not challenge the intellect.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/reviews-178

ur3824745

title: Lovely String of Soliloques in Which the Film's Subject is Actually Irrelevant review: Stalker, like most of Tarkovsky's work, is almost unsurpassed in visual quality and sensory aesthetics. Also in-keeping with the great director's tradition, the film features a lot of philosophical discourses delivered in sombre, almost depressingly serious tones, and exploits ambiguity very well.Stalker develops a cyberpunk atmosphere but is much more than the standard cyberpunk adventure. A Stalker is a person who can find the path into the Zone and is able to bring people back from it. The Zone is a forbidden place from which most people never return. It is rumored to grant those who can reach it their most profound desire. Most of the film takes place en route to the Zone, detailing the journey of three men - a science professor, a writer, and our stalker. The acting is superb.Every scene is a work of art and the minimalist soundscape and very heavy dialog complement the visuals very well. The film's setting is a major component of its themes. The setting was inspired by an abandoned town which suffered a nuclear accident in the 1950s, and it seems likely that the film was actually made in that same location. Tarkovsky makes a point in this film, and unlike many art films, the point is really not very open to interpretation. It is also a little surprising given the content of most of the film. No spoiler - so I won't tell you what it is. Despite the fact that I recommend Stalker very highly for thoughtful viewers with good attention spans, I can not recommend it to the average film watcher - it can be tedious and confounding to those used to films which do not challenge the intellect.

boring and artsy

tt0079944

lets get one thing straight, this is an art film for art/academic people. therefore if you're looking forward to watching a sci-fi film then forget it it takes the stalker around 9 minutes to get out of bed. then he meets up with some blokes who want to go to 'the zone'. he then takes them to 'the zone' in some kind of rail cart and we are treated to several minutes worth of railway clamping sounds. these blokes then hang about in a field yes we can discuss all the philosophical meaning behind it but lets face it.. it's like 'last of the summer wine' set in Russia, with no fun or enjoyment of any kindokay i'll admit some of the shots are beautiful but if a film is about audience satisfaction, then this is not a film. it's a collection of long drawn out artistic set pieces. also the whole non diegetic sound thing doesn't work as well here as it did in Solyaris for exampleyes this is experimental cinema, but to be graded alongside conventional film and be given a rating of 8.something is highly unrealistic and misleading to a film layman who might be coming on this website to discover a new sci fi movie to enjoywhat irritates me as well about movies of this kind is that they are often wielded by creatively limited people who want to impress with their wide appreciation and knowledge of cinemabefore watching this film a friend of mine who is an absolute film connoisseur in every regard gave me some advice. he told me that if i want to have a good sleep then i should watch stalker

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/reviews-143

ur3328034

title: boring and artsy review: lets get one thing straight, this is an art film for art/academic people. therefore if you're looking forward to watching a sci-fi film then forget it it takes the stalker around 9 minutes to get out of bed. then he meets up with some blokes who want to go to 'the zone'. he then takes them to 'the zone' in some kind of rail cart and we are treated to several minutes worth of railway clamping sounds. these blokes then hang about in a field yes we can discuss all the philosophical meaning behind it but lets face it.. it's like 'last of the summer wine' set in Russia, with no fun or enjoyment of any kindokay i'll admit some of the shots are beautiful but if a film is about audience satisfaction, then this is not a film. it's a collection of long drawn out artistic set pieces. also the whole non diegetic sound thing doesn't work as well here as it did in Solyaris for exampleyes this is experimental cinema, but to be graded alongside conventional film and be given a rating of 8.something is highly unrealistic and misleading to a film layman who might be coming on this website to discover a new sci fi movie to enjoywhat irritates me as well about movies of this kind is that they are often wielded by creatively limited people who want to impress with their wide appreciation and knowledge of cinemabefore watching this film a friend of mine who is an absolute film connoisseur in every regard gave me some advice. he told me that if i want to have a good sleep then i should watch stalker

Unlike any other science fiction film out there

tt0079944

Sure, it's really arty and a bit on the slow side, but if you have the patience, "Stalker" could very well be one of the most effective film going experiences you'll ever have. Ostentatiously a science fiction film, it lacks any of the flashy effects or campy histrionics the genre's detractors often associate it with. Instead, Andrei Tarkovsky crafts his work as yet another one of his metaphysical journeys, a completely cerebral film open to a plethora of interpretations. Several viewings later, I'm still not exactly sure what "Stalker" is ultimately about, but I love revisiting it in order to attempt to decipher it.Often, the film deals with man's lack of faith and willingness to venture into uncharted territories. Many times, when they do, it's for their own ulterior motives opposed to their own personal betterment. Since the film touches upon faith, it seems rather ironic to scan yourself for a quick and easy interpretation, as Tarkovsky was known to reject such. Certainly a film more to be experienced than exactly understood, "Stalker" bears repeated viewings. Past it's depth, it's a technically exception work, one without any mistakes along the way. (10/10)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/reviews-196

ur0630665

title: Unlike any other science fiction film out there review: Sure, it's really arty and a bit on the slow side, but if you have the patience, "Stalker" could very well be one of the most effective film going experiences you'll ever have. Ostentatiously a science fiction film, it lacks any of the flashy effects or campy histrionics the genre's detractors often associate it with. Instead, Andrei Tarkovsky crafts his work as yet another one of his metaphysical journeys, a completely cerebral film open to a plethora of interpretations. Several viewings later, I'm still not exactly sure what "Stalker" is ultimately about, but I love revisiting it in order to attempt to decipher it.Often, the film deals with man's lack of faith and willingness to venture into uncharted territories. Many times, when they do, it's for their own ulterior motives opposed to their own personal betterment. Since the film touches upon faith, it seems rather ironic to scan yourself for a quick and easy interpretation, as Tarkovsky was known to reject such. Certainly a film more to be experienced than exactly understood, "Stalker" bears repeated viewings. Past it's depth, it's a technically exception work, one without any mistakes along the way. (10/10)

Possibly Tarkovsky's greatest film

tt0079944

Stalker begins in a black and white, industrialised, gated and despotic world. You feel the dampness permeated within the walls. Pools of water lay in mud; it falls from the walls and ceilings. This is the environment that we meet the main character 'Stalker' (played laconically by Aleksandr Kaidanovsky). His job is to guide people to their hopes and dreams. The place that he guides them through is 'The Zone'. The zone is the perfect juxtaposition of the dank world we are first introduced to. A place occupied by the elements of nature. However, this space is unpredictable.As the story goes, the zone is cordoned off to the masses as there was an unspecified 'alien' landing which, at its centre can give the answers – both philosophically and ideologically – to whomever reaches that core. Stalker is employed by people who want to find this out, as a guide through the treacherous landscape. They need a guide who knows how to manoeuvre through it as the land constantly changes, and can be utterly deadly. A writer (Anatoli Solonitsym) and a scientist (Nikolai Grinko), employ 'Stalker' as their guide through the terrain.This is without question my favourite of all Andrei Tarkovsky films (easily beating Mirror and the more well known Solaris). There is always a particular beauty with which he is able to film nature, and to transcend the normality of it, and present it as pure imagistic poetry. In the opening sequences, he conjures beauty from damp, decaying environments, and offers the most perfect of juxtapositions of our industrialised world, next to the beauty of nature. But in this filmic world, the natural elements seem to be the enemy; the alien 'other'. The answers which the characters are looking for become almost irrelevant, as the sheer poetry of the filmmaking transcends story. I just implore you all to watch this film, which I have to say, is one of my favourite films of all time.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/reviews-224

ur3741220

title: Possibly Tarkovsky's greatest film review: Stalker begins in a black and white, industrialised, gated and despotic world. You feel the dampness permeated within the walls. Pools of water lay in mud; it falls from the walls and ceilings. This is the environment that we meet the main character 'Stalker' (played laconically by Aleksandr Kaidanovsky). His job is to guide people to their hopes and dreams. The place that he guides them through is 'The Zone'. The zone is the perfect juxtaposition of the dank world we are first introduced to. A place occupied by the elements of nature. However, this space is unpredictable.As the story goes, the zone is cordoned off to the masses as there was an unspecified 'alien' landing which, at its centre can give the answers – both philosophically and ideologically – to whomever reaches that core. Stalker is employed by people who want to find this out, as a guide through the treacherous landscape. They need a guide who knows how to manoeuvre through it as the land constantly changes, and can be utterly deadly. A writer (Anatoli Solonitsym) and a scientist (Nikolai Grinko), employ 'Stalker' as their guide through the terrain.This is without question my favourite of all Andrei Tarkovsky films (easily beating Mirror and the more well known Solaris). There is always a particular beauty with which he is able to film nature, and to transcend the normality of it, and present it as pure imagistic poetry. In the opening sequences, he conjures beauty from damp, decaying environments, and offers the most perfect of juxtapositions of our industrialised world, next to the beauty of nature. But in this filmic world, the natural elements seem to be the enemy; the alien 'other'. The answers which the characters are looking for become almost irrelevant, as the sheer poetry of the filmmaking transcends story. I just implore you all to watch this film, which I have to say, is one of my favourite films of all time.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

Stalker

tt0079944

I remembered seeing the iconic image of the man with thorns on his head in the book of 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, this Russian film was rated well by critics as well, so I hoped it was deserved as an addition, directed by Andrei Tarkovsky (Andrei Rublev, Solaris, The Mirror). Basically near a grey and unnamed city is "The Zone", an alien place surrounded by barbed wire and guarded by soldiers, this forbidden and deserted wilderness has all sorts of strange things going on, including things moving about, but the place apparently brings the ability to fulfil people's innermost desires. A man called Stalker (Aleksandr Kaydanovskiy), over the objections of his wife, leaves early in the morning, leaving the wife with their disabled daughter, to meet with two men. He is one of only a handful of people that has the mental gift, and risks imprisonment, leading people into the Zone, taking them to "The Room", the place where secret hopes of someone could come true. The two men are known as The Writer (Anatoly Solonitsyn), who has a burned out popular career, is cynical and questions his talent, and the Professor (Nikolai Grinko), a quiet scientist concerned more about his knapsack than the actual journey. They have both agreed to put their fate in the hands of the Stalker who guides them into the Zone, going across the various landscapes and obstacles in their way, but to approach the Room they must be indirect, it is drawing near that the rules for them change when the Stalker is facing his own crisis. Alisa Freyndlikh as Zhena Stalkera, Stalker's wife and Natalya Abramova as Marta, Stalker's daughter. The cast are fine, the use of colour, going from muted sepia colour in the real world into bright colour for the Zone world is clever, there is certainly a sense of paranoia and a chilling atmosphere throughout, it does I suppose make you question one's own beliefs and values, it may be very strange and not easy to follow, but it is an interesting science-fiction drama. Good!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/reviews-310

ur4248714

title: Stalker review: I remembered seeing the iconic image of the man with thorns on his head in the book of 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, this Russian film was rated well by critics as well, so I hoped it was deserved as an addition, directed by Andrei Tarkovsky (Andrei Rublev, Solaris, The Mirror). Basically near a grey and unnamed city is "The Zone", an alien place surrounded by barbed wire and guarded by soldiers, this forbidden and deserted wilderness has all sorts of strange things going on, including things moving about, but the place apparently brings the ability to fulfil people's innermost desires. A man called Stalker (Aleksandr Kaydanovskiy), over the objections of his wife, leaves early in the morning, leaving the wife with their disabled daughter, to meet with two men. He is one of only a handful of people that has the mental gift, and risks imprisonment, leading people into the Zone, taking them to "The Room", the place where secret hopes of someone could come true. The two men are known as The Writer (Anatoly Solonitsyn), who has a burned out popular career, is cynical and questions his talent, and the Professor (Nikolai Grinko), a quiet scientist concerned more about his knapsack than the actual journey. They have both agreed to put their fate in the hands of the Stalker who guides them into the Zone, going across the various landscapes and obstacles in their way, but to approach the Room they must be indirect, it is drawing near that the rules for them change when the Stalker is facing his own crisis. Alisa Freyndlikh as Zhena Stalkera, Stalker's wife and Natalya Abramova as Marta, Stalker's daughter. The cast are fine, the use of colour, going from muted sepia colour in the real world into bright colour for the Zone world is clever, there is certainly a sense of paranoia and a chilling atmosphere throughout, it does I suppose make you question one's own beliefs and values, it may be very strange and not easy to follow, but it is an interesting science-fiction drama. Good!

Superior slice of science fiction adventure filmmaking; a resounding Star Trek tale for older fans and newcomers alike.

tt0079945

The first Star Trek film of 1979 is an exciting, expansive and rather tense first foray into feature length filmmaking for the popular franchise - a bold going where very few, if any, television shows had gone before. There's a polished sense of spectacle, adventure and smarts all wrapped up into one about it; a sheen of precision and careful planning about the production – a sense of craft to it. Indeed, "The Motion Picture" rather than "the movie", or anything else for that matter, is a perfect subtitle for something that has a swagger about it; a piece that has pretensions to be something a little more than your average space adventure blast 'em up, without possessing much in the way of arrogance that comes with a self-conscious knowledge that it's heading down this respective route. The film is set in a distant future further still within deepest of deep space, and yet its chief source of spectacle arrives in the form of the speaking; reasoning and communication between a number of its characters, most notably its protagonist and new-found antagonist during the final act.The film follows a relatively familiar, if unspectacular, singular line framework, for sure - in that regular battles must be conquered along the way to ending where they do and that the individual misunderstandings crew members have with each other need to be resolved, but it is remarkable how by the time the final act as arrived, the piece is willing to abstain from conventional conclusion. We begin with the focusing on what will come to form as the film's primary source for plight: a huge energy cloud thousands of miles away from an Earth, whose own measurements of time has seen it reach the 23rd century. We observe some spaceships passing by, our eye unsure on what to focus on as lingering shots of the crafts and the distinct turrets that stick up out of them capture our gaze more than anything. A cut inside reveals some ugly looking creatures using an alien language and distinct technology, technology they use to attack the large purple energy cloud before it itself wipes them out with relative ease. The desired effect of lingering on space ships we have never before encountered, and therefore require time so a to become familiarised with them, before cutting inside to reveal the ugly creatures said edit reveals and concluding the process by having those creatures killed off, is an effective procedure establishing distinct hierarchy within this new world and immediately implements this glowing energy cloud at the centre of all the film's tension and wonder.Director Robert Wise has effectively blended a slow-burning approach to telling a space adventure with an overall narrative framework of race-against-time. The cloud is heading for Earth; it's unstoppable; nobody knows what it is or what it wants and thus far, has only reacted aggressively to what it's encountered. Luckily for Earth based space programme organisation Starfleet, the one ship nearby and able to head on out to intercept and investigate is the famed U.S.S. Enterprise harboured at its sunny, welcoming, radiant and busy-bodied San Fransisco headquarters; far away from the large, open, gloomy, ominous locales of the previous sequences. Said ship is, of course, headed up by its chief: a certain Admiral named James Kirk played, as in the TV show of the 1960s, by William Shatner, somebody whom storms in unopposed and assumes control from acting captain Willard Decker (Collins) thus nicely teeing up the friction existing between the two of them thereafter. The film also makes decent use of a back-burning item in the form of The Enterprise's overall physical state, its potential to malfunction ominous when we recall what the energy cloud is capable of to fully functioning ships; the death of two people trying to use the transporter beams rather-a stark forcing home of this.The crew will eventually come to be made up of varying people of varying ethnicities, in that an African American; a Hmong man; a young Aryan; etc. will form the nucleus of the ship's diverse operators, successfully getting across a sense of the whole thing being a multicultural effort. Also along for the ride is Indian actress Persis Khambatta's alien life-form named Ilia, who's given a Lieutenant rank and shares a romantic history with the demoted Decker. Of the original crew, a foil arrives for Kirk in the form of the ship's doctor named Bones McCoy (Kelley), whereas male specimen of the Vulcan race variety Mr. Spock (Nimoy) comes aboard when he is drawn to the cloud due to the effect it had on his usually transparent emotional state. Wise shoots the unveiling of The Enterprise, as it undergoes repair work in a series of longing close ups. Kirk and one of his engineers very slowly veer up to it in a transport pod, the reaction on Kirk's face and a general sense of awe is inferred onto the audience, namely the die hard fans of the show, so as to help along the reaction as The Enterprise is revealed on the big screen for the very first time. Wise shoots what feels like all corners of the ship, from all possible angles and compositions, as people stand around it on apparatus seeing to it: a literal repair job for what's happening within the film, a metaphorical preparation/revealing job as the final touches are made and the big reveal is made.The film is a surprisingly remarkable piece of drama, with Wise wedging great peril out of the simplest of ideas such as the being on collision course with a small but devastatingly effective asteroid as well as some uncanny happenings during other encounters which are instead helped along by the special effects that greatly enhance the ominous predicaments, rather than just cruelly ageing film and sapping out drama. The film is engaging and workmanlike enough in equal measure to work as both decent escapism and as smart, brooding science fiction.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-355

ur0855231

title: Superior slice of science fiction adventure filmmaking; a resounding Star Trek tale for older fans and newcomers alike. review: The first Star Trek film of 1979 is an exciting, expansive and rather tense first foray into feature length filmmaking for the popular franchise - a bold going where very few, if any, television shows had gone before. There's a polished sense of spectacle, adventure and smarts all wrapped up into one about it; a sheen of precision and careful planning about the production – a sense of craft to it. Indeed, "The Motion Picture" rather than "the movie", or anything else for that matter, is a perfect subtitle for something that has a swagger about it; a piece that has pretensions to be something a little more than your average space adventure blast 'em up, without possessing much in the way of arrogance that comes with a self-conscious knowledge that it's heading down this respective route. The film is set in a distant future further still within deepest of deep space, and yet its chief source of spectacle arrives in the form of the speaking; reasoning and communication between a number of its characters, most notably its protagonist and new-found antagonist during the final act.The film follows a relatively familiar, if unspectacular, singular line framework, for sure - in that regular battles must be conquered along the way to ending where they do and that the individual misunderstandings crew members have with each other need to be resolved, but it is remarkable how by the time the final act as arrived, the piece is willing to abstain from conventional conclusion. We begin with the focusing on what will come to form as the film's primary source for plight: a huge energy cloud thousands of miles away from an Earth, whose own measurements of time has seen it reach the 23rd century. We observe some spaceships passing by, our eye unsure on what to focus on as lingering shots of the crafts and the distinct turrets that stick up out of them capture our gaze more than anything. A cut inside reveals some ugly looking creatures using an alien language and distinct technology, technology they use to attack the large purple energy cloud before it itself wipes them out with relative ease. The desired effect of lingering on space ships we have never before encountered, and therefore require time so a to become familiarised with them, before cutting inside to reveal the ugly creatures said edit reveals and concluding the process by having those creatures killed off, is an effective procedure establishing distinct hierarchy within this new world and immediately implements this glowing energy cloud at the centre of all the film's tension and wonder.Director Robert Wise has effectively blended a slow-burning approach to telling a space adventure with an overall narrative framework of race-against-time. The cloud is heading for Earth; it's unstoppable; nobody knows what it is or what it wants and thus far, has only reacted aggressively to what it's encountered. Luckily for Earth based space programme organisation Starfleet, the one ship nearby and able to head on out to intercept and investigate is the famed U.S.S. Enterprise harboured at its sunny, welcoming, radiant and busy-bodied San Fransisco headquarters; far away from the large, open, gloomy, ominous locales of the previous sequences. Said ship is, of course, headed up by its chief: a certain Admiral named James Kirk played, as in the TV show of the 1960s, by William Shatner, somebody whom storms in unopposed and assumes control from acting captain Willard Decker (Collins) thus nicely teeing up the friction existing between the two of them thereafter. The film also makes decent use of a back-burning item in the form of The Enterprise's overall physical state, its potential to malfunction ominous when we recall what the energy cloud is capable of to fully functioning ships; the death of two people trying to use the transporter beams rather-a stark forcing home of this.The crew will eventually come to be made up of varying people of varying ethnicities, in that an African American; a Hmong man; a young Aryan; etc. will form the nucleus of the ship's diverse operators, successfully getting across a sense of the whole thing being a multicultural effort. Also along for the ride is Indian actress Persis Khambatta's alien life-form named Ilia, who's given a Lieutenant rank and shares a romantic history with the demoted Decker. Of the original crew, a foil arrives for Kirk in the form of the ship's doctor named Bones McCoy (Kelley), whereas male specimen of the Vulcan race variety Mr. Spock (Nimoy) comes aboard when he is drawn to the cloud due to the effect it had on his usually transparent emotional state. Wise shoots the unveiling of The Enterprise, as it undergoes repair work in a series of longing close ups. Kirk and one of his engineers very slowly veer up to it in a transport pod, the reaction on Kirk's face and a general sense of awe is inferred onto the audience, namely the die hard fans of the show, so as to help along the reaction as The Enterprise is revealed on the big screen for the very first time. Wise shoots what feels like all corners of the ship, from all possible angles and compositions, as people stand around it on apparatus seeing to it: a literal repair job for what's happening within the film, a metaphorical preparation/revealing job as the final touches are made and the big reveal is made.The film is a surprisingly remarkable piece of drama, with Wise wedging great peril out of the simplest of ideas such as the being on collision course with a small but devastatingly effective asteroid as well as some uncanny happenings during other encounters which are instead helped along by the special effects that greatly enhance the ominous predicaments, rather than just cruelly ageing film and sapping out drama. The film is engaging and workmanlike enough in equal measure to work as both decent escapism and as smart, brooding science fiction.

As far from the restrictions of TV as it could possibly be.

tt0079945

Oooh, a difficult one this. Very difficult indeed. Unless you are particularly patient, or are a hardcore Star Trek fan this is going to take some effort to stick with. It doesn't seem like a Trekkie movie. Nowhere near as much fun as Wrath Of Khan, or First Contact. Not as much humour as The Voyage Home. In fact, there is no humour at all. Something that cripples the film badly. Everything is very straight-faced and sincere. To introduce someone to Star Trek with this film would be a bad idea.Being the first Trek product since the original series one might expect the familiar campy story lines and beaming down to "M-class" planets - a bit of desert 10-minutes drive from LA - but there's none to be had. Veteran director Robert Wise has crafted a film very much in the style of his original version of The Haunting. His w-i-d-e-s-c-r-e-e-n compositions are beautiful and he really manages to lift Trek from the small screen to the cinema screen. It was a hard undertaking, but he set the standard for nine sequels to date.The plot has a giant alien force destroying three Klingon ships on its direct course with earth. If the Federation doesn't stop this thing, it will blow up the planet. Admiral Kirk leaves his sunny San Francisco home to assume command of the Enterprise from Captain Decker and stop the alien menace. But Decker has a chip on his shoulder. The new Enterprise is not finished yet and he doesn't appreciate Kirk moving in on his territory.Very slowly the original crew return and are in command of their posts again and there is a weird new navigator, a bald-headed, celibate alien woman named Ilia. Decker seems to have a thing for her. For some reason.Once they reach the mysterious alien mass, the crew learns its name is Vger. Ilia is kidnapped and replaced with an android. Spock is driven to tears as he finds TOTAL logic in Vger actions and motivations. This is all sub-subtext and the actual explanation behind Vger might not come as a surprise to most. Once they fly inside Vger's mass of clouds and orifices it takes a healthy hour for the damn thing to be fully revealed.To criticise a film for its length may be an ignorant thing to do. Audiences today are too satisfied with any plot lasting less than 100 minutes. This is not a good sign. Films with the scope and, dare I say it, class of Star Trek: The Motion Picture need their full and proper running time. Coherent story lines can be sacrificed for fast paced, exhilarating storytelling, or a dull, seemingly endless narrative can be the result of a big story being fully fleshed out. It's difficult to achieve both length and pace. Sadly, this film doesn't. But it looks very good, is well directed and has the balls to bite off more than it can chew.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-270

ur0102816

title: As far from the restrictions of TV as it could possibly be. review: Oooh, a difficult one this. Very difficult indeed. Unless you are particularly patient, or are a hardcore Star Trek fan this is going to take some effort to stick with. It doesn't seem like a Trekkie movie. Nowhere near as much fun as Wrath Of Khan, or First Contact. Not as much humour as The Voyage Home. In fact, there is no humour at all. Something that cripples the film badly. Everything is very straight-faced and sincere. To introduce someone to Star Trek with this film would be a bad idea.Being the first Trek product since the original series one might expect the familiar campy story lines and beaming down to "M-class" planets - a bit of desert 10-minutes drive from LA - but there's none to be had. Veteran director Robert Wise has crafted a film very much in the style of his original version of The Haunting. His w-i-d-e-s-c-r-e-e-n compositions are beautiful and he really manages to lift Trek from the small screen to the cinema screen. It was a hard undertaking, but he set the standard for nine sequels to date.The plot has a giant alien force destroying three Klingon ships on its direct course with earth. If the Federation doesn't stop this thing, it will blow up the planet. Admiral Kirk leaves his sunny San Francisco home to assume command of the Enterprise from Captain Decker and stop the alien menace. But Decker has a chip on his shoulder. The new Enterprise is not finished yet and he doesn't appreciate Kirk moving in on his territory.Very slowly the original crew return and are in command of their posts again and there is a weird new navigator, a bald-headed, celibate alien woman named Ilia. Decker seems to have a thing for her. For some reason.Once they reach the mysterious alien mass, the crew learns its name is Vger. Ilia is kidnapped and replaced with an android. Spock is driven to tears as he finds TOTAL logic in Vger actions and motivations. This is all sub-subtext and the actual explanation behind Vger might not come as a surprise to most. Once they fly inside Vger's mass of clouds and orifices it takes a healthy hour for the damn thing to be fully revealed.To criticise a film for its length may be an ignorant thing to do. Audiences today are too satisfied with any plot lasting less than 100 minutes. This is not a good sign. Films with the scope and, dare I say it, class of Star Trek: The Motion Picture need their full and proper running time. Coherent story lines can be sacrificed for fast paced, exhilarating storytelling, or a dull, seemingly endless narrative can be the result of a big story being fully fleshed out. It's difficult to achieve both length and pace. Sadly, this film doesn't. But it looks very good, is well directed and has the balls to bite off more than it can chew.

Terrible pacing, but good ideas/ sci-fi

tt0079945

At 136min of runtime this send-off Star Trek into cinema suffers terribly from overlong, drawn out pacing and some dated music. At least 20 min should have been cut out of just viewing the alien cloud with the synthesizer guitar effects or whatever those were. Also badly lacking was the humor found more pervasively and robustly in subsequent installments. There was little from McCoy or Scottie and indeed neither Spock nor Kirk. The dialogue is straight and narrow, mostly serious. Aililla and Decker are definitely interesting characters but under-developed. They need to be better drawn out for being so central to the story. Star Trek "1" has a good plot idea no doubt, but spends way too much time showing characters gawking at the monitor. Editing is highly in need here. The final scenes with V-ger and crew the last 15 min at least help resurrect the movie from tanking completely. As it is this movie stands behind most of the others with exception of of course 5. If you can handle the poor pacing and be patient during the middle third, the ending picks up. This is definitely mixed.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-263

ur0635312

title: Terrible pacing, but good ideas/ sci-fi review: At 136min of runtime this send-off Star Trek into cinema suffers terribly from overlong, drawn out pacing and some dated music. At least 20 min should have been cut out of just viewing the alien cloud with the synthesizer guitar effects or whatever those were. Also badly lacking was the humor found more pervasively and robustly in subsequent installments. There was little from McCoy or Scottie and indeed neither Spock nor Kirk. The dialogue is straight and narrow, mostly serious. Aililla and Decker are definitely interesting characters but under-developed. They need to be better drawn out for being so central to the story. Star Trek "1" has a good plot idea no doubt, but spends way too much time showing characters gawking at the monitor. Editing is highly in need here. The final scenes with V-ger and crew the last 15 min at least help resurrect the movie from tanking completely. As it is this movie stands behind most of the others with exception of of course 5. If you can handle the poor pacing and be patient during the middle third, the ending picks up. This is definitely mixed.

Lavish and cinematic, but needs a shot of levity

tt0079945

Of all the Star Trek movies, "The Motion Picture" is as mixed-bag as they come. On the plus side, this is the biggest Star Trek has ever been. The filmmakers embraced the jump to the big screen like no other. All those lingering shots of the newly refitted Enterprise are glorious - even on the small screen, even 35 years later. And it's the movie that most effectively uses the width of the medium. Some really nice set design on that ship (drab palette notwithstanding), and even her captain is sportin' a new set of guns. On top of that, "The Motion Picture" boasts an honest-to-god science fiction story, instilling a sense of awe and wonder. And they really dug deep on the effects budget; I mean, it's all right there on the screen.But I really have to be in the right mindset to enjoy this movie, as it doesn't feel like Star Trek. There's something really cold and distant about "The Motion Picture". It lacks the Kirk/Spock/McCoy relationship, the humanity, and the humor of its proceeding sequels. Without that winning formula, it's a bit off. Kirk is way too rigid, and even Spock is stilted. But it's also really, really slow, constantly bringing the story to a halt for another effects sequence. It takes an hour for Kirk and Co. to meet the antagonist, and you just want them to get a move on, already.Bottom line, it's the epitome of silver screen spectacle, but the least accessible Star Trek flick. Not bad by a long shot, but too disjointed to be great.6/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-413

ur1994077

title: Lavish and cinematic, but needs a shot of levity review: Of all the Star Trek movies, "The Motion Picture" is as mixed-bag as they come. On the plus side, this is the biggest Star Trek has ever been. The filmmakers embraced the jump to the big screen like no other. All those lingering shots of the newly refitted Enterprise are glorious - even on the small screen, even 35 years later. And it's the movie that most effectively uses the width of the medium. Some really nice set design on that ship (drab palette notwithstanding), and even her captain is sportin' a new set of guns. On top of that, "The Motion Picture" boasts an honest-to-god science fiction story, instilling a sense of awe and wonder. And they really dug deep on the effects budget; I mean, it's all right there on the screen.But I really have to be in the right mindset to enjoy this movie, as it doesn't feel like Star Trek. There's something really cold and distant about "The Motion Picture". It lacks the Kirk/Spock/McCoy relationship, the humanity, and the humor of its proceeding sequels. Without that winning formula, it's a bit off. Kirk is way too rigid, and even Spock is stilted. But it's also really, really slow, constantly bringing the story to a halt for another effects sequence. It takes an hour for Kirk and Co. to meet the antagonist, and you just want them to get a move on, already.Bottom line, it's the epitome of silver screen spectacle, but the least accessible Star Trek flick. Not bad by a long shot, but too disjointed to be great.6/10

An Aging Sci Fi Movie That Still Resonates Its Serious Fun of the Original

tt0079945

Thirty one years later, this movie seems dated with inferior special effects, particularly in the beginning, on Vulcan and other superimposed features that seem to be artificially moving on the screen. There is the prolonged musical and lengthy introduction the Starship Enterprise following 2001: A Space Odyssey's (1968) in their prolonged musical approach to the Space Station in orbit around earth. There is a lot of set up, introductions, shake downs (going into warp drive scene) that in contemporary terms would be boring and listlessly inactive as non-action and unnecessary. In 1979, this was a director with a new toy, experimenting and showing off a new vision of the elements of the Star Trek with a larger budget. But understanding the nature of the movie and the times it was released, the built up anticipation of Trek fans, the focus on detail is somewhat understandable. Unfortunately, outside of that context, the movie has aged and rust spots have appeared. Even so the unknown menace in this movie remains one of the most intriguing in sci fi movie history in appearance and overall immensity of the threat. Like Forbidden Planet (1956), this original Star Trek has as its core a solid, inspiring sci fi revelation of the mysterious unknown and established like Alien (1979) released the same year, a fascinating and involving movie experience in the sci fi genre though the latter has held up better. Some of the images and the eerie immersion into the visual and ominous or brilliant submersion into the sci fi experience has been rarely exceeded since.Bone's entrance scene is both wooden and authentic and mature, a mixed presentation. The set design especially of the Enterprise is both simple, modern, elegant, yet also almost artificial and makeshift in its presentation. The color scheme as on earth are at times almost comic-book crass, yet sharp and clear. As a plus, this movie version has seat restraints available for bridge crew, something even most sci fi movies even today fail to incorporate, also a nice display of computer graphical sequences that rival any sci fi portrayal in existence today.As Star Trek (2009) was heavily dependent or respective of the music of the television series Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987), so does the original movie use and reflect back on the original television series (1966) theme music and voice over narration used in the series. Spock's little personal voyage outside of the Enterprise will be replicated in a different fashion in A Mission To Mars (2000) climatic reveal scene. Spock's own personal trek of self-discovery is also a subplot of interest in this movie, the would find a parallel experience with Lt. Commander Data's own personal struggles that occurred in the Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987).Whether the purportedly emotional divisions scenes are compelling or simply tokenism can be debated (that between Stephen Collins and Williams Shatner and Shatner's exposure to weakness or the romance angle and the distinctly different form of its resolution). Does Captain's Kirk's personality and character become more than two-dimensional television figure in this larger than life feature film version? Are the attempts at challenging Kirk's seeming invincibility and inward introspection really believable or just a superficial attempt? And what about Spock's interaction with the Enterprise crew with long pregnant pauses, in some ways are as awkward as the seeming artificiality as when Spock is first seen in the episode the Menagerie Part II (1966) and yet there is a sense of authenticity to it at the same time.But the primary focus, the experience of first contact is intense and riveting as any in sci fi movie history. Yet the eventual Lost in Translation (2003) approach to immersing into the alien landscape can be both plodding or meditatively pure depending on one's perspective. Like First Spaceship on Venus (1960), there is a new level of sensory experience, perhaps even more thrilling than 2001: A Space Odyssey's psychedelic stargate sequence. As for the particular facial cuts are both haughty use of superficial expressions and long sequences of pretty Christmas-like lights or a running sequence of the actual glimpses of travel into the unknown of eerie, wonderful and bewildering sights. The music by Jerry Goldsmith (nominated for an Oscar for best original musical score) is haunting and majestic at the same time.The alien probe scene is at once seemingly photographically amateur in appearance and stilted and yet also quite authentic and genuine in the old fashioned film hand-held canister camera fashion like today's hand held videos of The Blair Witch Project (1999) today. But rarely has the immense scale of an experience been filmed or portrayed in any sci fi movie as seen Wavelength (1983) ending scene using a much more simplistic object or the sense of immensity as with Alien (1979) and the Nostromo and the context of the alien planet itself or even 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) when the space ship Discovery is in proximity to Jupiter and the strange alien monolith.In the end, the movie's underlying premise is one of emotions, the search for meaning and self-identity, in the face of loneliness and the need for love. The movie contains the universal call for tenderness and connectivity - like an intelligent, lost puppy. The path to a solution comes from the sense of enlightened and humorous tender firmness that has underlain the original television version itself (of Dr. Bones' astute dry humor, Spock's fusion of logic rationality with feelings, and Kirk's instinctiveness perception of the nature of things). The end for some can be considered as a man's ultimate dream fantasy, for other's it may come as a overly fancy, simplistic answer covered over with the sound effects reminiscent of the earlier sci fi movie classic, Forbidden Planet (1956). Overall, this movie still retains its powerful serious hardcore sci fi integrity in both plot and visual and auditory intensity regardless of its aging and outdated, sometimes wooden appearance.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-354

ur0972645

title: An Aging Sci Fi Movie That Still Resonates Its Serious Fun of the Original review: Thirty one years later, this movie seems dated with inferior special effects, particularly in the beginning, on Vulcan and other superimposed features that seem to be artificially moving on the screen. There is the prolonged musical and lengthy introduction the Starship Enterprise following 2001: A Space Odyssey's (1968) in their prolonged musical approach to the Space Station in orbit around earth. There is a lot of set up, introductions, shake downs (going into warp drive scene) that in contemporary terms would be boring and listlessly inactive as non-action and unnecessary. In 1979, this was a director with a new toy, experimenting and showing off a new vision of the elements of the Star Trek with a larger budget. But understanding the nature of the movie and the times it was released, the built up anticipation of Trek fans, the focus on detail is somewhat understandable. Unfortunately, outside of that context, the movie has aged and rust spots have appeared. Even so the unknown menace in this movie remains one of the most intriguing in sci fi movie history in appearance and overall immensity of the threat. Like Forbidden Planet (1956), this original Star Trek has as its core a solid, inspiring sci fi revelation of the mysterious unknown and established like Alien (1979) released the same year, a fascinating and involving movie experience in the sci fi genre though the latter has held up better. Some of the images and the eerie immersion into the visual and ominous or brilliant submersion into the sci fi experience has been rarely exceeded since.Bone's entrance scene is both wooden and authentic and mature, a mixed presentation. The set design especially of the Enterprise is both simple, modern, elegant, yet also almost artificial and makeshift in its presentation. The color scheme as on earth are at times almost comic-book crass, yet sharp and clear. As a plus, this movie version has seat restraints available for bridge crew, something even most sci fi movies even today fail to incorporate, also a nice display of computer graphical sequences that rival any sci fi portrayal in existence today.As Star Trek (2009) was heavily dependent or respective of the music of the television series Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987), so does the original movie use and reflect back on the original television series (1966) theme music and voice over narration used in the series. Spock's little personal voyage outside of the Enterprise will be replicated in a different fashion in A Mission To Mars (2000) climatic reveal scene. Spock's own personal trek of self-discovery is also a subplot of interest in this movie, the would find a parallel experience with Lt. Commander Data's own personal struggles that occurred in the Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987).Whether the purportedly emotional divisions scenes are compelling or simply tokenism can be debated (that between Stephen Collins and Williams Shatner and Shatner's exposure to weakness or the romance angle and the distinctly different form of its resolution). Does Captain's Kirk's personality and character become more than two-dimensional television figure in this larger than life feature film version? Are the attempts at challenging Kirk's seeming invincibility and inward introspection really believable or just a superficial attempt? And what about Spock's interaction with the Enterprise crew with long pregnant pauses, in some ways are as awkward as the seeming artificiality as when Spock is first seen in the episode the Menagerie Part II (1966) and yet there is a sense of authenticity to it at the same time.But the primary focus, the experience of first contact is intense and riveting as any in sci fi movie history. Yet the eventual Lost in Translation (2003) approach to immersing into the alien landscape can be both plodding or meditatively pure depending on one's perspective. Like First Spaceship on Venus (1960), there is a new level of sensory experience, perhaps even more thrilling than 2001: A Space Odyssey's psychedelic stargate sequence. As for the particular facial cuts are both haughty use of superficial expressions and long sequences of pretty Christmas-like lights or a running sequence of the actual glimpses of travel into the unknown of eerie, wonderful and bewildering sights. The music by Jerry Goldsmith (nominated for an Oscar for best original musical score) is haunting and majestic at the same time.The alien probe scene is at once seemingly photographically amateur in appearance and stilted and yet also quite authentic and genuine in the old fashioned film hand-held canister camera fashion like today's hand held videos of The Blair Witch Project (1999) today. But rarely has the immense scale of an experience been filmed or portrayed in any sci fi movie as seen Wavelength (1983) ending scene using a much more simplistic object or the sense of immensity as with Alien (1979) and the Nostromo and the context of the alien planet itself or even 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) when the space ship Discovery is in proximity to Jupiter and the strange alien monolith.In the end, the movie's underlying premise is one of emotions, the search for meaning and self-identity, in the face of loneliness and the need for love. The movie contains the universal call for tenderness and connectivity - like an intelligent, lost puppy. The path to a solution comes from the sense of enlightened and humorous tender firmness that has underlain the original television version itself (of Dr. Bones' astute dry humor, Spock's fusion of logic rationality with feelings, and Kirk's instinctiveness perception of the nature of things). The end for some can be considered as a man's ultimate dream fantasy, for other's it may come as a overly fancy, simplistic answer covered over with the sound effects reminiscent of the earlier sci fi movie classic, Forbidden Planet (1956). Overall, this movie still retains its powerful serious hardcore sci fi integrity in both plot and visual and auditory intensity regardless of its aging and outdated, sometimes wooden appearance.

Not Now, Voyager

tt0079945

What if Roddenberry told a joke and nobody laughed?That's precisely what happened...the critics back in '79 didn't get it, and apparently it has since gone over most everyone's head...at warp speed.The creative process simply references itself: Voyager(the original TV series) is created, sent out into the void to seek contact, but vanishes from the solar system (the series is canceled) and disappears for many years, until an advanced civilization (the Trekkies) retools it and sends it back to earth in massive unrecognizable form (as a movie) to reestablish contact with the creator (the movie audience). More plain self-reference: there are problems with the transporter and warp drive (translating TV special effects to the movies)...Wise did create a visual spectacle, and the scale of the foreground objects against the backdrops is cinematically competent. However, as with the 'Sound of Music', the interaction between the characters is two dimensional. The visuals should have been enough, but I suppose the flat, grayscale TV/staginess is what sunk it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-240

ur8708196

title: Not Now, Voyager review: What if Roddenberry told a joke and nobody laughed?That's precisely what happened...the critics back in '79 didn't get it, and apparently it has since gone over most everyone's head...at warp speed.The creative process simply references itself: Voyager(the original TV series) is created, sent out into the void to seek contact, but vanishes from the solar system (the series is canceled) and disappears for many years, until an advanced civilization (the Trekkies) retools it and sends it back to earth in massive unrecognizable form (as a movie) to reestablish contact with the creator (the movie audience). More plain self-reference: there are problems with the transporter and warp drive (translating TV special effects to the movies)...Wise did create a visual spectacle, and the scale of the foreground objects against the backdrops is cinematically competent. However, as with the 'Sound of Music', the interaction between the characters is two dimensional. The visuals should have been enough, but I suppose the flat, grayscale TV/staginess is what sunk it.

Good in a Psychological Sci-Fi Way

tt0079945

Star Trek: The Motion Picture was heralded as the big resurrection of the franchise. The original series lasted three seasons. They managed a two season animated series that wasn't much remembered at the time. But it became a huge phenomenon in syndication. After the enormous success of Star Wars, studios looked to any science fiction franchise and Paramount had Star Trek. The genius Gene Roddenberry was at the time making a second live series and essentially reformatted some ideas into a feature and thus TMP was born.The movie follows James T. Kirk after being promoted to admiral as he retakes control of the revamped Enterprise. His mission is to stop an unknown force that destroys everything in its path from reaching Earth. He butts heads with the Enterprise's new captain, William Decker, and reunites with Spock, who has been away on his own mission.V'Ger is the kind of story that the series did quite often. Unfortunately, the story as it is comes off as a single episode stretched to two hours. There's a lot of filler and sequences stretched out to overly long lengths. The warp sequence is one that is largely unnecessary except to show that Kirk doesn't know all about the new design, which they did in other ways. The shuttle trip around the Enterprise is nice to see the new ship, but goes on too long. And there's far too many long shots of going through V'Ger where nothing happens except the ship moving. They could have fleshed the story out, but instead they padded it. The ending is nice and thoughtful in the way the show was. However, it ultimately lacks that personal touch. Voyage Home would do the overpowering object attacking Earth story much better.The entire main cast returns. That in itself was special considering that some had disliked their time on the show and they all had moved on to other things. The characters are a mixed bag. They don't have much of a story besides Kirk and Spock. Kirk is dealing with his "desk job." Spock is searching for peace between his human and Vulcan sides. McCoy provides the same great humor but he, Uhura, Scotty, Chekov, and Sulu are just there. Decker seems to have the beginnings of a story, but he is only really interesting because his relationship with Ilia is the prototype for Riker and Troi in The Next Generation.The special effects were considerably good for its time. The redesigned Enterprise is absolutely gorgeous, probably the best looking ship in the franchise. While going on too long, the scene of Scotty and Kirk flying around the ship is a beautiful scene to see. The look of V'Ger and the dissolving effects are top notch. It is still great to look at. Honestly, I would love to see this rereleased in theaters in 3D.Promoting Kirk to admiral was a great storytelling device that served the franchise well. Sure, the following movies would deal with it better. Stuff that paid off in Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, and Generations started here. The fact that he's jealous of his subordinate Decker for commanding "his ship" really speaks to his character. The scene where the two argue following the comet incident was well written.The music made for this movie became the iconic music of the franchise. The main theme here became the recurring theme of every following film through Nemesis and the main score for The Next Generation. Goldsmith's score is fantastic, and easily as iconic as Williams' Star Wars music. The soundtrack is worth buying, especially for the bonus disc with all the insightful interviews.This was the movie that introduced the redesigned Klingon make-up that would be featured in the franchise to come. In the series, they came off as just recolored Oriental-looking humans. This made them look truly alien.In retrospect, it's really only notable as the movie that brought the franchise back into public attention. I will say that the movie works in a slow, methodical 2001: A Space Odyssey way. There isn't any big action sequence, besides the Klingons and space station getting attacked. It's more contemplative, allowing you time to think. If you don't mind the slowness, it is enjoyable. It may not rank among the best of Star Trek, but it's a fine movie on its own. The movie helped revive Star Trek. Though it was Wrath of Khan that saved its life.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-426

ur8588208

title: Good in a Psychological Sci-Fi Way review: Star Trek: The Motion Picture was heralded as the big resurrection of the franchise. The original series lasted three seasons. They managed a two season animated series that wasn't much remembered at the time. But it became a huge phenomenon in syndication. After the enormous success of Star Wars, studios looked to any science fiction franchise and Paramount had Star Trek. The genius Gene Roddenberry was at the time making a second live series and essentially reformatted some ideas into a feature and thus TMP was born.The movie follows James T. Kirk after being promoted to admiral as he retakes control of the revamped Enterprise. His mission is to stop an unknown force that destroys everything in its path from reaching Earth. He butts heads with the Enterprise's new captain, William Decker, and reunites with Spock, who has been away on his own mission.V'Ger is the kind of story that the series did quite often. Unfortunately, the story as it is comes off as a single episode stretched to two hours. There's a lot of filler and sequences stretched out to overly long lengths. The warp sequence is one that is largely unnecessary except to show that Kirk doesn't know all about the new design, which they did in other ways. The shuttle trip around the Enterprise is nice to see the new ship, but goes on too long. And there's far too many long shots of going through V'Ger where nothing happens except the ship moving. They could have fleshed the story out, but instead they padded it. The ending is nice and thoughtful in the way the show was. However, it ultimately lacks that personal touch. Voyage Home would do the overpowering object attacking Earth story much better.The entire main cast returns. That in itself was special considering that some had disliked their time on the show and they all had moved on to other things. The characters are a mixed bag. They don't have much of a story besides Kirk and Spock. Kirk is dealing with his "desk job." Spock is searching for peace between his human and Vulcan sides. McCoy provides the same great humor but he, Uhura, Scotty, Chekov, and Sulu are just there. Decker seems to have the beginnings of a story, but he is only really interesting because his relationship with Ilia is the prototype for Riker and Troi in The Next Generation.The special effects were considerably good for its time. The redesigned Enterprise is absolutely gorgeous, probably the best looking ship in the franchise. While going on too long, the scene of Scotty and Kirk flying around the ship is a beautiful scene to see. The look of V'Ger and the dissolving effects are top notch. It is still great to look at. Honestly, I would love to see this rereleased in theaters in 3D.Promoting Kirk to admiral was a great storytelling device that served the franchise well. Sure, the following movies would deal with it better. Stuff that paid off in Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, and Generations started here. The fact that he's jealous of his subordinate Decker for commanding "his ship" really speaks to his character. The scene where the two argue following the comet incident was well written.The music made for this movie became the iconic music of the franchise. The main theme here became the recurring theme of every following film through Nemesis and the main score for The Next Generation. Goldsmith's score is fantastic, and easily as iconic as Williams' Star Wars music. The soundtrack is worth buying, especially for the bonus disc with all the insightful interviews.This was the movie that introduced the redesigned Klingon make-up that would be featured in the franchise to come. In the series, they came off as just recolored Oriental-looking humans. This made them look truly alien.In retrospect, it's really only notable as the movie that brought the franchise back into public attention. I will say that the movie works in a slow, methodical 2001: A Space Odyssey way. There isn't any big action sequence, besides the Klingons and space station getting attacked. It's more contemplative, allowing you time to think. If you don't mind the slowness, it is enjoyable. It may not rank among the best of Star Trek, but it's a fine movie on its own. The movie helped revive Star Trek. Though it was Wrath of Khan that saved its life.

What's with those uniforms?

tt0079945

This is the second worst Star Trek movie (behind the completely forgettable Final Frontier). I honestly felt nothing for any of the characters. And, those uniforms are just SO BAD. The idea of V'ger was good, but the way it was played out was just not good.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-121

ur0100964

title: What's with those uniforms? review: This is the second worst Star Trek movie (behind the completely forgettable Final Frontier). I honestly felt nothing for any of the characters. And, those uniforms are just SO BAD. The idea of V'ger was good, but the way it was played out was just not good.

Star Trek: The Motionless Picture

tt0079945

This has to be the second worst Star Trek movie (behind V). It was slow, ponderous, and just barely watchable. If you want real Star Trek, watch either Star Trek II, or Star Trek First Contact. Another thing, the uniforms in this movie REALLY sucked. They changed them for II, which was a good thing.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-92

ur0100964

title: Star Trek: The Motionless Picture review: This has to be the second worst Star Trek movie (behind V). It was slow, ponderous, and just barely watchable. If you want real Star Trek, watch either Star Trek II, or Star Trek First Contact. Another thing, the uniforms in this movie REALLY sucked. They changed them for II, which was a good thing.

Star Trek: The Motionless Picture

tt0079945

People call this movie the Motionless Picture for a reason. It's because it really doesn't GO anywhere. It's long an laborious to watch, and introduces new characters we care NOTHING about. I didn't even think the special effects were all that great. As for the acting, it was just awful. It was just one expensive sci-fi piece of trash.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-72

ur0100964

title: Star Trek: The Motionless Picture review: People call this movie the Motionless Picture for a reason. It's because it really doesn't GO anywhere. It's long an laborious to watch, and introduces new characters we care NOTHING about. I didn't even think the special effects were all that great. As for the acting, it was just awful. It was just one expensive sci-fi piece of trash.

The Motion Sickness Picture

tt0079945

The absolute best part of this movie was the sequence in the first five minutes when three Klingon Battle Cruisers are attacking the cloud entity.Nice intro- sets up the threat nicely.Film quickly bogs down into a slow journey to the climax, stretching out 10 minutes of plot into a two hour movie.The first problem was the writer. Alan Dean Foster is a well-known Science Fiction writer who has done some good work. However, he is one of these writers who is so in love with his own prose that he fails to do things like move the plot along. That is evident with this screen play, where we spend most of the movie marveling at the FX (still fairly impressive after 27 years, compared to others that don't hold up as well.) The other problem is with the characters. I don't think the writers truly understood the chemistry that made the original series work, the trio of Kirk, Spock and McCoy. How these three interacted and complimented each other is what made the series work. This script was more interested in the new characters of Ilia and Decker, who we really don't care about all that much.It should be pointed out that TMP was an offshoot of Roddenberry's first attempt to reboot Trek, called "Trek:Phase II". His goal was to dump Spock (since he and Leonard Nimoy were on very bad terms at that point) and introduce Decker as the lead, eventually writing Kirk out of the series.The movie's climax is that the V'Ger joins with Alia and Decker and goes off into a new incarnation. Boring.Trekkers deserved better than this. The only virtue is that it showed that Trek was still a profitable franchise, and led to 10 more movies and four more TV series...It succeeded in spite of itself.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-298

ur5348015

title: The Motion Sickness Picture review: The absolute best part of this movie was the sequence in the first five minutes when three Klingon Battle Cruisers are attacking the cloud entity.Nice intro- sets up the threat nicely.Film quickly bogs down into a slow journey to the climax, stretching out 10 minutes of plot into a two hour movie.The first problem was the writer. Alan Dean Foster is a well-known Science Fiction writer who has done some good work. However, he is one of these writers who is so in love with his own prose that he fails to do things like move the plot along. That is evident with this screen play, where we spend most of the movie marveling at the FX (still fairly impressive after 27 years, compared to others that don't hold up as well.) The other problem is with the characters. I don't think the writers truly understood the chemistry that made the original series work, the trio of Kirk, Spock and McCoy. How these three interacted and complimented each other is what made the series work. This script was more interested in the new characters of Ilia and Decker, who we really don't care about all that much.It should be pointed out that TMP was an offshoot of Roddenberry's first attempt to reboot Trek, called "Trek:Phase II". His goal was to dump Spock (since he and Leonard Nimoy were on very bad terms at that point) and introduce Decker as the lead, eventually writing Kirk out of the series.The movie's climax is that the V'Ger joins with Alia and Decker and goes off into a new incarnation. Boring.Trekkers deserved better than this. The only virtue is that it showed that Trek was still a profitable franchise, and led to 10 more movies and four more TV series...It succeeded in spite of itself.

Weak return for a classic crew

tt0079945

When a strange phenomenon approaches Earth destroying everything in its way there is only one Star Fleet vessel in the area: the USS Enterprise. Given the importance of the mission Admiral James T. Kirk persuades Star Fleet Command that it needs an experienced officer in charge… himself! After taking command he takes the ship and heads towards the phenomenon. On the way they meet a shuttle containing an old friend; Mr Spock; once he boards all the old crew are back. When they get to the phenomenon it probes the enterprise and takes new crewmember Lt. Ilia and a little while later returns a probe that looks just like her. She announces that the phenomenon contains something called V'Ger and it has come to Earth seeking its creator. If they are to save Earth they will have to discover the exact nature of V'Ger and its unknown creator.After the success of 'Star Wars' science fiction was suddenly popular again so it was time to dust off the 'Star Trek' franchise and bring the Enterprise and her crew back once more; this time to the big screen. The problem is the story they chose for the first film feels like a fifty minute episode that has been stretched to over two hours without adding much extra material… this means people speak slowly and look meaningfully into the distance a lot and shots of the effects of V'Ger seem to drag on for ages rather than just being a few seconds as they would be in a TV episode. It's not even as if the effects are all fantastic; they look better than the '60s TV show but look pretty ropey compared to films like 'Star Wars'. When we learn what V'Ger is there is a nice surprise; one that is good enough that most viewers won't forget it. While it is a bit of a surprise the first time you watch it is also a bit of a disappointment as it means there isn't a real antagonist behind the danger. The old TV cast do a good enough job; they might not be A-list movie stars but I for one would have been disappointed if the original actors had been ditched for people better known for film work. I'd only really recommend this to fans of the series; other people thinking of checking out a 'Star Trek' film would be better off skipping this one and going straight to 'The Wrath of Khan' it is much better!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-381

ur13977076

title: Weak return for a classic crew review: When a strange phenomenon approaches Earth destroying everything in its way there is only one Star Fleet vessel in the area: the USS Enterprise. Given the importance of the mission Admiral James T. Kirk persuades Star Fleet Command that it needs an experienced officer in charge… himself! After taking command he takes the ship and heads towards the phenomenon. On the way they meet a shuttle containing an old friend; Mr Spock; once he boards all the old crew are back. When they get to the phenomenon it probes the enterprise and takes new crewmember Lt. Ilia and a little while later returns a probe that looks just like her. She announces that the phenomenon contains something called V'Ger and it has come to Earth seeking its creator. If they are to save Earth they will have to discover the exact nature of V'Ger and its unknown creator.After the success of 'Star Wars' science fiction was suddenly popular again so it was time to dust off the 'Star Trek' franchise and bring the Enterprise and her crew back once more; this time to the big screen. The problem is the story they chose for the first film feels like a fifty minute episode that has been stretched to over two hours without adding much extra material… this means people speak slowly and look meaningfully into the distance a lot and shots of the effects of V'Ger seem to drag on for ages rather than just being a few seconds as they would be in a TV episode. It's not even as if the effects are all fantastic; they look better than the '60s TV show but look pretty ropey compared to films like 'Star Wars'. When we learn what V'Ger is there is a nice surprise; one that is good enough that most viewers won't forget it. While it is a bit of a surprise the first time you watch it is also a bit of a disappointment as it means there isn't a real antagonist behind the danger. The old TV cast do a good enough job; they might not be A-list movie stars but I for one would have been disappointed if the original actors had been ditched for people better known for film work. I'd only really recommend this to fans of the series; other people thinking of checking out a 'Star Trek' film would be better off skipping this one and going straight to 'The Wrath of Khan' it is much better!

Renegade Star Trek

tt0079945

After Star Wars (1977) was a hit at theaters all over, it was like Star Trek was suddenly pulled out of mothballs and the changes that were made was just to rival Star Wars as if to say 'You have nothing over us cause we been light years ahead of you'. I doubt very much it was the ongoing fan mail that revived it, but more like lots of dollar signs for Paramount. I read somewhere that by the time the Motion Picture came along, Roddenberry (the creator) no longer had control over his creation, which is so wrong; this is total disrespect of the one who contrived the whole thing. Star Trek TMP was nothing like the TV series. The familiar characters came off like stiff cardboards and their uniforms seem like futuristic scientists. I didn't appreciate the bump-on-the-head bald Klingon look at all. I did like the opening sequence of the really neat looking Klingon ships and the very catchy great music when approaching the enormous V'ger alien. I liked Capt. Decker and wish they hadn't gotten rid of him nor the incredible beautiful Illya; only the good die young it seemed. I didn't like the Vulcan science officer Sonak get killed in the transporter, as it would of been great to see him work with Capt. Decker. I didn't even like Kirk cleverly finding a way to steal the command seat from Decker. It's interesting to note that Decker cared more for Illya than the Enterprise that Kirk wanted to possess again. I also didn't like because Spock seem so arrogant in finally accepting his human emotions to the point of being oblivious to familiar crew members who were happy just to see him again. It was as though he was too good for them. Right then I had wished a donkey was right there to just give him a good kick so he'd scream some kind of emotion. Spock and McCoy's friendship seem more dangerous than usually was; it was like they reached of point of total distrust & despised each other. The most boring part of the movie was when the Enterprise started touring inside of V'ger as if doing window shopping. You'd think it would never end. V'ger had to be Star Trek's version to out do Star Wars Death Star. It's kinda like saying 'You think the Death Star is so bad well take a look at our god-like ship.' I think the original subtitle of this Star Trek movie was gonna be 'Is there a God'; something like that anyway. When it came to the redesign of the Enterprise, I never fully understood how the more sleek looking warp nacelles was better than before. Or what was the practical science improvement behind it's change to that.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-379

ur26602792

title: Renegade Star Trek review: After Star Wars (1977) was a hit at theaters all over, it was like Star Trek was suddenly pulled out of mothballs and the changes that were made was just to rival Star Wars as if to say 'You have nothing over us cause we been light years ahead of you'. I doubt very much it was the ongoing fan mail that revived it, but more like lots of dollar signs for Paramount. I read somewhere that by the time the Motion Picture came along, Roddenberry (the creator) no longer had control over his creation, which is so wrong; this is total disrespect of the one who contrived the whole thing. Star Trek TMP was nothing like the TV series. The familiar characters came off like stiff cardboards and their uniforms seem like futuristic scientists. I didn't appreciate the bump-on-the-head bald Klingon look at all. I did like the opening sequence of the really neat looking Klingon ships and the very catchy great music when approaching the enormous V'ger alien. I liked Capt. Decker and wish they hadn't gotten rid of him nor the incredible beautiful Illya; only the good die young it seemed. I didn't like the Vulcan science officer Sonak get killed in the transporter, as it would of been great to see him work with Capt. Decker. I didn't even like Kirk cleverly finding a way to steal the command seat from Decker. It's interesting to note that Decker cared more for Illya than the Enterprise that Kirk wanted to possess again. I also didn't like because Spock seem so arrogant in finally accepting his human emotions to the point of being oblivious to familiar crew members who were happy just to see him again. It was as though he was too good for them. Right then I had wished a donkey was right there to just give him a good kick so he'd scream some kind of emotion. Spock and McCoy's friendship seem more dangerous than usually was; it was like they reached of point of total distrust & despised each other. The most boring part of the movie was when the Enterprise started touring inside of V'ger as if doing window shopping. You'd think it would never end. V'ger had to be Star Trek's version to out do Star Wars Death Star. It's kinda like saying 'You think the Death Star is so bad well take a look at our god-like ship.' I think the original subtitle of this Star Trek movie was gonna be 'Is there a God'; something like that anyway. When it came to the redesign of the Enterprise, I never fully understood how the more sleek looking warp nacelles was better than before. Or what was the practical science improvement behind it's change to that.

Star Trek let down.

tt0079945

Star Trek the Motion Picture was my first experience in disappointment. It came out when I was in the sixth grade. Just two years earlier, I had been wowed by Star Wars. Already a Trekker, I could not wait to see what Gene Roddenberry was going to do with his franchise. Never in my life was I so bored at the movies. Older, I stand by the statement I made as an eleven-year-old. It begins several months after the end of the first five-year mission. Scotty has just spent the last 18 months refitting the Enterprise for her new commander, Captain Will Decker. Unfortunately, something is approaching Earth, eating planets, asteroids, and Klingons in its path. It is up to the Enterprise to stop it. Rear Admiral Kirk uses the emergency to get command back, and re-activate Dr. McCoy. Spock has retired and is going through the final purging of his emotions known as the Kolinhar. Of course, Spock shows up. I will concede that the movie has a magnificent score, and keeps with the television show's spirit of exploration and contacting new life forms. It also unveils the new and improved Enterprise. However, it drags and drags too much. The Enterprise spends too much time going through special effects for the cloud, reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick's overindulgence in 2001 A Space Oddessy. In other words: no action. No star battles, no hand-to-hand combats, or Kirk and Spock out-thinking a hostile alien or nemesis. And who came up with those pajama-like uniforms? There is too much introspection, too much philosophizing, and too much of the Enterprise stuck in the midst of weird special effects. The worst part is there is no chemistry between the characters prevalent in the television shows and the latter movies. They serve as props to the new Enterprise. Of course, this was a segue into Star Trek's glory movies, II, III, and IV. I guess just like the series, it got off to a rocky start.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-299

ur10002238

title: Star Trek let down. review: Star Trek the Motion Picture was my first experience in disappointment. It came out when I was in the sixth grade. Just two years earlier, I had been wowed by Star Wars. Already a Trekker, I could not wait to see what Gene Roddenberry was going to do with his franchise. Never in my life was I so bored at the movies. Older, I stand by the statement I made as an eleven-year-old. It begins several months after the end of the first five-year mission. Scotty has just spent the last 18 months refitting the Enterprise for her new commander, Captain Will Decker. Unfortunately, something is approaching Earth, eating planets, asteroids, and Klingons in its path. It is up to the Enterprise to stop it. Rear Admiral Kirk uses the emergency to get command back, and re-activate Dr. McCoy. Spock has retired and is going through the final purging of his emotions known as the Kolinhar. Of course, Spock shows up. I will concede that the movie has a magnificent score, and keeps with the television show's spirit of exploration and contacting new life forms. It also unveils the new and improved Enterprise. However, it drags and drags too much. The Enterprise spends too much time going through special effects for the cloud, reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick's overindulgence in 2001 A Space Oddessy. In other words: no action. No star battles, no hand-to-hand combats, or Kirk and Spock out-thinking a hostile alien or nemesis. And who came up with those pajama-like uniforms? There is too much introspection, too much philosophizing, and too much of the Enterprise stuck in the midst of weird special effects. The worst part is there is no chemistry between the characters prevalent in the television shows and the latter movies. They serve as props to the new Enterprise. Of course, this was a segue into Star Trek's glory movies, II, III, and IV. I guess just like the series, it got off to a rocky start.

Quality visuals pad out an otherwise dull Trek outing - 66%

tt0079945

You almost feel sorry for Star Trek after the phenomenal success of Star Wars. Gene Roddenberry's cultural colossus was feeding the imaginations of people back in the Sixties but the second George Lucas comes along with light-sabres and the Millennium Falcon, all their hard work was forgotten. And given the film's lack of action and excitement, the initial critical response wasn't that hot either. But Star Trek was always about more than phasers and space battles - it had a philosophical tangent, examining not just the unknown space oddity of the week but also more human issues like logic, emotion and the need of man to explore and discover. Such issues are the order of the day here but the film also has a surprising amount of quality visuals and a decent mystery at its heart.After three Klingon vessels are destroyed by a mysterious energy cloud, Admiral Kirk (William Shatner) is summoned to accompany the Enterprise on her mission to intercept the cloud on its journey to Earth. Alongside the presiding Captain Decker (Stephen Collins) and new navigator Ilia (Persis Khambatta), Kirk and the usual Enterprise crew (Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, Nichelle Nichols, George Takei, etc) struggle with both the seemingly limitless power of the cloud, known as V'Ger as well as the new, upgraded Enterprise. But what hope can there possibly be when their enemy is completely alien to them and threatening all life in Earth? "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" (not the catchiest title ever) feels very much like an extended episode of the original series, albeit with much better effects. Ignoring the opening shots of Starfleet which feel quite old-school, the sweeping shots of the Enterprise and the alien vessel are both detailed and believable - much more so than the rudimentary computer graphics at the time shown on various consoles and monitors. If anything, the Enterprise is more animated than its captain as Shatner reminds us that he is a TV actor that got lucky ten years earlier. In fact, the cast all display a curious detachment to the material and Kelley in particular appear during a scene, stare in wonderment at some fancy visuals on the viewer and then disappear without saying a word or contributing anything to the scene. Honestly, only Collins seems to invest the film with any real emotion as his power struggle with Kirk disappointing goes from an interesting spark of subplot to a forgotten damp squib. Quite a bit of the movie seems to be composed of the cast staring at something in space without saying anything which doesn't help with the film's slow pacing.The film's pacing also provides an obstacle to overcome as not much happens for the longest time and the plot doesn't give much away until the final half-hour or so. Speaking of the plot, the ending felt contrived and frankly a bit of a con and personally, I felt it undermined the film as much as Shatner's uber-cool Kirk who is unfazed by anything (if you'll forgive the pun!). It's frustrating because at a basic, visual level then "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" does a good job of matching the level seen in stuff like "2001" and 1979's other sci-fi classic "Alien". It can certainly talk the talk - Star Trek always could - but as far as walking the walk goes, it's more like an arthritic shuffle compared to Star Wars. I reckon the strongest Trek film with the original crew was "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" which got the balance of action, intrigue and plotting absolutely right as well as quality effects and visuals - the zero gravity sequences alone are far more plausible and arresting than anything seen here. But it's interesting to someone who grew up with the Trek movies instead of the original series to see which ideas stuck to the wall and which fell to the floor and were discarded. Just don't do what I did and wonder why they used the theme music to Star Trek: The Next Generation instead of the classic Star Trek theme...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-409

ur3035115

title: Quality visuals pad out an otherwise dull Trek outing - 66% review: You almost feel sorry for Star Trek after the phenomenal success of Star Wars. Gene Roddenberry's cultural colossus was feeding the imaginations of people back in the Sixties but the second George Lucas comes along with light-sabres and the Millennium Falcon, all their hard work was forgotten. And given the film's lack of action and excitement, the initial critical response wasn't that hot either. But Star Trek was always about more than phasers and space battles - it had a philosophical tangent, examining not just the unknown space oddity of the week but also more human issues like logic, emotion and the need of man to explore and discover. Such issues are the order of the day here but the film also has a surprising amount of quality visuals and a decent mystery at its heart.After three Klingon vessels are destroyed by a mysterious energy cloud, Admiral Kirk (William Shatner) is summoned to accompany the Enterprise on her mission to intercept the cloud on its journey to Earth. Alongside the presiding Captain Decker (Stephen Collins) and new navigator Ilia (Persis Khambatta), Kirk and the usual Enterprise crew (Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, Nichelle Nichols, George Takei, etc) struggle with both the seemingly limitless power of the cloud, known as V'Ger as well as the new, upgraded Enterprise. But what hope can there possibly be when their enemy is completely alien to them and threatening all life in Earth? "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" (not the catchiest title ever) feels very much like an extended episode of the original series, albeit with much better effects. Ignoring the opening shots of Starfleet which feel quite old-school, the sweeping shots of the Enterprise and the alien vessel are both detailed and believable - much more so than the rudimentary computer graphics at the time shown on various consoles and monitors. If anything, the Enterprise is more animated than its captain as Shatner reminds us that he is a TV actor that got lucky ten years earlier. In fact, the cast all display a curious detachment to the material and Kelley in particular appear during a scene, stare in wonderment at some fancy visuals on the viewer and then disappear without saying a word or contributing anything to the scene. Honestly, only Collins seems to invest the film with any real emotion as his power struggle with Kirk disappointing goes from an interesting spark of subplot to a forgotten damp squib. Quite a bit of the movie seems to be composed of the cast staring at something in space without saying anything which doesn't help with the film's slow pacing.The film's pacing also provides an obstacle to overcome as not much happens for the longest time and the plot doesn't give much away until the final half-hour or so. Speaking of the plot, the ending felt contrived and frankly a bit of a con and personally, I felt it undermined the film as much as Shatner's uber-cool Kirk who is unfazed by anything (if you'll forgive the pun!). It's frustrating because at a basic, visual level then "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" does a good job of matching the level seen in stuff like "2001" and 1979's other sci-fi classic "Alien". It can certainly talk the talk - Star Trek always could - but as far as walking the walk goes, it's more like an arthritic shuffle compared to Star Wars. I reckon the strongest Trek film with the original crew was "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" which got the balance of action, intrigue and plotting absolutely right as well as quality effects and visuals - the zero gravity sequences alone are far more plausible and arresting than anything seen here. But it's interesting to someone who grew up with the Trek movies instead of the original series to see which ideas stuck to the wall and which fell to the floor and were discarded. Just don't do what I did and wonder why they used the theme music to Star Trek: The Next Generation instead of the classic Star Trek theme...

Great for Insomniacs...

tt0079945

Childhood Memory: Star Trek The Motion Picture fades out at my local cinema; the end credits come up, as do the house lights. I look around, and see approximately half of the audience of several hundred people, fast asleep.And that was in 1979! The recent DVD editions have improved this movie a great deal, the first big screen outing for Capt. Kirk and crew of the Starship Enterprise. Many deletions to the almost endless special effects shots, and inclusions of more character moments have made some difference. Yet it's still an occasionally soporific film, with its basic plot-germ borrowed from a second season t.v. episode, The Changeling.The main thrust of the film is simple - does Capt Kirk, in spite of being stuck in a desk job following his promotion to Admiral two years previously, still have the command ability that made the voyages of the Starship Enterprise a legend in Starfleet? This plot device gives some much needed drama to the proceedings - particularly when Kirk practically forces himself into the role of Captain for the mission, usurping a bright but inexperienced Matt Decker (Stephen Collins) - but it's largely sidestepped in favour of endless shots of a solar system-sized threat . A gigantic cloud of unbelievable destructive power is heading towards Earth. And Enterprise, still in pieces following a refit, is the only Federation ship capable of intercepting the intruder in time...Decent premise, but everything that made the original series so memorable is squeezed out of this movie - the bantering between Spock and McCoy is totally absent apart from a brief moment or two - "So help me I'm actually pleased to see you"; the bright primary colours of the TV show have here become a battleship grey that only adds to the tedium; the interactions between the famous characters seem strained and forced; and the damn thing lacks the sparky energy and philosophical edge that made Star Trek so much fun in the first place.There's a fair number of good moments, though, noticeably the ship being pulled into a wormhole of its own making and Spock arriving in the nick of time to get the ship into Warp, but this is not a great Star Trek Movie. The makers tried for a 2001 approach, but Trek was never meant to be so ponderous.The effects are fantastic, however, and hold up very well, and the wonderful Jerry Goldsmith score captures the themes of Star Trek brilliantly, so much so that the opening march became the theme for The Next Generation TV series. The original cast, who all return, are good, but they are dwarfed by the effects, and never allowed to express themselves properly.Happily, there was better to come.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-322

ur9725326

title: Great for Insomniacs... review: Childhood Memory: Star Trek The Motion Picture fades out at my local cinema; the end credits come up, as do the house lights. I look around, and see approximately half of the audience of several hundred people, fast asleep.And that was in 1979! The recent DVD editions have improved this movie a great deal, the first big screen outing for Capt. Kirk and crew of the Starship Enterprise. Many deletions to the almost endless special effects shots, and inclusions of more character moments have made some difference. Yet it's still an occasionally soporific film, with its basic plot-germ borrowed from a second season t.v. episode, The Changeling.The main thrust of the film is simple - does Capt Kirk, in spite of being stuck in a desk job following his promotion to Admiral two years previously, still have the command ability that made the voyages of the Starship Enterprise a legend in Starfleet? This plot device gives some much needed drama to the proceedings - particularly when Kirk practically forces himself into the role of Captain for the mission, usurping a bright but inexperienced Matt Decker (Stephen Collins) - but it's largely sidestepped in favour of endless shots of a solar system-sized threat . A gigantic cloud of unbelievable destructive power is heading towards Earth. And Enterprise, still in pieces following a refit, is the only Federation ship capable of intercepting the intruder in time...Decent premise, but everything that made the original series so memorable is squeezed out of this movie - the bantering between Spock and McCoy is totally absent apart from a brief moment or two - "So help me I'm actually pleased to see you"; the bright primary colours of the TV show have here become a battleship grey that only adds to the tedium; the interactions between the famous characters seem strained and forced; and the damn thing lacks the sparky energy and philosophical edge that made Star Trek so much fun in the first place.There's a fair number of good moments, though, noticeably the ship being pulled into a wormhole of its own making and Spock arriving in the nick of time to get the ship into Warp, but this is not a great Star Trek Movie. The makers tried for a 2001 approach, but Trek was never meant to be so ponderous.The effects are fantastic, however, and hold up very well, and the wonderful Jerry Goldsmith score captures the themes of Star Trek brilliantly, so much so that the opening march became the theme for The Next Generation TV series. The original cast, who all return, are good, but they are dwarfed by the effects, and never allowed to express themselves properly.Happily, there was better to come.

so bad its good....umm no. just bad

tt0079945

I normally don't like labeling things as boring as its seems for the most part a rather pedestrian kind of way to describe any film that ultimately says more about the viewer than the actual film being viewed. That being said STTMP suffers from a complete lack of proper narrative pace...its for lack of a better phrase (you guessed it) boring. The plot itself (what plot there is) isn't anything close to compelling enough to keep you watching. The only real motivation to see the film through is for the pleasure of laughing at the films numerous hilarious lines. The only genuinely good thing about this film is Jerry Goldsmith's wonderful score. The main title theme is one of the best in genre film history. I also rather enjoyed the enterprise music video/Trekkie fetish orgasm educing "Kirk approaching the star ship" bit. In all fairness I will conclude that it is impossible for me to see this film in its original context ( the relaunching on the big screen of a canceled cult T.V. series) All I see is the predecessor of what would inevitably turn out to be not only one of the best sequels of all time but arguably one of the greatest genre films ever.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-311

ur2745165

title: so bad its good....umm no. just bad review: I normally don't like labeling things as boring as its seems for the most part a rather pedestrian kind of way to describe any film that ultimately says more about the viewer than the actual film being viewed. That being said STTMP suffers from a complete lack of proper narrative pace...its for lack of a better phrase (you guessed it) boring. The plot itself (what plot there is) isn't anything close to compelling enough to keep you watching. The only real motivation to see the film through is for the pleasure of laughing at the films numerous hilarious lines. The only genuinely good thing about this film is Jerry Goldsmith's wonderful score. The main title theme is one of the best in genre film history. I also rather enjoyed the enterprise music video/Trekkie fetish orgasm educing "Kirk approaching the star ship" bit. In all fairness I will conclude that it is impossible for me to see this film in its original context ( the relaunching on the big screen of a canceled cult T.V. series) All I see is the predecessor of what would inevitably turn out to be not only one of the best sequels of all time but arguably one of the greatest genre films ever.

Attack of The Motionless Picture.

tt0079945

Maybe Harlan Ellison was first to coin the phrase, maybe it was just synergy, but STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE was roundly hailed as "The Motionless Picture." For good reason.It doesn't move. At all. In space no one can hear the grass grow.Witness the stagnant immobility as Captain Kirk and Scotty silently circumnavigate the Enterprise in a docking craft, in loving reunion, as a Captain visually undresses his ship after a long separation, and you will heartily, if not sleepily, agree.Which is ironic, considering the firestorm of indecisive action that birthed the movie Phoenix-like from its cheap, unsuccessful 1966 series that somehow spawned a cult in reruns. When fan outcry for a TREK movie reached a tipping point, Paramount execs dillydallied over whether to target the silver screen or the boob tube with a bastardized concept called STAR TREK PHASE II, a revolving door of writers and directors came and went, innumerable rewrites, pulling plugs, and TREK'S creator, Gene Roddenberry, whining about every aspect of the production from the crawlspace he was "promoted" to - until - 20th Century Fox released a tiny little thing called STAR WARS...Suddenly, in true, characteristically gutless, tunnel-visioned fashion, the heads at Paramount decide to greenlight a "space adventure" of their own - STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE.Eventually directed by Robert Wise, written by Alan Dean Foster, Harold Livingston and a host of poor, uncredited bastards who got the pointy end of Paramount's stick, STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE hits the 23rd century like a space version of THE WHO'S TOMMY - the sublime and ridiculous in an arranged marriage that serves cheap champagne at the reception with the best man getting drunk and falling into the cheese brioche.Excellent concept, terrible execution. STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE is a plodding masterpiece; brains but no balls; a whole lotta nothing, to say a small lotta something. Remember this was way back in the 23rd century, long before supporting cast were actually required to act, and just after they updated their onboard computers to 1984 standards.When three Klingon ships are destroyed by hokey special effects, by an entity traveling towards Earth to wreak more hokey special effects, Starfleet sends Admiral James Kirk (William Shatner) to stop it; in a reconditioned Enterprise, now captained by Decker (Stephen Collins, wearing his bestest teddy bear pajamas), whose Federation Starship crew is made up of a bunch of humans and one guy in the back wearing a funny mask.They pick up DeForest Kelley (Bones, as irascible as ever), Leonard Nimoy (Spock, dressed as Batman), James Doohan (ever-complaining Scotty) and the three Ringos - George Takei (Sulu, who can't act), Walter Koenig (Chekov, who can't act in English) and Nichelle Nichols (Uhura, who can't act but sports a decisively street Mod Squad 'do).Added to the crew purely for prurient masturbation fantasies is Persis Khambatta as Ilia, whom the producers tried to make a better actor by shaving her head and not allowing her to wear panties. They failed. Ilia enters the ship with the line, "My Oath of Celibacy is on record." Huh? Where'd that come from? Well, it's a well-known fact the producers used Trekkie geeks as extras, so she was probably using that voodoo all day to ward off guys in homemade Starfleet uniforms who considered touching her as breaking their virginity.Rounding out the cast ineffectually is Gene Roddenberry's nepotistic wife, Majel Barrett, as Nurse Whatever, whose key scene involves spraying something on Chekov's injured arm, like she's acting as if she's spraying something on Chekov's injured arm. This is just after Chekov injures his arm by having it near some sparklers that suffice for malfunctioning electronics and crying "Aagh!" like some community theater actress.The Enterprise encounters a wormhole due to Kirk not reading the instructions - a wormhole that looks suspiciously like the delay effects in old Jimi Hendrix videos - and eventually run into the alien entity that destroyed the Klingon ships, called V'Ger, a magical artificial intelligence that adheres to no scientific or technological reality; you know, like all space films made in Hollywood.V'Ger takes over Ilia's mind and bequeaths her a miniskirt bathrobe so short we can see her v'ger. Then the Enterprise flies into quaint dye-in-water effects supposed to be the innards of V'Ger, and the crew stand around the bridge and look at the wavy colors changing on the monitor. For about three hours.There are two questions: In the first hour, "Where the hell is Spock?"; in the second hour, "What the hell is going on?" Well, Spock eventually appears in his Batman outfit, making Kirk spurt in his pants, but the answer to the second question seems to be More Special Effects.The concept turns out to be excellent: V'Ger is the Voyager space probe that Carl Sagan and NASA launched to the cosmos in the 1970s as a message of amity from Earth to the universe. After traveling to a distant civilization of robots, Voyager gained cognizance and was now returning to Earth seeking its creator.STAR TREK tries to flex its effects muscles - and strains them. Even with effects legends, John Dykstra and Douglas Trumbull, the technology just wasn't good enough back in '78; even with George Lucas's ILM on the job - but we can be pretty sure Lucas held his A-Team close to his chest, for his own little space dalliances.After feeling like a fifth wheel for the body of the movie - except when cultivating the emotionless Ilia - Decker sacrifices himself by stepping into Voyager and becoming a human-machine symbiote (or something that glows a lot) while everyone else runs and anti-climactically escapes.Thus: the human adventure begins. Be still my v'ger.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-359

ur2446936

title: Attack of The Motionless Picture. review: Maybe Harlan Ellison was first to coin the phrase, maybe it was just synergy, but STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE was roundly hailed as "The Motionless Picture." For good reason.It doesn't move. At all. In space no one can hear the grass grow.Witness the stagnant immobility as Captain Kirk and Scotty silently circumnavigate the Enterprise in a docking craft, in loving reunion, as a Captain visually undresses his ship after a long separation, and you will heartily, if not sleepily, agree.Which is ironic, considering the firestorm of indecisive action that birthed the movie Phoenix-like from its cheap, unsuccessful 1966 series that somehow spawned a cult in reruns. When fan outcry for a TREK movie reached a tipping point, Paramount execs dillydallied over whether to target the silver screen or the boob tube with a bastardized concept called STAR TREK PHASE II, a revolving door of writers and directors came and went, innumerable rewrites, pulling plugs, and TREK'S creator, Gene Roddenberry, whining about every aspect of the production from the crawlspace he was "promoted" to - until - 20th Century Fox released a tiny little thing called STAR WARS...Suddenly, in true, characteristically gutless, tunnel-visioned fashion, the heads at Paramount decide to greenlight a "space adventure" of their own - STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE.Eventually directed by Robert Wise, written by Alan Dean Foster, Harold Livingston and a host of poor, uncredited bastards who got the pointy end of Paramount's stick, STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE hits the 23rd century like a space version of THE WHO'S TOMMY - the sublime and ridiculous in an arranged marriage that serves cheap champagne at the reception with the best man getting drunk and falling into the cheese brioche.Excellent concept, terrible execution. STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE is a plodding masterpiece; brains but no balls; a whole lotta nothing, to say a small lotta something. Remember this was way back in the 23rd century, long before supporting cast were actually required to act, and just after they updated their onboard computers to 1984 standards.When three Klingon ships are destroyed by hokey special effects, by an entity traveling towards Earth to wreak more hokey special effects, Starfleet sends Admiral James Kirk (William Shatner) to stop it; in a reconditioned Enterprise, now captained by Decker (Stephen Collins, wearing his bestest teddy bear pajamas), whose Federation Starship crew is made up of a bunch of humans and one guy in the back wearing a funny mask.They pick up DeForest Kelley (Bones, as irascible as ever), Leonard Nimoy (Spock, dressed as Batman), James Doohan (ever-complaining Scotty) and the three Ringos - George Takei (Sulu, who can't act), Walter Koenig (Chekov, who can't act in English) and Nichelle Nichols (Uhura, who can't act but sports a decisively street Mod Squad 'do).Added to the crew purely for prurient masturbation fantasies is Persis Khambatta as Ilia, whom the producers tried to make a better actor by shaving her head and not allowing her to wear panties. They failed. Ilia enters the ship with the line, "My Oath of Celibacy is on record." Huh? Where'd that come from? Well, it's a well-known fact the producers used Trekkie geeks as extras, so she was probably using that voodoo all day to ward off guys in homemade Starfleet uniforms who considered touching her as breaking their virginity.Rounding out the cast ineffectually is Gene Roddenberry's nepotistic wife, Majel Barrett, as Nurse Whatever, whose key scene involves spraying something on Chekov's injured arm, like she's acting as if she's spraying something on Chekov's injured arm. This is just after Chekov injures his arm by having it near some sparklers that suffice for malfunctioning electronics and crying "Aagh!" like some community theater actress.The Enterprise encounters a wormhole due to Kirk not reading the instructions - a wormhole that looks suspiciously like the delay effects in old Jimi Hendrix videos - and eventually run into the alien entity that destroyed the Klingon ships, called V'Ger, a magical artificial intelligence that adheres to no scientific or technological reality; you know, like all space films made in Hollywood.V'Ger takes over Ilia's mind and bequeaths her a miniskirt bathrobe so short we can see her v'ger. Then the Enterprise flies into quaint dye-in-water effects supposed to be the innards of V'Ger, and the crew stand around the bridge and look at the wavy colors changing on the monitor. For about three hours.There are two questions: In the first hour, "Where the hell is Spock?"; in the second hour, "What the hell is going on?" Well, Spock eventually appears in his Batman outfit, making Kirk spurt in his pants, but the answer to the second question seems to be More Special Effects.The concept turns out to be excellent: V'Ger is the Voyager space probe that Carl Sagan and NASA launched to the cosmos in the 1970s as a message of amity from Earth to the universe. After traveling to a distant civilization of robots, Voyager gained cognizance and was now returning to Earth seeking its creator.STAR TREK tries to flex its effects muscles - and strains them. Even with effects legends, John Dykstra and Douglas Trumbull, the technology just wasn't good enough back in '78; even with George Lucas's ILM on the job - but we can be pretty sure Lucas held his A-Team close to his chest, for his own little space dalliances.After feeling like a fifth wheel for the body of the movie - except when cultivating the emotionless Ilia - Decker sacrifices himself by stepping into Voyager and becoming a human-machine symbiote (or something that glows a lot) while everyone else runs and anti-climactically escapes.Thus: the human adventure begins. Be still my v'ger.

Not bad, just kind of a weak start for the series

tt0079945

One thing we don't see often is a TV series taken to the big screen. Usually once the show is over, it's definitely over. But if it's a show like 'Star Trek,' there's so much more to explore. Despite only lasting 3 seasons, the original series gained quite a following. It took 10 years, but the first feature film became a reality. However, the reception to it wasn't the greatest. Many fans and critics were none-too-thrilled with the result. Now over 30 years old, how does the film hold up? It's not a classic by any means, but it's not one too dismiss either.Pros: Well acted. Electrifying score. Fabulous production design. Most of the effects have held up. Steady direction. Moves at a good pace most of the time. Great cinematography. Some neat ideas.Cons: Emphasizes spectacle over plot. Lacks characterization. Some dated effects. Some scenes drag on too long.Final thoughts: For this first film they really could have come up with better. That being said, what we do get is still a pleasing adventure. There's enough awe and competency in the acting and directing to keep this afloat. Things could, and would, only get better from here.My rating: 3/5

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-374

ur4597795

title: Not bad, just kind of a weak start for the series review: One thing we don't see often is a TV series taken to the big screen. Usually once the show is over, it's definitely over. But if it's a show like 'Star Trek,' there's so much more to explore. Despite only lasting 3 seasons, the original series gained quite a following. It took 10 years, but the first feature film became a reality. However, the reception to it wasn't the greatest. Many fans and critics were none-too-thrilled with the result. Now over 30 years old, how does the film hold up? It's not a classic by any means, but it's not one too dismiss either.Pros: Well acted. Electrifying score. Fabulous production design. Most of the effects have held up. Steady direction. Moves at a good pace most of the time. Great cinematography. Some neat ideas.Cons: Emphasizes spectacle over plot. Lacks characterization. Some dated effects. Some scenes drag on too long.Final thoughts: For this first film they really could have come up with better. That being said, what we do get is still a pleasing adventure. There's enough awe and competency in the acting and directing to keep this afloat. Things could, and would, only get better from here.My rating: 3/5

Yes its Slow and Long, It's still one of the best Treks.

tt0079945

When a second Star Trek series got canned in the late seventies, Paramount and Roddenberry searched for a vehicle that could reignite the so so TV show that had developed legions of followers. The end result is this long, operatic and effect laden film directed by Robert Wise of West Side Story fame.This film has ups and downs. The new Enterprise looks great, along with the still unexplained new look of the klingons. The deep and existential exploration recalls classic Kubrick in 2001. However it is these great things about the film that tear it down to casual viewers. It's slow, often painful pace will drive most viewers to go refill drinks during takes. Of particular note is what I call "The Enterprise Parade." An extremely long take as Kirk makes his way to his old ship. It takes forever and the orchestral music will drive modern fans to tears, and not of beauty. Shatner's usual non acting as well as the complete lack of any comedy, make this a hard film to sit through.But despite all that, this film still contains one of the best twists in sci-fi history and will please the more hardcore fans of trek. Still though, if your looking for action and fast pace, avoid this film like the plague, and go see Wrath of Khan.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-300

ur10486675

title: Yes its Slow and Long, It's still one of the best Treks. review: When a second Star Trek series got canned in the late seventies, Paramount and Roddenberry searched for a vehicle that could reignite the so so TV show that had developed legions of followers. The end result is this long, operatic and effect laden film directed by Robert Wise of West Side Story fame.This film has ups and downs. The new Enterprise looks great, along with the still unexplained new look of the klingons. The deep and existential exploration recalls classic Kubrick in 2001. However it is these great things about the film that tear it down to casual viewers. It's slow, often painful pace will drive most viewers to go refill drinks during takes. Of particular note is what I call "The Enterprise Parade." An extremely long take as Kirk makes his way to his old ship. It takes forever and the orchestral music will drive modern fans to tears, and not of beauty. Shatner's usual non acting as well as the complete lack of any comedy, make this a hard film to sit through.But despite all that, this film still contains one of the best twists in sci-fi history and will please the more hardcore fans of trek. Still though, if your looking for action and fast pace, avoid this film like the plague, and go see Wrath of Khan.

Action Packed Classic.

tt0079945

This film is bursting with action scenes! The scene where Kirk stares at the Enterprise, the scene where Scotty stares at the Enterprise, the scene where Bones stares at the Enterprise. The scene where the Enterprise is being stared at by Kirk is also a highlight. The scene where the Enterprise is being stared at by Scotty. The scene where the Enterprise is being stared at by Bones is another great one. The scene where they are ALL staring at the Enterprise at the same time is one of my favourites. The scene where the Enterprise is being stared at by ALL of them at the same time is even better.I love this movie! It's long. I took a girlfriend to see it and by the time it was over I had not only kissed her but we had had three children and a holiday in Greece.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-351

ur19669890

title: Action Packed Classic. review: This film is bursting with action scenes! The scene where Kirk stares at the Enterprise, the scene where Scotty stares at the Enterprise, the scene where Bones stares at the Enterprise. The scene where the Enterprise is being stared at by Kirk is also a highlight. The scene where the Enterprise is being stared at by Scotty. The scene where the Enterprise is being stared at by Bones is another great one. The scene where they are ALL staring at the Enterprise at the same time is one of my favourites. The scene where the Enterprise is being stared at by ALL of them at the same time is even better.I love this movie! It's long. I took a girlfriend to see it and by the time it was over I had not only kissed her but we had had three children and a holiday in Greece.

The Enterprise Hits the Big Screen at Impulse Speed

tt0079945

In 1979, the STAR TREK franchise boldly went where it had not yet gone before: the big screen. The cast of the popular canceled series is reunited: William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, Walter Koenig, George Takei, James Doohan, Nichelle Nichols, and even Majel Barrett and Grace Lee Whitney. The film begins a few years after the original Enterprise's mission ended. James Kirk is an admiral and has been acting as Chief of Starfleet Operations. The Enterprise has been refitted and is about to to embark with it's new captain, Willard Decker. When a mysterious gas cloud appears and begins swallowing everything in it's path, Kirk re assumes command of the modified Enterprise to investigate and intercept the object before it reaches it's final destination: Earth.This film did it's best to be epic. The production brought on talented director Robert Wise (THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL, THE SOUND OF MUSIC, etc.) and visual effects guru Douglas Trumbull (2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, etc.), but it wasn't enough to save it from mediocrity. I'll give the film credit, the special effects were great for their time and the director's edition has been improved nicely. You can tell they were proud of their $35 million budget. When we're first given our introduction to the new Enterprise, it occurs in a lengthy flyby sequence in which Scotty pilots a transporter pod far enough around the ship to give Kirk, and the audience, a nice long look. Later, when the Enterprise arrives at the cloud and begins making it's entrance into it's depths, it's a full five minutes of nothing but the filmmakers showing off their visual effects with the cloud interior. On the flip-side, all of these long visual effect sequences add up to a pretty hefty run-time of more than two hours. And it's feels longer.The entire film is very slow paced as compared to the original series. Gone is the campy action-adventure vibe of the show, making way to a somber atmospheric attempt at serious science fiction. Though it did retain some of the show's original sci-fi camp (e.g. the Ilia abduction scene). I'm not saying the story is poor, just very drawn out and lacking in any real action sequences to jolt the pace every once in a while. One final complaint, though it is a minor one: I was not a fan of the new uniforms here and I was glad they changed them again in STAR TREK II.I don't want anyone to think this movie isn't worth a viewing. It's still an interesting treat for fans of STAR TREK searching for a more serious take on the series. And for those familiar with the later series and the species of the Borg, the climactic ending almost takes on a whole new meaning.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-357

ur3947986

title: The Enterprise Hits the Big Screen at Impulse Speed review: In 1979, the STAR TREK franchise boldly went where it had not yet gone before: the big screen. The cast of the popular canceled series is reunited: William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, Walter Koenig, George Takei, James Doohan, Nichelle Nichols, and even Majel Barrett and Grace Lee Whitney. The film begins a few years after the original Enterprise's mission ended. James Kirk is an admiral and has been acting as Chief of Starfleet Operations. The Enterprise has been refitted and is about to to embark with it's new captain, Willard Decker. When a mysterious gas cloud appears and begins swallowing everything in it's path, Kirk re assumes command of the modified Enterprise to investigate and intercept the object before it reaches it's final destination: Earth.This film did it's best to be epic. The production brought on talented director Robert Wise (THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL, THE SOUND OF MUSIC, etc.) and visual effects guru Douglas Trumbull (2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, etc.), but it wasn't enough to save it from mediocrity. I'll give the film credit, the special effects were great for their time and the director's edition has been improved nicely. You can tell they were proud of their $35 million budget. When we're first given our introduction to the new Enterprise, it occurs in a lengthy flyby sequence in which Scotty pilots a transporter pod far enough around the ship to give Kirk, and the audience, a nice long look. Later, when the Enterprise arrives at the cloud and begins making it's entrance into it's depths, it's a full five minutes of nothing but the filmmakers showing off their visual effects with the cloud interior. On the flip-side, all of these long visual effect sequences add up to a pretty hefty run-time of more than two hours. And it's feels longer.The entire film is very slow paced as compared to the original series. Gone is the campy action-adventure vibe of the show, making way to a somber atmospheric attempt at serious science fiction. Though it did retain some of the show's original sci-fi camp (e.g. the Ilia abduction scene). I'm not saying the story is poor, just very drawn out and lacking in any real action sequences to jolt the pace every once in a while. One final complaint, though it is a minor one: I was not a fan of the new uniforms here and I was glad they changed them again in STAR TREK II.I don't want anyone to think this movie isn't worth a viewing. It's still an interesting treat for fans of STAR TREK searching for a more serious take on the series. And for those familiar with the later series and the species of the Borg, the climactic ending almost takes on a whole new meaning.

"Why am I here? What was I meant to be?"

tt0079945

It took a good ten years to adapt Star Trek, one of the best and most famous sci-fi TV shows of all time, for the big screen. When they finally did, Star Trek: The Motion Picture premiered to showcase a big, bold, extravagant spectacle, and a story that promised to be the end-all be-all Trek adventure.The problem is, watching this film has always been a weird experience. Despite the gorgeous model work and special effects, there really isn't much action to this, and the pacing overall is rather slow. Even at its smartest, the Star Trek series and all its future incarnations always had an adventurous spirit embedded with its stories; this movie strips away the adventure in favor of a strict and somewhat cold piece of hard sci-fi. There's little warmth, and certainly no real bang, to this picture.That being said, it still has its merits. The interstellar odyssey through the V'Ger cloud could be seen as something wondrous and awe-inspiring. The biggest draw to this film will be its story, which showcases a very clever high-concept premise with strong overarching philosophical themes of existence, purpose, and the human spirit.The plot holding these concepts up is a pretty standard affair, but is stretched rather thinly due to a number of lengthy scenes that could have easily been cut from the film. A lot of screen time is devoted to endless beauty shots of the Enterprise, there's a weird and silly scene where everybody's trapped in a wormhole for some odd reason, and there's a seemingly-pointless scene involving a transporter accident. What really throws me off, however, are the characters. The original cast is all here - Captain Kirk, Commander Spock, Dr. McCoy, Uhura, Checkov, Sulu, Scotty - but Spock is the only one of the lot who actually feels like a main character. In this movie, it's Decker and Ilia who take the center stage, and they go through a romantic spiel that borders on being sappy.Photography and editing are generally good in this film. Acting is disappointingly dry from the classic Trek crew, possibly because they're not given much to do as they are in the sequels. Leonard Nimoy is easily the biggest standout here; William Shatner does the best he can to make Captain Kirk cool again, and DeForest Kelley throws out some occasionally crass and witty lines. As the true main character, Stephen Collins comes off as rather dull. Persis Khambatta might be the best and most interesting performance here. Writing is not bad, especially regarding the high-brow aspects of the film, but it lacks a certain personality overall. This production has some rather gaudy costumes, but most sets, props, and special effects are great. Music is great too.In the same fashion as 2001: A Space Odyssey, I have to really be in the right mood to watch this film. Both 2001 and Star Trek: The Motion Picture are space operas with very big special effects and very big ideas, but aren't that big on character building. As a Trek film, this first feature can be a rather dry and bewildering experience, especially if you're looking to see the original Enterprise crew in action. As a piece of intelligent sci-fi, with a pair of entirely strange new characters in the lead, it can be an interesting and rewarding experience. Especially for the Director's Cut of this film, which is a little more evenly-paced, and features some smashing new special effects.It's worth a look for interested sci-fi fans and most Star Trek fans.3.5/5 (Entertainment: Average | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Good)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-387

ur24364152

title: "Why am I here? What was I meant to be?" review: It took a good ten years to adapt Star Trek, one of the best and most famous sci-fi TV shows of all time, for the big screen. When they finally did, Star Trek: The Motion Picture premiered to showcase a big, bold, extravagant spectacle, and a story that promised to be the end-all be-all Trek adventure.The problem is, watching this film has always been a weird experience. Despite the gorgeous model work and special effects, there really isn't much action to this, and the pacing overall is rather slow. Even at its smartest, the Star Trek series and all its future incarnations always had an adventurous spirit embedded with its stories; this movie strips away the adventure in favor of a strict and somewhat cold piece of hard sci-fi. There's little warmth, and certainly no real bang, to this picture.That being said, it still has its merits. The interstellar odyssey through the V'Ger cloud could be seen as something wondrous and awe-inspiring. The biggest draw to this film will be its story, which showcases a very clever high-concept premise with strong overarching philosophical themes of existence, purpose, and the human spirit.The plot holding these concepts up is a pretty standard affair, but is stretched rather thinly due to a number of lengthy scenes that could have easily been cut from the film. A lot of screen time is devoted to endless beauty shots of the Enterprise, there's a weird and silly scene where everybody's trapped in a wormhole for some odd reason, and there's a seemingly-pointless scene involving a transporter accident. What really throws me off, however, are the characters. The original cast is all here - Captain Kirk, Commander Spock, Dr. McCoy, Uhura, Checkov, Sulu, Scotty - but Spock is the only one of the lot who actually feels like a main character. In this movie, it's Decker and Ilia who take the center stage, and they go through a romantic spiel that borders on being sappy.Photography and editing are generally good in this film. Acting is disappointingly dry from the classic Trek crew, possibly because they're not given much to do as they are in the sequels. Leonard Nimoy is easily the biggest standout here; William Shatner does the best he can to make Captain Kirk cool again, and DeForest Kelley throws out some occasionally crass and witty lines. As the true main character, Stephen Collins comes off as rather dull. Persis Khambatta might be the best and most interesting performance here. Writing is not bad, especially regarding the high-brow aspects of the film, but it lacks a certain personality overall. This production has some rather gaudy costumes, but most sets, props, and special effects are great. Music is great too.In the same fashion as 2001: A Space Odyssey, I have to really be in the right mood to watch this film. Both 2001 and Star Trek: The Motion Picture are space operas with very big special effects and very big ideas, but aren't that big on character building. As a Trek film, this first feature can be a rather dry and bewildering experience, especially if you're looking to see the original Enterprise crew in action. As a piece of intelligent sci-fi, with a pair of entirely strange new characters in the lead, it can be an interesting and rewarding experience. Especially for the Director's Cut of this film, which is a little more evenly-paced, and features some smashing new special effects.It's worth a look for interested sci-fi fans and most Star Trek fans.3.5/5 (Entertainment: Average | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Good)

"It only knows that it wants but like so many of us, does not know what."

tt0079945

A self-important and curiously cold adaptation of the T.V series that succeeds in promoting big-screen spectacle and a touch of the epic but misses the chance of recreate the warmth between the main cast that made them popular and secured the shows longevity post-cancellation.The problem with The Motion Picture is that Robert Wise, he who inflicted The Sound of Music and West Side Story on a generation, isn't sure what kind of movie it's supposed to be. It owes its existence to Star Wars but Wise would rather fashion something that looks more like 2001, so its all beauty shots and existential pontification rather than old fashioned intergalactic fun and games. That said, the pluses are the visual effects, which are occasionally tremendous and the score, Jerry Goldsmith at the top of his game - in either respect it can't be faulted but its an unforgivably boring two hours - humourless, slow and characterless so that Shatner, Nimoy and co. look and sound awkward, like a bunch of workers trying to stay civil following a massive argument. The production design makes the new Enterprise look sterile and pallid while the script is too self-consciously straight faced for its own good - these look like the cast we know but they're lifeless shadows of their former selves. It must have been hard for the fans who waited 10 years but Star Trek 1 is a bit of a $40M clunker - money thrown at the screen with scant regard for that all important screenplay. The sequel cost less than half of this but its about 8 times as good, a meaty character driven adventure laced with wit and good humour - The fine wine that follows the overpriced, microscopic main course that didn't taste of anything but had a beautifully dressed side salad.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-233

ur1982609

title: "It only knows that it wants but like so many of us, does not know what." review: A self-important and curiously cold adaptation of the T.V series that succeeds in promoting big-screen spectacle and a touch of the epic but misses the chance of recreate the warmth between the main cast that made them popular and secured the shows longevity post-cancellation.The problem with The Motion Picture is that Robert Wise, he who inflicted The Sound of Music and West Side Story on a generation, isn't sure what kind of movie it's supposed to be. It owes its existence to Star Wars but Wise would rather fashion something that looks more like 2001, so its all beauty shots and existential pontification rather than old fashioned intergalactic fun and games. That said, the pluses are the visual effects, which are occasionally tremendous and the score, Jerry Goldsmith at the top of his game - in either respect it can't be faulted but its an unforgivably boring two hours - humourless, slow and characterless so that Shatner, Nimoy and co. look and sound awkward, like a bunch of workers trying to stay civil following a massive argument. The production design makes the new Enterprise look sterile and pallid while the script is too self-consciously straight faced for its own good - these look like the cast we know but they're lifeless shadows of their former selves. It must have been hard for the fans who waited 10 years but Star Trek 1 is a bit of a $40M clunker - money thrown at the screen with scant regard for that all important screenplay. The sequel cost less than half of this but its about 8 times as good, a meaty character driven adventure laced with wit and good humour - The fine wine that follows the overpriced, microscopic main course that didn't taste of anything but had a beautifully dressed side salad.

To boldly go where Bob has gone before (DVD)

tt0079945

It was moving to see that at his great age, one of the most respected Hollywood directors is still eager to revisit his Trek movie and immortalizes this late work with his commentary. It's all the more interesting that in my opinion, his first vision was really great: SMTP was a masterpiece in science fiction movies. But as I have seen it long ago, i can't really notice the differences between the two versions. The most evident is the exit on the hull because it's true that the original perspective was really bizarre.But then, I felt that the return of the franchise was refreshing: the colored suits are gone for bright uniforms that aren't filled with any military spirit unlike all the others sequels. The Goldsmith's score is exceptional and the long, never-ending trip to the Enterprise is perfectly tied with the characters. On board, Ylia was an outstanding newcomer that confirms science fiction can speak with less.Above all, this mission is a success: I can't find any other science fiction movies that illustrate the unknown territory. For 2 hours, you go to a wonderful, mysterious trip with unseen and artistic environment. In addition, it's also a philosophical quest wondering about knowledge, humanity and religion. The movie is so rich that its visuals have set the standard for all the sequels, and that the probe element has been used again in ST4 and the quest for god in ST5! Maybe the characters are a bit tensed and melodramatic but what about the failure of ST3? Here, it fits with the subject and as good franchises, the core of characters allows multiple mood in each movie. Just pick the one you are looking for! Well, for me, the 12 years / 6 movies mission has been completed backwards: so I left them as a young crew and thank them for all those good times!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-353

ur1803589

title: To boldly go where Bob has gone before (DVD) review: It was moving to see that at his great age, one of the most respected Hollywood directors is still eager to revisit his Trek movie and immortalizes this late work with his commentary. It's all the more interesting that in my opinion, his first vision was really great: SMTP was a masterpiece in science fiction movies. But as I have seen it long ago, i can't really notice the differences between the two versions. The most evident is the exit on the hull because it's true that the original perspective was really bizarre.But then, I felt that the return of the franchise was refreshing: the colored suits are gone for bright uniforms that aren't filled with any military spirit unlike all the others sequels. The Goldsmith's score is exceptional and the long, never-ending trip to the Enterprise is perfectly tied with the characters. On board, Ylia was an outstanding newcomer that confirms science fiction can speak with less.Above all, this mission is a success: I can't find any other science fiction movies that illustrate the unknown territory. For 2 hours, you go to a wonderful, mysterious trip with unseen and artistic environment. In addition, it's also a philosophical quest wondering about knowledge, humanity and religion. The movie is so rich that its visuals have set the standard for all the sequels, and that the probe element has been used again in ST4 and the quest for god in ST5! Maybe the characters are a bit tensed and melodramatic but what about the failure of ST3? Here, it fits with the subject and as good franchises, the core of characters allows multiple mood in each movie. Just pick the one you are looking for! Well, for me, the 12 years / 6 movies mission has been completed backwards: so I left them as a young crew and thank them for all those good times!

Has some interesting elements but it's mostly being a bit of a bore.

tt0079945

Oh my! This is just not a very good movie. But I'm still a bit torn, since the movie in fact does has its moments and there are still plenty of good and interesting ideas in this movie.It's still remained a bit of a disappointment, watching this movie. Not that I expected anything great from it but it at least has a somewhat decent reputation and got directed by Robert Wise, who I consider to be one of the best directors that ever lived. The movie however was suffering from a bit too many problems to consider this a truly great one. I still give it somewhat the benefit of the doubt, so to speak, since it still did had its interesting moments.One of the things that the movie is suffering from is that it's being stuck somewhere between a sci-fi adventure and a more "2001: A Space Odyssey" type of science-fiction movie. It's just not a combination of sci-fi story aspects that works out too well and also constantly provides the movie with a lot of slower moments, which lets this movie sort of feel like a very stretched out "Star Trek" television episode.And the story is also being pretty standard and simple. Basically they spend the first hour of the movie trying to figure out what's the dangerous object that is on a course to Earth and they spend the second half of the movie trying to figure out what it wants and not necessarily how it can be stopped, though the one thing still leads to the other of course. And this story there are some pretty good and interesting ideas, which does give the movie some more depth but overall they didn't do quite a good enough job with it and left some missed opportunities here and there.Also please don't watch this movie expecting to see a lot of sci-fi action or spectacle. There is absolutely none of that present in this movie! No, not even a simple space fight or some hand to hand combat. Not that this is being necessarily a bad thing but it would had spiced things up a little more at times, which was something this movie truly could had used.The special effects are pretty good. It's no "Star Wars" material but it's definitely acceptable looking, for 1979 standards. And some of the visuals are definitely impressive and great looking actually and help to give the movie a certain look and atmosphere, which makes it definitely a notch above the average sci-fi entry of its time."Star Trek" always had plenty of characters in it but yet this movie still feels the need to introduce new once as well. Not really anything necessary and it prevents some of the Enterprise crew members from shining in this movie. Doubt the fans would have complained too much about it though, since they were probably just more than happy to see their favorites characters return to the screen, 10 years after the first series had already ended.I still did wished that the movie would had given some of the other characters some more room to shine. The movie gives you the feeling it could had done a lot more with the Spock and Dr. McCoy character for instance. But it's really mostly being the Captain Kirk show instead and my oh my, does William Shatner's acting stink! It's completely over-the-top but it does has its charm, I'll admit to that.All in all, far from a great movie but still one that deserves to get the benefit of the doubt, since it has some good moments and there is also still plenty for the fans of the franchise to see and enjoy in this movie and it has a beautiful Jerry Goldsmith musical score as well of course!7/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-377

ur1416505

title: Has some interesting elements but it's mostly being a bit of a bore. review: Oh my! This is just not a very good movie. But I'm still a bit torn, since the movie in fact does has its moments and there are still plenty of good and interesting ideas in this movie.It's still remained a bit of a disappointment, watching this movie. Not that I expected anything great from it but it at least has a somewhat decent reputation and got directed by Robert Wise, who I consider to be one of the best directors that ever lived. The movie however was suffering from a bit too many problems to consider this a truly great one. I still give it somewhat the benefit of the doubt, so to speak, since it still did had its interesting moments.One of the things that the movie is suffering from is that it's being stuck somewhere between a sci-fi adventure and a more "2001: A Space Odyssey" type of science-fiction movie. It's just not a combination of sci-fi story aspects that works out too well and also constantly provides the movie with a lot of slower moments, which lets this movie sort of feel like a very stretched out "Star Trek" television episode.And the story is also being pretty standard and simple. Basically they spend the first hour of the movie trying to figure out what's the dangerous object that is on a course to Earth and they spend the second half of the movie trying to figure out what it wants and not necessarily how it can be stopped, though the one thing still leads to the other of course. And this story there are some pretty good and interesting ideas, which does give the movie some more depth but overall they didn't do quite a good enough job with it and left some missed opportunities here and there.Also please don't watch this movie expecting to see a lot of sci-fi action or spectacle. There is absolutely none of that present in this movie! No, not even a simple space fight or some hand to hand combat. Not that this is being necessarily a bad thing but it would had spiced things up a little more at times, which was something this movie truly could had used.The special effects are pretty good. It's no "Star Wars" material but it's definitely acceptable looking, for 1979 standards. And some of the visuals are definitely impressive and great looking actually and help to give the movie a certain look and atmosphere, which makes it definitely a notch above the average sci-fi entry of its time."Star Trek" always had plenty of characters in it but yet this movie still feels the need to introduce new once as well. Not really anything necessary and it prevents some of the Enterprise crew members from shining in this movie. Doubt the fans would have complained too much about it though, since they were probably just more than happy to see their favorites characters return to the screen, 10 years after the first series had already ended.I still did wished that the movie would had given some of the other characters some more room to shine. The movie gives you the feeling it could had done a lot more with the Spock and Dr. McCoy character for instance. But it's really mostly being the Captain Kirk show instead and my oh my, does William Shatner's acting stink! It's completely over-the-top but it does has its charm, I'll admit to that.All in all, far from a great movie but still one that deserves to get the benefit of the doubt, since it has some good moments and there is also still plenty for the fans of the franchise to see and enjoy in this movie and it has a beautiful Jerry Goldsmith musical score as well of course!7/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Surprisingly good, but exhausting at 132 minutes

tt0079945

I have decided that I wanted to tackle an entire franchise of films. When posing this idea to Tom, he immediately stated that I should see all of the Star Trek films. Eek, I thought!! Not ever being a fan of it, I had only been exposed to the original series that was shown constantly on BBC Two as I was growing up, and the later series The Next Generation, that I had seen a few episodes of from the late '80's, and I was never enamored by it - I am certainly no 'Trekkie'. My only experience of the films was the very recent J. J. Abrams 'reboot', that I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed. With trepidation, I began the series, inevitably, from the very start. And I have to confess I was pleasantly surprised with it, despite it being an odd number film (if you are unaware, the fan world suggests that only the even numbered Star Trek films are any good).The main crux of the story focuses on an unidentified phenomenon that is heading towards Earth, destroying everything in it's path. This brings back together the original crew of the Starship Enterprise: Kirk (William Shatner), Spock (Leonard Nimoy), Bones (DeForest Kelly), Scotty (James Doohan), et al. Their task is to stop the strange enemy. The villain of the piece is certainly an interesting one. A more cerebral monster, in a state of existential crisis, the team have quite a task to penetrate it's unknown dangers.Aside from the awfulness of Shatner - he genuinely can't act - the characters are interesting, and with Kirk's usurping of the Enterprises captain at the start seems to create an interesting duality. This is quickly thrown to the side. There is an interesting and theoretically disturbing scene at the start of the film, we see the teleportation units that 'beam up' crew members go horribly wrong. The result - whilst not seen - is horrifying, as the fundamentals of teleportation require that the body is broken into it's most basic molecules and reconstructed in a different place. This transaction was never completed, and therefore the bodies of the travelers, are never fully restructured.With some science consultancy from the great sci-fi writer, Isaac Asimov, the film surely had some credentials. The special effects were overseen by Douglas Trumball and John Dykstra, and the results are often astounding, even today. Whilst not capturing the fun and excitement of Star Wars (1977), this more cerebral, esoteric space adventure, offers a more 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) stance on space than the Flash Gordon/Buck Rogers elements of Star Wars. It's not a great film, but I was absolutely amazed that it was actually good. However, at an exhausting 132 minutes, the film could have been tighter with a few trims here and there. It would have benefited with a 100 minute running time.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-366

ur3741220

title: Surprisingly good, but exhausting at 132 minutes review: I have decided that I wanted to tackle an entire franchise of films. When posing this idea to Tom, he immediately stated that I should see all of the Star Trek films. Eek, I thought!! Not ever being a fan of it, I had only been exposed to the original series that was shown constantly on BBC Two as I was growing up, and the later series The Next Generation, that I had seen a few episodes of from the late '80's, and I was never enamored by it - I am certainly no 'Trekkie'. My only experience of the films was the very recent J. J. Abrams 'reboot', that I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed. With trepidation, I began the series, inevitably, from the very start. And I have to confess I was pleasantly surprised with it, despite it being an odd number film (if you are unaware, the fan world suggests that only the even numbered Star Trek films are any good).The main crux of the story focuses on an unidentified phenomenon that is heading towards Earth, destroying everything in it's path. This brings back together the original crew of the Starship Enterprise: Kirk (William Shatner), Spock (Leonard Nimoy), Bones (DeForest Kelly), Scotty (James Doohan), et al. Their task is to stop the strange enemy. The villain of the piece is certainly an interesting one. A more cerebral monster, in a state of existential crisis, the team have quite a task to penetrate it's unknown dangers.Aside from the awfulness of Shatner - he genuinely can't act - the characters are interesting, and with Kirk's usurping of the Enterprises captain at the start seems to create an interesting duality. This is quickly thrown to the side. There is an interesting and theoretically disturbing scene at the start of the film, we see the teleportation units that 'beam up' crew members go horribly wrong. The result - whilst not seen - is horrifying, as the fundamentals of teleportation require that the body is broken into it's most basic molecules and reconstructed in a different place. This transaction was never completed, and therefore the bodies of the travelers, are never fully restructured.With some science consultancy from the great sci-fi writer, Isaac Asimov, the film surely had some credentials. The special effects were overseen by Douglas Trumball and John Dykstra, and the results are often astounding, even today. Whilst not capturing the fun and excitement of Star Wars (1977), this more cerebral, esoteric space adventure, offers a more 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) stance on space than the Flash Gordon/Buck Rogers elements of Star Wars. It's not a great film, but I was absolutely amazed that it was actually good. However, at an exhausting 132 minutes, the film could have been tighter with a few trims here and there. It would have benefited with a 100 minute running time.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

A mundane film bereft of the anticipated energy and verve

tt0079945

Hot on the heels of the success of Star Wars,the people behind Star Trek saw an opportunity to revive a cancelled TV series and acted quickly.This shows as we are presented with a plodding film that lacks the fizz of its inspiration but is well produced and at least visually interesting.The plot is a non starter so i wont bore you with a breakdown here, needless to say its a side dish to the main feast which are the visual effects.The set designs are incredible but the cast seem muted and never come to life.The fun tone of the series is completely scrapped in favour of an earnest and serious feel.The film has a good sense of scale but doesn't engage on a dramatic level and lacks the humour that one would expect of the seasoned cast.The film actually has a lot more in common with Kubricks 2001 than Lucas' Star Wars.Its a bad way to start a franchise and was an underwhelming experience for hardcore fans and passives alike. Its just as well that the next film was a cracker.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-309

ur9150302

title: A mundane film bereft of the anticipated energy and verve review: Hot on the heels of the success of Star Wars,the people behind Star Trek saw an opportunity to revive a cancelled TV series and acted quickly.This shows as we are presented with a plodding film that lacks the fizz of its inspiration but is well produced and at least visually interesting.The plot is a non starter so i wont bore you with a breakdown here, needless to say its a side dish to the main feast which are the visual effects.The set designs are incredible but the cast seem muted and never come to life.The fun tone of the series is completely scrapped in favour of an earnest and serious feel.The film has a good sense of scale but doesn't engage on a dramatic level and lacks the humour that one would expect of the seasoned cast.The film actually has a lot more in common with Kubricks 2001 than Lucas' Star Wars.Its a bad way to start a franchise and was an underwhelming experience for hardcore fans and passives alike. Its just as well that the next film was a cracker.

The longest episode

tt0079945

OK, so the first time isn't always the best, but is usually memorable.TMP was better left as the pilot to Star Trek II; the series... but translated to a great reunion film anyhow. Yes, the plot was long, drawn out and a bit messy, but in the end, everyone was back together and only the likable characters who no one actually liked were killed. Besides, without this muddled premise, Roddenberry may never have thought of the Borg, who he often eluded may have been an after effect of the 'union' of Decker and Ilya.What it lacks in epic, it makes up for in place setting... 5 years after the show but 5 years before 'Wrath of Khan'.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-313

ur19883925

title: The longest episode review: OK, so the first time isn't always the best, but is usually memorable.TMP was better left as the pilot to Star Trek II; the series... but translated to a great reunion film anyhow. Yes, the plot was long, drawn out and a bit messy, but in the end, everyone was back together and only the likable characters who no one actually liked were killed. Besides, without this muddled premise, Roddenberry may never have thought of the Borg, who he often eluded may have been an after effect of the 'union' of Decker and Ilya.What it lacks in epic, it makes up for in place setting... 5 years after the show but 5 years before 'Wrath of Khan'.

Will Disappoint Long-Time Star Trek Fans.Feels More Like A Long,Mediocre Episode,

tt0079945

Star Trek: The Motion Picture is a good movie with a storyline that gets a bit carried away with itself,but a strong cast and brilliant characters still make this movie watchable.I am not a huge fan of Star Trek,but every time I watch it I enjoy it,and I do understand why this movie would disappoint a lot of the die hard Star Trek fans,probably the most loyal fans on the planet.I found the story and some of the dialogue stupid at times,but I still enjoyed this movie because William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy still manage to deliver great performances as Captain Kirk and Spock.Trekkies will definitely be disappointed with their first big screen adventure and should probably just watch three episodes in a row instead,but I do feel people who enjoy sci-fi that aren't die hard fans could enjoy Star Trek: The Motion Picture a lot more.Captain Kirk leads the Starship Enterprise to put a stop to an entity on its way to Earth to find its creator.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-396

ur23055365

title: Will Disappoint Long-Time Star Trek Fans.Feels More Like A Long,Mediocre Episode, review: Star Trek: The Motion Picture is a good movie with a storyline that gets a bit carried away with itself,but a strong cast and brilliant characters still make this movie watchable.I am not a huge fan of Star Trek,but every time I watch it I enjoy it,and I do understand why this movie would disappoint a lot of the die hard Star Trek fans,probably the most loyal fans on the planet.I found the story and some of the dialogue stupid at times,but I still enjoyed this movie because William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy still manage to deliver great performances as Captain Kirk and Spock.Trekkies will definitely be disappointed with their first big screen adventure and should probably just watch three episodes in a row instead,but I do feel people who enjoy sci-fi that aren't die hard fans could enjoy Star Trek: The Motion Picture a lot more.Captain Kirk leads the Starship Enterprise to put a stop to an entity on its way to Earth to find its creator.

Leonard Nimoy and Harve Bennett, RIP

tt0079945

The recent deaths of Leonard Nimoy and Harve Bennett made me want to see "Star Trek: The Motion Picture". Amid all the nerdy stuff, the movie is more of a philosophical look at humanity's place in the universe. V'Ger's communication attempts mirror HAL's discussions with humans in "2001". Even Spock - usually the guy who has a problem understanding emotions - proclaims "Logic is not enough".It probably surprised people that Robert Wise (previously known as the director of "West Side Story" and "The Sound of Music") directed a movie that was sure to appeal to nerds. I, for one, imagine songs like "I've Just Met a Girl Named Ilia" and "The Stars Are Alive with the Sound of V'Ger". But Wise knew what he was doing here (he was wise to direct it, you might say).My personal favorite of the the Star Trek movies is "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home", in which the Enterprise goes back in time to pick up some whales. But I also recommend this one. The franchise remains one of the most intellectual ones ever (the Star Wars franchise always seemed like it went more for high action). It's not a masterpiece, but I enjoyed it.As for Nimoy and Bennett, there's no doubt that both of them lived long and prospered.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-424

ur4888011

title: Leonard Nimoy and Harve Bennett, RIP review: The recent deaths of Leonard Nimoy and Harve Bennett made me want to see "Star Trek: The Motion Picture". Amid all the nerdy stuff, the movie is more of a philosophical look at humanity's place in the universe. V'Ger's communication attempts mirror HAL's discussions with humans in "2001". Even Spock - usually the guy who has a problem understanding emotions - proclaims "Logic is not enough".It probably surprised people that Robert Wise (previously known as the director of "West Side Story" and "The Sound of Music") directed a movie that was sure to appeal to nerds. I, for one, imagine songs like "I've Just Met a Girl Named Ilia" and "The Stars Are Alive with the Sound of V'Ger". But Wise knew what he was doing here (he was wise to direct it, you might say).My personal favorite of the the Star Trek movies is "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home", in which the Enterprise goes back in time to pick up some whales. But I also recommend this one. The franchise remains one of the most intellectual ones ever (the Star Wars franchise always seemed like it went more for high action). It's not a masterpiece, but I enjoyed it.As for Nimoy and Bennett, there's no doubt that both of them lived long and prospered.

Great Science Fiction Film, GREAT Star Trek Film

tt0079945

A lot of people may complain about this film, saying it is too bland and too boring, but in my opinion, it's a great science fiction film, it just needs a little work done on it. I also believe it is a good way to start up the Star Trek movie series, ending with the dry Star Trek: Nemesis in 2002 and being rebooted in Star Trek in 2009.William Shatner is Captain Kirk, obviously, and Leonard Nimoy is Spock. Along with the rest of the crew of the Enterprise, they must examine a large space cloud that can destroy ships. The effects on the cloud are pretty neat, but are a bit callous when it comes to the effects in Star Wars, released two years prior. Other characters include Bones Mccoy, played by DeForest Kelley, Scotty played by James Doohan, Stephen Collins as Willard Decker, and many more.This is going to be the last Star Trek film I review on IMDb because I feel that I should move onto other sci-fi films, but this film is great, odd, but great. It may be corny and odd and have it's acid trip moments, but it's a great sci-fi film that deserves to be treated better. If you are a die-hard Trekkie (I'm not, but I have a little in my blood)I say check it out. May the force be with you! Oops! Sorry! I mean live long and prosper!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-332

ur21957777

title: Great Science Fiction Film, GREAT Star Trek Film review: A lot of people may complain about this film, saying it is too bland and too boring, but in my opinion, it's a great science fiction film, it just needs a little work done on it. I also believe it is a good way to start up the Star Trek movie series, ending with the dry Star Trek: Nemesis in 2002 and being rebooted in Star Trek in 2009.William Shatner is Captain Kirk, obviously, and Leonard Nimoy is Spock. Along with the rest of the crew of the Enterprise, they must examine a large space cloud that can destroy ships. The effects on the cloud are pretty neat, but are a bit callous when it comes to the effects in Star Wars, released two years prior. Other characters include Bones Mccoy, played by DeForest Kelley, Scotty played by James Doohan, Stephen Collins as Willard Decker, and many more.This is going to be the last Star Trek film I review on IMDb because I feel that I should move onto other sci-fi films, but this film is great, odd, but great. It may be corny and odd and have it's acid trip moments, but it's a great sci-fi film that deserves to be treated better. If you are a die-hard Trekkie (I'm not, but I have a little in my blood)I say check it out. May the force be with you! Oops! Sorry! I mean live long and prosper!

Dated but brilliant

tt0079945

Brilliantly intelligent kickstart to the (possibly) most successful run of serial movies in history!!This movie was not about action. It was about the beginning of a long and successful series of movies which were an extension of a long-running and successful television series.V'GER is coming! Complete with the entire original cast of the hugely triumphant cult classic TV series, "Star Trek," it was an absolute joy to see them on the big screen, after having grown up with them on the small screen. I remember the awe this movie inspired being much like that of "Star Wars: Episode IV." Compared to the technology we have today, ie: CGI, digital sound, digital video enhancement, etc; this movie is now a little dated, and thereby loses a tiny bit of its edge, but not one drop of its lovability or creativity does it lack. Directed by Robert Wise, the director of "The Andromeda Strain" and the original "The Haunting," 1969, this wonderful sci-fi legacy is a must-have in any library. I highly suggest the collector's edition DVD with 40 minutes or so of re-added, remastered footage. They don't just give you those deleted scenes, they have re-edited them back into the movie, where they belonged! (Such fate should be in store for "Superman IV." Maybe it wouldn't be the turkey it is, if they would put back the almost 50 minutes of story line left on the cutting room floor.)V'GER is a destructive space entity heading towards Earth, and it's up to our beloved captain and crew to head it off at the pass. While the premise is typical, there is nothing whatsoever typical about the direction, performances, or effects of this movie. They are state-of-the-art, top of the line and are still effective today; some nearly twenty-five years later. To stand the test of time, in a sci-fi venue is truly to have created a masterpiece. Now, this has been dubbed, "Star Trek: The Motion-less Picture," and "Where Nomad has Gone Before." While I can see the point of that (this movie is rather slow and has very little action), it really isn't (and wasn't) fair to the movie, as a whole.This movie came after the cancellation of the series, and most of us were starving for anything "Star Trek." I waited in line for three DAYS, in the freezing cold and rain to buy tickets to see this on opening day, the first showing, in the theater, and I was not the least bit disappointed. It was a rather odd day for the movie to be released. I was in Arizona...and it was December 7th. If you can fit that together, you will readily see why I remember the day so clearly. The drubbing this film received was just wrong. "Star Trek" was always about ideals and principles, with action as a subtext, rather than the main theme. And yes, while Kirk was a devil-may-care captain who frequently broke the rules on the side of what was right, rather than what was proper; in this movie, he did not. He stuck to the rules which disappointed a few people, true enough. But I was not disappointed that in this first movie, Kirk's attitude and resentment of authority was toned down in place of better acting and a stronger appreciation for the wonders of deep space. This story is rich and full of detail. The characters, which were already so well developed no one needed further character building; and yet, the character development was very well established, for those who were not fans of the series, and were possibly viewing this much-loved crew for the first time. It added extra lovability to the characters we already knew and loved, and lent a richness to the whole production which it otherwise would have lacked. The vastly creative ideas surrounding the origins of V'GER are brilliantly conceived and executed. I won't spoil it for those of you who have not seen it, except to say that, as often is the case with "Star Trek," there is a message there. I love this movie, and every single individual movie which follows it in this series, but this one was the one to start it all and therefore deserves the respect of anyone daring to claim the honor of being a "Trekkie." It rates a 9.0/10 from...the Fiend :.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-189

ur2626332

title: Dated but brilliant review: Brilliantly intelligent kickstart to the (possibly) most successful run of serial movies in history!!This movie was not about action. It was about the beginning of a long and successful series of movies which were an extension of a long-running and successful television series.V'GER is coming! Complete with the entire original cast of the hugely triumphant cult classic TV series, "Star Trek," it was an absolute joy to see them on the big screen, after having grown up with them on the small screen. I remember the awe this movie inspired being much like that of "Star Wars: Episode IV." Compared to the technology we have today, ie: CGI, digital sound, digital video enhancement, etc; this movie is now a little dated, and thereby loses a tiny bit of its edge, but not one drop of its lovability or creativity does it lack. Directed by Robert Wise, the director of "The Andromeda Strain" and the original "The Haunting," 1969, this wonderful sci-fi legacy is a must-have in any library. I highly suggest the collector's edition DVD with 40 minutes or so of re-added, remastered footage. They don't just give you those deleted scenes, they have re-edited them back into the movie, where they belonged! (Such fate should be in store for "Superman IV." Maybe it wouldn't be the turkey it is, if they would put back the almost 50 minutes of story line left on the cutting room floor.)V'GER is a destructive space entity heading towards Earth, and it's up to our beloved captain and crew to head it off at the pass. While the premise is typical, there is nothing whatsoever typical about the direction, performances, or effects of this movie. They are state-of-the-art, top of the line and are still effective today; some nearly twenty-five years later. To stand the test of time, in a sci-fi venue is truly to have created a masterpiece. Now, this has been dubbed, "Star Trek: The Motion-less Picture," and "Where Nomad has Gone Before." While I can see the point of that (this movie is rather slow and has very little action), it really isn't (and wasn't) fair to the movie, as a whole.This movie came after the cancellation of the series, and most of us were starving for anything "Star Trek." I waited in line for three DAYS, in the freezing cold and rain to buy tickets to see this on opening day, the first showing, in the theater, and I was not the least bit disappointed. It was a rather odd day for the movie to be released. I was in Arizona...and it was December 7th. If you can fit that together, you will readily see why I remember the day so clearly. The drubbing this film received was just wrong. "Star Trek" was always about ideals and principles, with action as a subtext, rather than the main theme. And yes, while Kirk was a devil-may-care captain who frequently broke the rules on the side of what was right, rather than what was proper; in this movie, he did not. He stuck to the rules which disappointed a few people, true enough. But I was not disappointed that in this first movie, Kirk's attitude and resentment of authority was toned down in place of better acting and a stronger appreciation for the wonders of deep space. This story is rich and full of detail. The characters, which were already so well developed no one needed further character building; and yet, the character development was very well established, for those who were not fans of the series, and were possibly viewing this much-loved crew for the first time. It added extra lovability to the characters we already knew and loved, and lent a richness to the whole production which it otherwise would have lacked. The vastly creative ideas surrounding the origins of V'GER are brilliantly conceived and executed. I won't spoil it for those of you who have not seen it, except to say that, as often is the case with "Star Trek," there is a message there. I love this movie, and every single individual movie which follows it in this series, but this one was the one to start it all and therefore deserves the respect of anyone daring to claim the honor of being a "Trekkie." It rates a 9.0/10 from...the Fiend :.

This is the "V-GER" Movie!

tt0079945

What is "V-ger?" V-ger wants to meet its creator. But, like the "whales" Star Trek movie later to come, this first film uses the same plot to threaten the Earth. In this movie, the Creator does not answer because no one still uses AM-Modulated Radio Waves 300 years in the future!For an Original Star Trek movie all the characters from the TV series "should" have significant roles and dialog. Not the case here.The story focuses on Stephen Collins as Capt. Willard Decker who has command of the Enterprise but gets temporarily demoted to Commander and Executive Officer after a desk bound Admiral Kirk must take command away and pursue a mysterious "cloud" that is threatening to destroy the Earth. Former Miss India, the late Persis Khambatta (she died in India at age 48 of a massive heart attack) plays Lt. Ilia, the former love interest of Capt. Decker when they were together on some past planet. She, robot like, informs Admiral Kirk upon coming aboard the Enterprise that "My affidavit of celibacy is on file." That's all we ever find out about their past relationship. Of course, you know the writers will do something in the end to get Decker and Ilia together.Commander Decker is upset that the Enterprise has just spent 18 months being retrofitted and that Kirk, himself, recommended Decker for Command. The systems are not the same as when Admiral Kirk was its Captain. It's a whole new Enterprise. Of course, you know that Decker has to save Kirk from almost destroying the ship due to Kirk's lack of knowledge. This technique is repeated in Wrath of Khan when Kirtie Alley as Lt. Savvak has to quote regulations to a mental-lapsed Admiral Kirk. Admiral Kirk causes Dr. "Bones" McCoy to be recalled, beard and all, out of retirement back to the ship. Why didn't he shave and change into uniform before reporting back on board? An angry McCoy is calmed by Kirk's exhortation that "Bones, I need you!" So, Bones falls into his stereotypical role of watching over the mental health of Admiral Kirk and taking potshots at Mr. Spock's lack of human understanding.A reluctant Mr. Spock was on Vulcan undergoing the "Kolinhar" ritual to purge the last of his emotions but, because he "senses" the presence of V-ger, he fails the test and departs to come to the Enterprise to make contact with that which disturbs him. Mr. Spock acts the coldest he has ever acted towards all the crew, to everyone's bewilderment.Scottie keeps on giving Kirk, Warp Power, Aux (Auxiliary) Power in emergencies and getting Kirk out of jams when he needs action "2" minutes before they all die. Lt. Uhura, Lt. Cmdr. Sulu and Lt. Cmdr. Chekov's speaking roles were minimal in this movie. Any other crewmen could have been substituted. Their characters were less important in this film then the fine stories they shared in the TV series.Gene Roddenberry's real wife, Majel Barrett, plays Dr. Christine Chapel. She was originally Nurse Chapel in the TV series working with Dr. McCoy. She must have gone to medical school during Dr. McCoy's retirement because he didn't know that she had become a doctor until he arrived on the bridge of the Enterprise once again. Majel is also the "voice of the computer!" "Working!"Captain Decker and Admiral Kirk spend most of the movie challenging each other's authority. In the end, Capt. Decker and Lt. Illa are officially listed as "missing" in action when they merge to become a new life form.The first 40 minutes or so of this movie runs very slow, mostly, development of the mysterious "cloud" as a threat. This movie must be 80% visual. This movie has limited dialog development. Most of the speaking parts are utterances of two or three sentences. The picture becomes more interesting when the Enterprise reaches the "cloud" and the special effects of the time (1979) are integrated within the film. Lots of space ship model work and docking is shown. But, lets take out the "noise of a space ship moving through dead space." Space is essentially a vacuum and sound is a mechanical wave that cannot travel through a vacuum. There is no Doppler Frequency Shifting as human hears cannot hear any audible "whoosh" noise of a space ship going past a camera reference point in space.Who and What is "V-GER?" Think NASA of the 20th Century!Because of poor dialog and limited character utilization, this movie only gets a 7. For as much as fans love anything Star Trek, you would think that the writers, producers, and director would make every Star Trek movie a perfect "10."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079945/reviews-98

ur1342135

title: This is the "V-GER" Movie! review: What is "V-ger?" V-ger wants to meet its creator. But, like the "whales" Star Trek movie later to come, this first film uses the same plot to threaten the Earth. In this movie, the Creator does not answer because no one still uses AM-Modulated Radio Waves 300 years in the future!For an Original Star Trek movie all the characters from the TV series "should" have significant roles and dialog. Not the case here.The story focuses on Stephen Collins as Capt. Willard Decker who has command of the Enterprise but gets temporarily demoted to Commander and Executive Officer after a desk bound Admiral Kirk must take command away and pursue a mysterious "cloud" that is threatening to destroy the Earth. Former Miss India, the late Persis Khambatta (she died in India at age 48 of a massive heart attack) plays Lt. Ilia, the former love interest of Capt. Decker when they were together on some past planet. She, robot like, informs Admiral Kirk upon coming aboard the Enterprise that "My affidavit of celibacy is on file." That's all we ever find out about their past relationship. Of course, you know the writers will do something in the end to get Decker and Ilia together.Commander Decker is upset that the Enterprise has just spent 18 months being retrofitted and that Kirk, himself, recommended Decker for Command. The systems are not the same as when Admiral Kirk was its Captain. It's a whole new Enterprise. Of course, you know that Decker has to save Kirk from almost destroying the ship due to Kirk's lack of knowledge. This technique is repeated in Wrath of Khan when Kirtie Alley as Lt. Savvak has to quote regulations to a mental-lapsed Admiral Kirk. Admiral Kirk causes Dr. "Bones" McCoy to be recalled, beard and all, out of retirement back to the ship. Why didn't he shave and change into uniform before reporting back on board? An angry McCoy is calmed by Kirk's exhortation that "Bones, I need you!" So, Bones falls into his stereotypical role of watching over the mental health of Admiral Kirk and taking potshots at Mr. Spock's lack of human understanding.A reluctant Mr. Spock was on Vulcan undergoing the "Kolinhar" ritual to purge the last of his emotions but, because he "senses" the presence of V-ger, he fails the test and departs to come to the Enterprise to make contact with that which disturbs him. Mr. Spock acts the coldest he has ever acted towards all the crew, to everyone's bewilderment.Scottie keeps on giving Kirk, Warp Power, Aux (Auxiliary) Power in emergencies and getting Kirk out of jams when he needs action "2" minutes before they all die. Lt. Uhura, Lt. Cmdr. Sulu and Lt. Cmdr. Chekov's speaking roles were minimal in this movie. Any other crewmen could have been substituted. Their characters were less important in this film then the fine stories they shared in the TV series.Gene Roddenberry's real wife, Majel Barrett, plays Dr. Christine Chapel. She was originally Nurse Chapel in the TV series working with Dr. McCoy. She must have gone to medical school during Dr. McCoy's retirement because he didn't know that she had become a doctor until he arrived on the bridge of the Enterprise once again. Majel is also the "voice of the computer!" "Working!"Captain Decker and Admiral Kirk spend most of the movie challenging each other's authority. In the end, Capt. Decker and Lt. Illa are officially listed as "missing" in action when they merge to become a new life form.The first 40 minutes or so of this movie runs very slow, mostly, development of the mysterious "cloud" as a threat. This movie must be 80% visual. This movie has limited dialog development. Most of the speaking parts are utterances of two or three sentences. The picture becomes more interesting when the Enterprise reaches the "cloud" and the special effects of the time (1979) are integrated within the film. Lots of space ship model work and docking is shown. But, lets take out the "noise of a space ship moving through dead space." Space is essentially a vacuum and sound is a mechanical wave that cannot travel through a vacuum. There is no Doppler Frequency Shifting as human hears cannot hear any audible "whoosh" noise of a space ship going past a camera reference point in space.Who and What is "V-GER?" Think NASA of the 20th Century!Because of poor dialog and limited character utilization, this movie only gets a 7. For as much as fans love anything Star Trek, you would think that the writers, producers, and director would make every Star Trek movie a perfect "10."

Surreal, frightening but spontaneously humorous at once; Barton Fink is another member of the Coen's impressive back catalogue

tt0101410

Barton Fink thrusts us into the world, indeed limelight, of performance in the very opening scene when a production of a play is playing out to a packed audience. We begin backstage with stage hands looking down at what's unfolding, looking less than impresses it might be said. A track of a few seconds later, and the worried; angst-ridden face of the titular character played by John Turturro fills the screen, his expression making more of an impact on us due to the previous characters' reaction to such goings-on. We may very well hear the play but we observe what's going on behind the play. Very quickly, the directors of the piece, Ethan and Joel Coen, have got across the sense that this will be a tale of those that work on said productions more than it will be a film about the said productions, or at least those that perform in them. As it turns out, Barton Fink is the writer of the play and the film documents both his exploits and misadventures in the so-called hallowed turf of Hollywood, home of the movies, right about smack in the middle of the classical era: 1941.That sense of hierarchy is present in Barton Fink, a film with one eye on delivering a riveting drama about the plight of a talented guy in an area that doesn't suit him but with another on both a sense of symbolism and history. After coming to dominate the theatrical circles, rave reviews from audiences and critics alike, Fink comes across as the sort of guy in a situation that sees him 'promoted' to the world of Hollywood, California – in doing so, leaving behind his roots of theatre and moving onto a 'bigger' and 'better' challenge. The problem being that Fink, for all his skill and imagination, comes down with a frustrating spell of writer's block; particularly annoying given the fact he's been employed by his studio to write a piece which is given all the build up as being something short; sharp; formulaic and relatively routine.Fink's problems begin on arrival. His hotel is down-market, but deliberately so on Fink's choosing so as to break himself into the city without all the promised glamour. It would seem few people inhabit said hotel - we very rarely see anyone else and it dawns on us that why, in such a lush and pleasurable locale of Hollywood, would they inhabit such a gloomy, dank hotel? But, with resident clerk Chet (Buscemi) seemingly doing more work than often what appears to be required, embedding an uncanny sense about the man omnipresent from Fink's initial meeting with him and neighbour Charlie Meadows (Goodman), an insurance salesman, in tow - nothing will be as simple as Fink would like. Like most of the people he meets in this new place they call Hollywood, Meadows is big; brash and when their physical appearance isn't documenting the sort of person they are, they're still evidently larger than life and usually somewhat eccentric. The stark comparison between new and old in where Fink finds himself is made apparent very early on in both the film and his friendship with Meadows; a conversation that sees Fink talk of his fondness for people of Meadows' ilk, the "common man" of whom he writes about for theatre thus creating a distinction now between theatre and cinema, and that in this new realm that sees him struggle, the common man has gone and more escapist themed characters must take precedence.Fink's task sees the studio give him what's known as a 'wrestling picture' premise to do a screenplay on. He cannot seem to start, persistently beginning his piece with humble backdrops of market places and downtrodden people that inhabit said place; this before knowing he has to branch out into more dramatic, more archetypal content. It drives him mad, so much so that trips to scatty agents and film stock vaults, in which he gets to see some rushes from a wrestling picture in production, do much more harm than good. The frustration born out of the watching of the rushes, and the repetition of the clips, systematically representational of Fink's realisation that the studio probably want his script nary too indifferent to what he's seeing and that the piece is, essentially, all spectacle; with the writer not seen as someone that has a lot of creative input with regards to the process. Barton Fink is a sly, nifty little film; taking something as drab and unspectacular as a run down hotel room and turning it into a cave full of tiny, distracting wonders. The film captures that broad sense of the trials of writing really well, and in being a product of the Coen's own writing block whilst penning 1990's Millers Crossing, that idea of having people interrupt you; pictures or items on the wall just coming across as so much more interesting as they ought to be when you know there's work to be done; while tiny little noises such as the high-pitched buzzing of flies and that drawn out, slurping noise peeling wallpaper make are accentuated within the zone. As far as a film goes documenting the tumultuous and tough times an individual is going through, Barton Fink is barely misguided; finding a nice balance between juggling the absurdity and the natural humour of the situation, with the rather ominous weight hanging over what's at stake with if he doesn't deliver to his boss who's this larger than life, somewhat aggressive pool side dwelling fat-cat. The film is one of a rich kind, rich on attention to detail within a predicament and rich on the sorts of symbolism that come with arrays on answers. Barton Fink is a wild and ambitious piece; one might say, due to their own writer's block at the time, this is the Coen's most personal film – there will be those that'll furiously argue it's their best.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101410/reviews-194

ur0855231

title: Surreal, frightening but spontaneously humorous at once; Barton Fink is another member of the Coen's impressive back catalogue review: Barton Fink thrusts us into the world, indeed limelight, of performance in the very opening scene when a production of a play is playing out to a packed audience. We begin backstage with stage hands looking down at what's unfolding, looking less than impresses it might be said. A track of a few seconds later, and the worried; angst-ridden face of the titular character played by John Turturro fills the screen, his expression making more of an impact on us due to the previous characters' reaction to such goings-on. We may very well hear the play but we observe what's going on behind the play. Very quickly, the directors of the piece, Ethan and Joel Coen, have got across the sense that this will be a tale of those that work on said productions more than it will be a film about the said productions, or at least those that perform in them. As it turns out, Barton Fink is the writer of the play and the film documents both his exploits and misadventures in the so-called hallowed turf of Hollywood, home of the movies, right about smack in the middle of the classical era: 1941.That sense of hierarchy is present in Barton Fink, a film with one eye on delivering a riveting drama about the plight of a talented guy in an area that doesn't suit him but with another on both a sense of symbolism and history. After coming to dominate the theatrical circles, rave reviews from audiences and critics alike, Fink comes across as the sort of guy in a situation that sees him 'promoted' to the world of Hollywood, California – in doing so, leaving behind his roots of theatre and moving onto a 'bigger' and 'better' challenge. The problem being that Fink, for all his skill and imagination, comes down with a frustrating spell of writer's block; particularly annoying given the fact he's been employed by his studio to write a piece which is given all the build up as being something short; sharp; formulaic and relatively routine.Fink's problems begin on arrival. His hotel is down-market, but deliberately so on Fink's choosing so as to break himself into the city without all the promised glamour. It would seem few people inhabit said hotel - we very rarely see anyone else and it dawns on us that why, in such a lush and pleasurable locale of Hollywood, would they inhabit such a gloomy, dank hotel? But, with resident clerk Chet (Buscemi) seemingly doing more work than often what appears to be required, embedding an uncanny sense about the man omnipresent from Fink's initial meeting with him and neighbour Charlie Meadows (Goodman), an insurance salesman, in tow - nothing will be as simple as Fink would like. Like most of the people he meets in this new place they call Hollywood, Meadows is big; brash and when their physical appearance isn't documenting the sort of person they are, they're still evidently larger than life and usually somewhat eccentric. The stark comparison between new and old in where Fink finds himself is made apparent very early on in both the film and his friendship with Meadows; a conversation that sees Fink talk of his fondness for people of Meadows' ilk, the "common man" of whom he writes about for theatre thus creating a distinction now between theatre and cinema, and that in this new realm that sees him struggle, the common man has gone and more escapist themed characters must take precedence.Fink's task sees the studio give him what's known as a 'wrestling picture' premise to do a screenplay on. He cannot seem to start, persistently beginning his piece with humble backdrops of market places and downtrodden people that inhabit said place; this before knowing he has to branch out into more dramatic, more archetypal content. It drives him mad, so much so that trips to scatty agents and film stock vaults, in which he gets to see some rushes from a wrestling picture in production, do much more harm than good. The frustration born out of the watching of the rushes, and the repetition of the clips, systematically representational of Fink's realisation that the studio probably want his script nary too indifferent to what he's seeing and that the piece is, essentially, all spectacle; with the writer not seen as someone that has a lot of creative input with regards to the process. Barton Fink is a sly, nifty little film; taking something as drab and unspectacular as a run down hotel room and turning it into a cave full of tiny, distracting wonders. The film captures that broad sense of the trials of writing really well, and in being a product of the Coen's own writing block whilst penning 1990's Millers Crossing, that idea of having people interrupt you; pictures or items on the wall just coming across as so much more interesting as they ought to be when you know there's work to be done; while tiny little noises such as the high-pitched buzzing of flies and that drawn out, slurping noise peeling wallpaper make are accentuated within the zone. As far as a film goes documenting the tumultuous and tough times an individual is going through, Barton Fink is barely misguided; finding a nice balance between juggling the absurdity and the natural humour of the situation, with the rather ominous weight hanging over what's at stake with if he doesn't deliver to his boss who's this larger than life, somewhat aggressive pool side dwelling fat-cat. The film is one of a rich kind, rich on attention to detail within a predicament and rich on the sorts of symbolism that come with arrays on answers. Barton Fink is a wild and ambitious piece; one might say, due to their own writer's block at the time, this is the Coen's most personal film – there will be those that'll furiously argue it's their best.

Writer's Block Indeed

tt0101410

After a successful play in New York in 1941, a writer is summoned to Hollywood to write a movie script. There are amusing scenes but they don't really add up to a satisfying whole. Like the title character, the Coen Brothers seem to have suffered from a writer's block where they did not know where to go with the film once they had the basic idea developed. There's hardly any flow to the narrative. It's little more than a series of rather incongruent scenes strung together into a feature length. While Turturro does a good job of conveying writer's block, his vacant look reveals nothing about the character. Lively acting from the rest of the cast helps, but it all feels half-baked.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101410/reviews-195

ur2590596

title: Writer's Block Indeed review: After a successful play in New York in 1941, a writer is summoned to Hollywood to write a movie script. There are amusing scenes but they don't really add up to a satisfying whole. Like the title character, the Coen Brothers seem to have suffered from a writer's block where they did not know where to go with the film once they had the basic idea developed. There's hardly any flow to the narrative. It's little more than a series of rather incongruent scenes strung together into a feature length. While Turturro does a good job of conveying writer's block, his vacant look reveals nothing about the character. Lively acting from the rest of the cast helps, but it all feels half-baked.

Barton Fink is a film that will leave you confused but also entertained as well.

tt0101410

A renowned New York playwright is enticed to California to write for the movies and discovers the hellish truth of Hollywood. In 1941, New York intellectual playwright Barton Fink comes to Hollywood to write a Wallace Beery wrestling picture. Staying in the eerie Hotel Earle, Barton develops severe writer's block. His neighbor, jovial insurance salesman Charlie Meadows, tries to help, but Barton continues to struggle as a bizarre sequence of events distracts him even further from his task. Barton Fink is unlike anything I have ever seen or unlike to ever again. It really is a surrealist film in the vein of David Lynch but it also has elements of Alfred Hitchcock in it, but it really comes together and works so well. Barton Fink is a film that will leave you confused but also entertained as well.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101410/reviews-234

ur26897720

title: Barton Fink is a film that will leave you confused but also entertained as well. review: A renowned New York playwright is enticed to California to write for the movies and discovers the hellish truth of Hollywood. In 1941, New York intellectual playwright Barton Fink comes to Hollywood to write a Wallace Beery wrestling picture. Staying in the eerie Hotel Earle, Barton develops severe writer's block. His neighbor, jovial insurance salesman Charlie Meadows, tries to help, but Barton continues to struggle as a bizarre sequence of events distracts him even further from his task. Barton Fink is unlike anything I have ever seen or unlike to ever again. It really is a surrealist film in the vein of David Lynch but it also has elements of Alfred Hitchcock in it, but it really comes together and works so well. Barton Fink is a film that will leave you confused but also entertained as well.

Oddly uplifting

tt0101410

Let's start at the end...."Are you in pictures?" "No, don't be silly" The question is literal, and, the answer is perfectly Coen brothers. The twists and turns of the plot are as much a play on words as the words spoken. There is incredible depth in the writing and performances that could never be guessed in a word count....ho ho ho. The Coens' are so clever...but they're also very modest.A man with almost afro hair wearing it in a quiff - very totemic. An illiterate movie mogul.A head in a box. A sweatshop hotel.Incredible acting by John Goodman What more could you ask for?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101410/reviews-175

ur6499406

title: Oddly uplifting review: Let's start at the end...."Are you in pictures?" "No, don't be silly" The question is literal, and, the answer is perfectly Coen brothers. The twists and turns of the plot are as much a play on words as the words spoken. There is incredible depth in the writing and performances that could never be guessed in a word count....ho ho ho. The Coens' are so clever...but they're also very modest.A man with almost afro hair wearing it in a quiff - very totemic. An illiterate movie mogul.A head in a box. A sweatshop hotel.Incredible acting by John Goodman What more could you ask for?