dubricus

I liked "Star Trek Beyond"... it had all the right elements... action, good connection between the characters (which is vital for ST), emotional issues, & questions about right & wrong. However, there was so much more time devoted to CGI action, explosions, space battles, ground battles, etc. than there was to the actual character plots & acting that I'm not sure the actors earned their pay. While we see all the relationships at work & there are subplots of personal questioning for Kirk & Spock, they seem abbreviated. There just wasn't enough acting to balance out the flash-bang for fans who enjoy Star Trek because of the characters & their relationships. The film was 2 hrs. I think that some of the explosions could have been cut ... or maybe the film could have been lengthened by 10 mins. to allow an extra scene or 2 for the actors to practice their craft. It was like being a fan of hot fudge sundaes & you go to a place famous for hot fudge sundaes. You order & all you get is 1 scoop drowning in some great fudge & a few morsels of really good toppings. You got the taste... a lot of 1 thing... too much, in fact... but it wasn't satisfying & didn't live up to expectations. BTW.... if I'd seen it in 3-D my stomach contents would have been all over the floor..... just too much swirling, diving, zooming, etc.

My father was a life member of the PGA. He joined in 1931, so he was in the group of golfers that followed Francis Ouimet & Harry Vardon. I grew up with golf & found the film to be quite good, but I suspect it takes a golfer or one who knows the game to not be bored. It's not an easy sport to make exciting. However, if one has ever been present at a tournament which is match play, you know that the suspense & tension is such that you can cut it with a knife.

My main issue with the film is that, while it spent quite a lot of time dealing with Francis Ouimet's social inferiority in 1913 society, it didn't fully tell the story. Today top professional sportsmen & athletes are superstar celebrities, wealthy, & the elite of society. Back then it was far different. Francis Ouimet was poor & had caddied as a child. He competed as an amateur, but an amateur was supposed to be a gentleman & a person of wealth & position.... elite. Ouimet had to step into this elite society.... but at least he could... as an amateur. Professional sportsmen were considered & treated as mere "tradesmen," because they played for cash prizes. We get a couple of scenes that show the social tension, but unless a viewer is already aware of the situation, it's not fully explained. We see Harry Vardon idolized by the galleries & theatre goers, but viewers who are unaware of the situation are left to wonder at the snide, rude remarks made towards & about Vardon by the so-called "gentlemen." Professional golfers, like Harry Vardon, were not allowed in the club houses nor the use of any of the club facilities. They had to change clothes in the caddy shack or in their cars & if they ate, it was in the caddy shack with the caddies. These class striations persisted until after WW2 when Ben Hogan refused to play in tournaments unless the pros had equal access to club houses... the dining rooms, locker rooms, showers, etc... as the amateur players. It would not have taken much to clarify this situation, but as it was, I suspect that the film left many viewers confused.

I was a fan of the 1975+ series & of the books. I like this series well enough to look forward to each week's episode. However, compared to the Robin Ellis version I find Aiden Turner's Ross a bit heavy & morose. He doesn't laugh enough. This Ross takes himself far more seriously than Robin Ellis' Ross or the Ross of the books. That Ross was a "good guy" but not someone ready for the French Revolution. Demelza was a little spit fire. This Demelza is quiet & subdued. In the 1975 version one saw that Ross' humor had to fall in love with Demelza's puckish spirit & vice versa. I'm not sure why this Ross fell for this Demelza. My main issue with this version & why I gave it a 7 is that the story telling feels rushed. I almost feel like we are getting the Cliff's Notes version rather than the novels. The 1975 version was well paced and gave us time to understand who was who + what & why was things were happening. I'm still not quite sure who is who beyond Ross, Demelza, Elizabeth, Francis & Verity. I'm a costumer & the history stickler in me has to point out that this story should have started in 1782 at the latest. The costumes are erratic.... some are fine, but others belong more in the 1790s. Had I been the costume designer, I'd have gone more for costumes that were a bit old-fashioned looking for the period... ca 1760s-1770s, rather than fashion forward, because Cornwall was remote & not an extremely wealthy part of the UK (too much boom & bust). Even the gentry of the area would only have had access to the latest fashions when they went to London, which would have probably only been once a year. Women's gowns & men's coats & waistcoats would have been a little behind the times & often remade to try to make them look more currently fashionable.