1989 / 107 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale J. Nauertz
I wanted to like this movie. I really, really did. I popped it into my DVD Player and thought: it can’t possibly be as bad as everyone says. In fact, I bet it’s a diamond in the rough, a forgotten treasure, a film unfairly maligned because it follows on the coattails of a very successful, beloved and fun film.
1986 / 118 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale J. Nauertz
Making feature films within the “Star Trek” universe has always, arguably, been about broadening the “Trek” fan base. That base began with a small, devoted cult that lamented the early demise of the original TV series. Others were indoctrinated through late night syndicated broadcasts and their ranks swelled enough that someone at Paramount smelled money and decided to take “Trek” out of mothballs and onto the big screen. Despite the relative financial disappointment of the first film, they still sensed the potential…and the success of “Khan” proved them right. Even if one hadn’t seen the original series and wasn’t familiar with the characters, “Khan” was an engrossing film and quite a profitable one (it cost $11 million to make and made $14 million in its opening weekend ALONE). Hence “The Search for Spock”, a film that disappointed nearly everyone and, while it made more than “ST: TMP”, failed to rival the stellar box office of “Khan”. Therefore, it was time to go back to the drawing board, so to speak. If Paramount wanted to make more money, they once again had to broaden Trek’s appeal.
1984 / 105 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale J. Nauertz
Poor Leonard (Lennie?) Nimoy. Where Shatner has a thriving career making cameos, doing Priceline ads, recording questionable albums (though, truth be told, his most recent album isn’t half bad), and starring in several television series (”Tonight on Rescue…Nine…One…One”) aside from his iconic role in “Star Trek”, what does Old Pointy Ears have to his credit? One questionable single (a song about Bilbo Baggins that can be seen below and a book consisting of nude photos of fat ladies. Ah, but there is one other achievement Spock has under his belt: a mediocre directorial career!
1982 / 116 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale J. Nauertz
It ranks right up there with the greatest images in motion picture history, I’m not even kidding. Right up there with Omar Sharif emerging from the endless desert in “Lawrence of Arabia”, with a giant pair of lips uttering the word “Rosebud” right before a snow globe shatters in “Citizen Kane”, with the whole damn ending of “Casablanca” and that huge ship passing over the camera at the beginning of “Star Wars: A New Hope”. Just below all those others is where you’ll find Shatner, his face filling the entire frame, his lips quivering with almost unimaginable rage and hate, his toupee floundering atop his skull like a dying fish, his entire face contorted with unspeakable rage as he bellows one single word at the top of his lungs. That word, of course, is “Khaaaaaaannn!” Before you dispute me, watch that scene again. There is a passion and a gloriously outsized intensity on display in this single scene that has perhaps never been matched in the history of cinema. I don’t think I’ve ever seen ANYONE in a movie this purely and righteously pissed off.
1979 / 136 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale J. Nauertz
For years my path to attaining true geekhood has been blocked by only one thing: I just can’t get into “Star Trek”. I’m not sure why it is, but I’ve watched several episodes of the show and while I find it captivating at times, I’m mostly just staring at the television in boredom, wondering how some people can find so much joy in something I find so hokey and lame. I mean, I like sci-fi. And I certainly admire the antics of William Shatner. But with a few exceptions (the half of the “Tribbles” episode I’ve seen, “Star Trek: First Contact”) I remain unimpressed. It is said that you are either a “Star Wars” person or a “Trek” person. Perhaps that explains it. I’ve always, ALWAYS loved “Star Wars”. My earliest pop culture memories involve begging my parents or grandparents for “Star Wars” action figures (according to my father, I once lost Chewbacca and was inconsolable until they stopped everything, made a trip to the store, and purchased a new one). If it’s an “either/or” thing, then I made my decision about seventeen years ago and “Star Trek” never stood a chance.
2009 / 163 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale J. Nauertz
Every decade has its genre du jour. In the 30’s, it was the gangster picture. In the 50’s, it was the biblical epic. In the 80’s, it was “weird shit happening in suburbia” movies (which includes not only “E.T.”, “Back to the Future” and “Gremlins” but also David Lynch’s “Blue Velvet”). Our decade, of course, has the comic book adaptation. At its worst, this genre has given us every two-bit superhero imaginable in a pandering, kid-friendly PG-13 package (”Ghost Rider”, I suppose, is as good an example as any, though I thought it was a lot of fun). With such films as “Sin City”, “The Dark Knight” and now “Watchmen”, however, the genre has finally grown up.
2008 / 87 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz
One of the reasons I began writing movie reviews in the first place was so that I could warn others whenever I had the misfortune to watch something particularly awful, much like Ralph Nader used to warn people about unsafe automobiles (like the Chevy Corvair). Like Ralph I was hoping to use my cinematic watchdog skills to eventually, and ineffectually, campaign for president. Unfortunately, it seems that I have failed you, dear viewers. I don’t deserve to run even as a third party longshot for president. If I can’t warn you about the dangers of watching Mike Myers’ “The Love Guru”, how can I be expected to serve you in any other way?
Before he co-starred in the movie “Anchorman”, I thought of Paul Rudd as just another generic Hollywood pretty boy predetermined to be the Next Big Thing. This was based on his fine, but forgettable, performances in movies like “The Cider House Rules” and “Romeo + Juliet” (=Death). But since then, Paul Rudd has grown into one of the most consistently hilarious men in modern cinematic comedy. He’s got a sarcastic, low key bordering on deadpan way of delivering a line and wringing the maximum hilarity out of it. Not only that, but he’s got dashing, leading man good looks and charisma to spare. He’s generally one of the best things about any movie he’s in, so I’ve been scratching my head for the past couple of years wondering why this guy hasn’t starred in his own movie, why this guy isn’t on the fast track to become the next Tom Hanks? Thankfully, I need wonder no more because Paul is finally front and center in “Role Models”, a delightfully raunchy (and decidedly R-rated) film that takes the standard, inspirational adult-mentoring-kids-and-learning-something-themselves movie and administers a swift kick to its nuts.
2008 / 107 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale J. Nauertz
I tend to like movies about making movies but I think, in general, that people who aren’t really, really into movies tend to find such movies very, very boring. (I tried to make my own wife watch “Ed Wood”, for example, and she thought it was utterly pointless. She demanded I turn it off about halfway through. I must really love this woman, seeing as how I didn’t automatically file for divorce.) Therefore, I think it’s very clever that Ben Stiller took a movie about making a movie (inherently box office poison) and filled it with big stars, delightfully vulgar humor and plenty of things blowing up real pretty. Even if you find movies about making movies as boring as I find most “inspirational” sports movies (ugh!) you’ll probably laugh your ass off during the majority of “Tropic Thunder”.
2008 / 150 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale J. Nauertz
For the past few years, every summer gives me the opportunity to bitch about how shitty its crop of blockbusters has been…until now. Aside from “Indy 4″ (which wasn’t very good) this has been one of the best summer movie seasons in recent memory. “Wall E” was clever, inspired and heartwarming with a dash of pointed social satire and a unique style (miles above the standard kids movie dreck but par for the course coming from Pixar). “Iron Man” was the most fun a person can have at the movies, with great performances, wonderful character development, and nifty action sequences. Heck, “Get Smart” was downright ingenious considering it was an adaptation of a musty, old TV show. But even so, Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” stands head and shoulders above this distinguished company. It is one of the meatiest, most thought-provoking, most flat-out stunning films that any summer has unleashed. In fact, after two viewings, I am tempted to proclaim it the best comic book movie ever made. It is so good, in fact, that calling it a mere “comic book movie” hardly does it justice.
Loading ...
