Headrock
Joined Nov 1999
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges6
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews9
Headrock's rating
I've been trying to write a short review about this movie, but I just can't - below is simply the shortest version I could be satisfied with. There's just too much I want to say, because I honestly thought that "Star Trek Into Darkness" would be the breaking-out film that would re-ignite this new franchise after "Star Trek 2009" failed so miserably.
I vaguely recall hearing that notion from a few people who had watched it, so I figured that despite "Star Trek 2009"'s complete failure to impress me, I'd still give the series another shot. Unfortunately what I got was mostly just "Star Trek 2013" - like the first movie, a good action piece that is heavily marred by constantly trying to remind us that it is a new-and-improved Star Trek and that we should all be really impressed.
To explain what I mean, I'll repeat for this movie the same assertion that I made about "Star Trek 2009": it's a decent sci-fi action flick which has no real connection to the Star Trek franchise whatsoever, except by constantly dropping references to Star Trek memes and reusing elements from that franchise. In other words: The filmmakers could've started a new universe, made up new characters to go with their new actors and new style, and neither movie (2009 nor Into Darkness) would've suffered. In fact I argue that they both would've been improved, since there would be more run-time to invest in actually making the protagonists sympathetic, the villains interesting (I'm looking at you, Nero), and the plots both interesting and sensical.
Instead, J.J.Abrams and crew are putting gigantic amounts of effort into convincing us - today's viewers, whether Trekkie or otherwise - to believe that this films series is a part of the Star Trek franchise. They're essentially milking the remains of that (admittedly dead) franchise without embracing it - a form of cinema necromancy. Cinecromancy!
Trying to start a new franchise is risky, of course, and why would you try it if you can just transplant an entire existing, devout fanbase into your new project? It's financially sound - you get a lot of people in theatres for almost no effort - but unfortunately does not make for quality entertainment. You sit there in the theatre for two hours wondering why they keep telling you it's Star Trek. And what's worse, as these movies show, you need gigantic amounts of effort to keep up that pretense!
So yes, as an action movie and light-hearted sci-fi I believe "Star Trek Into Darkness" is a reasonably-good movie, and you can rest assured that J.J.Abrams knows his stuff when it comes to epic-looking action sequences (though, after 20 years of watching Hollywood action movies, particularly in the last decade, this stuff is starting to look pretty old to me). On the other hand, that heavy-handed attempt to cram as much "Star Trek" into this movie as possible alongside the action sequences means that everything else suffers: The plot is flimsy, simple, and expectable; The characters draw very little sympathy - and you're expected to sympathize heavily with them for most of the non-action scenes to work at all; Once again we get a villain who's reported to have some qualities which are never shown (Khan is a genius superhuman? He's certainly a combat machine, but his plan and behavior indicate nothing about any extra smarts); And once again Starfleet seems to be running on the mentality that crewing its flagship with emotionally-stunted, hormone-driven, immature young officers is the way to go - and only luck gets them out of it alive.
(Amusingly that last point is actually commented on by the movie itself, but that only serves to make it more obvious as you sit there trying to ignore it.)
The bottom line, again, is the same for this movie as it was for Star Trek 2009: If they hadn't tried to force this to be a Star Trek movie, they might've had the time and effort to make a decent film. Instead we got two decent action flicks that have little to do with Star Trek but waste energy trying to convince us that they do - giving both of them the air of shameless capitalization that I personally do not want to smell in the theatre for two hours straight.
I vaguely recall hearing that notion from a few people who had watched it, so I figured that despite "Star Trek 2009"'s complete failure to impress me, I'd still give the series another shot. Unfortunately what I got was mostly just "Star Trek 2013" - like the first movie, a good action piece that is heavily marred by constantly trying to remind us that it is a new-and-improved Star Trek and that we should all be really impressed.
To explain what I mean, I'll repeat for this movie the same assertion that I made about "Star Trek 2009": it's a decent sci-fi action flick which has no real connection to the Star Trek franchise whatsoever, except by constantly dropping references to Star Trek memes and reusing elements from that franchise. In other words: The filmmakers could've started a new universe, made up new characters to go with their new actors and new style, and neither movie (2009 nor Into Darkness) would've suffered. In fact I argue that they both would've been improved, since there would be more run-time to invest in actually making the protagonists sympathetic, the villains interesting (I'm looking at you, Nero), and the plots both interesting and sensical.
Instead, J.J.Abrams and crew are putting gigantic amounts of effort into convincing us - today's viewers, whether Trekkie or otherwise - to believe that this films series is a part of the Star Trek franchise. They're essentially milking the remains of that (admittedly dead) franchise without embracing it - a form of cinema necromancy. Cinecromancy!
Trying to start a new franchise is risky, of course, and why would you try it if you can just transplant an entire existing, devout fanbase into your new project? It's financially sound - you get a lot of people in theatres for almost no effort - but unfortunately does not make for quality entertainment. You sit there in the theatre for two hours wondering why they keep telling you it's Star Trek. And what's worse, as these movies show, you need gigantic amounts of effort to keep up that pretense!
So yes, as an action movie and light-hearted sci-fi I believe "Star Trek Into Darkness" is a reasonably-good movie, and you can rest assured that J.J.Abrams knows his stuff when it comes to epic-looking action sequences (though, after 20 years of watching Hollywood action movies, particularly in the last decade, this stuff is starting to look pretty old to me). On the other hand, that heavy-handed attempt to cram as much "Star Trek" into this movie as possible alongside the action sequences means that everything else suffers: The plot is flimsy, simple, and expectable; The characters draw very little sympathy - and you're expected to sympathize heavily with them for most of the non-action scenes to work at all; Once again we get a villain who's reported to have some qualities which are never shown (Khan is a genius superhuman? He's certainly a combat machine, but his plan and behavior indicate nothing about any extra smarts); And once again Starfleet seems to be running on the mentality that crewing its flagship with emotionally-stunted, hormone-driven, immature young officers is the way to go - and only luck gets them out of it alive.
(Amusingly that last point is actually commented on by the movie itself, but that only serves to make it more obvious as you sit there trying to ignore it.)
The bottom line, again, is the same for this movie as it was for Star Trek 2009: If they hadn't tried to force this to be a Star Trek movie, they might've had the time and effort to make a decent film. Instead we got two decent action flicks that have little to do with Star Trek but waste energy trying to convince us that they do - giving both of them the air of shameless capitalization that I personally do not want to smell in the theatre for two hours straight.
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a good reminder that the age of the spy thriller is not yet gone. In this movie, based on a fantastic book, we take a peek into early 1970s British intelligence, and come out the other side both flabbergasted and awed.
This is a decidedly cerebral movie, and as such its rating here on IMDb is perhaps a little misleading - it is certainly not a movie that just anyone can sit down and watch. It's slow, deliberate, and requires you to be concentrated pretty much all the way through if you're going to understand what the heck is going on - and to feel satisfied at the end. But aficionados, as well as anyone who isn't afraid of a film where the most "action" is probably a few punches to the gut or a man being shot in broad daylight, will not only enjoy but revel in this film.
If you're looking for an action-packed Hollywood spy story, this isn't it. It isn't Tom Clancy, it's John Le Carre, and the difference is immense. Like "Russia House", this is a movie that aims to stimulate your brain, and to give you a tiny glimpse of how dark and cold the Cold War really was for those who experienced it first-hand.
This is a decidedly cerebral movie, and as such its rating here on IMDb is perhaps a little misleading - it is certainly not a movie that just anyone can sit down and watch. It's slow, deliberate, and requires you to be concentrated pretty much all the way through if you're going to understand what the heck is going on - and to feel satisfied at the end. But aficionados, as well as anyone who isn't afraid of a film where the most "action" is probably a few punches to the gut or a man being shot in broad daylight, will not only enjoy but revel in this film.
If you're looking for an action-packed Hollywood spy story, this isn't it. It isn't Tom Clancy, it's John Le Carre, and the difference is immense. Like "Russia House", this is a movie that aims to stimulate your brain, and to give you a tiny glimpse of how dark and cold the Cold War really was for those who experienced it first-hand.
Like many others worldwide, I went to see Episode II on its pre-premier here in Israel. Remembering the burning disappointment from Episode I, I went with a pessimistic approach. This was almost a week ago, and only after much contemplation with myself and my friends, have I managed to establish an opinion on what the movie succeeded, and failed, in doing, at least for me.
The Clone Wars is quite an improvement from Episode I, which I consider a true flop and a disgrace to the Star Wars saga. But I do not intend to discuss the first movie here, only for comparison where needed.
It is clear that Lucas learned from some of his mistakes and went on to create a movie that is much more reminiscent of the old Trilogy. The movie feels a lot closer to the Trilogy we all loved, using many elements and methods that fit this forgotten style. There was great attention to detail in most plot-elements, greatly reducing the number of plot-holes seen regularly in Episode I. The world created in this movie feels true, and behaves as one would expect. However, I cannot say as much for the characters in this movie. Allow me to elaborate:
I am an actor myself, and one of the first things that I understand is taught in any acting and directing school is that actions must always be justified. Any movie- or theater-goer automatically tries to find a logical explanation for the events that take place in a movie or play, because this is our human nature. However unreasonable an action is, if the character has a good reason to do it (no matter how bizarre), then the action immediately becomes believable, or at least acceptable, by the viewer. In this way, the viewer can relate to what goes on.
I have great respect for many, if not all of the actors that participated in "The Clone Wars", and have in the past admired their great skills in other movies. Sadly, in this movie most of the actors failed to come up with any motivation for their actions, any justification, and to me they give the feeling that acting scenes were made hastily, or that little or no work was done by the actors to ensure that their characters hold a steady and logical line of thought and action throughout the film. This phenomenon appears in most acting parts of the movie, noticeably so in the romantic scenes between Anakin and Padme, which appear to have been literally FORCED on the actors. They simply show no emotion to each other, and the resulting romantic interludes appear foney and tacky. The melodramatic music and gorgeous scenery (indeed!) and sets used in these scenes can barely make up for the loss of tension between the characters.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the actors have gone sour! I'm simply suggesting that there might have been a lack of time spent on understanding WHY the characters do what they do. The computer-animate characters, like Yoda and Watto displayed much more acting skill, in my opinion, than their flesh-and-blood colleagues.
George Lucas may have noticed this problem. Weather he did or did not, an awful lot of money and work was directed at the digitally-created CG scenes, which were spectacular and colossal in any scale. However, special-effects, no matter how grandiose, cannot constitute an entire movie. While watching the film, I had a strong feeling that Lucas was trying to IMPRESS me... The sheer amount of special-effects scenes was astonishing, but to me it seemed to mask the fact that very little attention was given to the problem I described above.
Again, most of the FX scenes were mind-blowing, including the hovercar chase, the Jedi-to-droid fight in the arena, and of course the Yoda-Lightsaber-Fighting scene which clearly showed how state-of-the-art computer graphics can create magic like never before. Sadly, as I've already stated, even all these scenes combined together cannot begin to compensate for the lack of a believable chain-of-events, that seem to "trigger" suddenly out of thin air without any reasonably explanation.
To sum it all up, I think that George Lucas has made a positive step forward to achieving another brilliant picture that comes close to the Trilogy, but he has to drop the notion that Special Effects are more powerful than an ensuing plot, and the magic that happens between characters. I think the film was targeted to a young audience, much like the Trilogy movies, but gave them format instead of contents. "A New Hope" won the affection of millions worldwide by telling a fantastic story, not by its toy-model animations, even if they appeared futuristic at the time. If he can come to understand this, perhaps George Lucas may turn the third film in the series into a hit that may match or surpass the greatness of the previous films.
Oh yeah, and R2D2 CAN FLY? HUH?!?
The Clone Wars is quite an improvement from Episode I, which I consider a true flop and a disgrace to the Star Wars saga. But I do not intend to discuss the first movie here, only for comparison where needed.
It is clear that Lucas learned from some of his mistakes and went on to create a movie that is much more reminiscent of the old Trilogy. The movie feels a lot closer to the Trilogy we all loved, using many elements and methods that fit this forgotten style. There was great attention to detail in most plot-elements, greatly reducing the number of plot-holes seen regularly in Episode I. The world created in this movie feels true, and behaves as one would expect. However, I cannot say as much for the characters in this movie. Allow me to elaborate:
I am an actor myself, and one of the first things that I understand is taught in any acting and directing school is that actions must always be justified. Any movie- or theater-goer automatically tries to find a logical explanation for the events that take place in a movie or play, because this is our human nature. However unreasonable an action is, if the character has a good reason to do it (no matter how bizarre), then the action immediately becomes believable, or at least acceptable, by the viewer. In this way, the viewer can relate to what goes on.
I have great respect for many, if not all of the actors that participated in "The Clone Wars", and have in the past admired their great skills in other movies. Sadly, in this movie most of the actors failed to come up with any motivation for their actions, any justification, and to me they give the feeling that acting scenes were made hastily, or that little or no work was done by the actors to ensure that their characters hold a steady and logical line of thought and action throughout the film. This phenomenon appears in most acting parts of the movie, noticeably so in the romantic scenes between Anakin and Padme, which appear to have been literally FORCED on the actors. They simply show no emotion to each other, and the resulting romantic interludes appear foney and tacky. The melodramatic music and gorgeous scenery (indeed!) and sets used in these scenes can barely make up for the loss of tension between the characters.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the actors have gone sour! I'm simply suggesting that there might have been a lack of time spent on understanding WHY the characters do what they do. The computer-animate characters, like Yoda and Watto displayed much more acting skill, in my opinion, than their flesh-and-blood colleagues.
George Lucas may have noticed this problem. Weather he did or did not, an awful lot of money and work was directed at the digitally-created CG scenes, which were spectacular and colossal in any scale. However, special-effects, no matter how grandiose, cannot constitute an entire movie. While watching the film, I had a strong feeling that Lucas was trying to IMPRESS me... The sheer amount of special-effects scenes was astonishing, but to me it seemed to mask the fact that very little attention was given to the problem I described above.
Again, most of the FX scenes were mind-blowing, including the hovercar chase, the Jedi-to-droid fight in the arena, and of course the Yoda-Lightsaber-Fighting scene which clearly showed how state-of-the-art computer graphics can create magic like never before. Sadly, as I've already stated, even all these scenes combined together cannot begin to compensate for the lack of a believable chain-of-events, that seem to "trigger" suddenly out of thin air without any reasonably explanation.
To sum it all up, I think that George Lucas has made a positive step forward to achieving another brilliant picture that comes close to the Trilogy, but he has to drop the notion that Special Effects are more powerful than an ensuing plot, and the magic that happens between characters. I think the film was targeted to a young audience, much like the Trilogy movies, but gave them format instead of contents. "A New Hope" won the affection of millions worldwide by telling a fantastic story, not by its toy-model animations, even if they appeared futuristic at the time. If he can come to understand this, perhaps George Lucas may turn the third film in the series into a hit that may match or surpass the greatness of the previous films.
Oh yeah, and R2D2 CAN FLY? HUH?!?