BMatth6167

I have to say this right up front: I liked the movie. I did. Really, I did. But as the film is being hailed by innumerable online voices as the finest version of Star Trek ever created at anytime, anywhere, by anyone, please allow me to toss in a few grousing points.

J.J.Abrams version of Starfleet is the most unprofessional exploration and peacekeeping force in the cinematic galaxy. Totally unprofessional. It's being run by kids. Not just any kids, but kids fresh out of the academy. In J.J.'s Starfleet, you can go from being an academically suspended Starfleet cadet, without rank or actual space-faring experience, and within a single action-packed week be promoted to the rank of Captain (one rank step below an Admiral, mind you) and given command of a starship. And not just any starship....THE FLAG SHIP OF THE FLEET. The ship that professional career officers work their entire careers to get assigned to. If I'd been such an officer on the Enterprise and found out my new captain was a kid just out of the Academy who cheated on his exams and got his job by being brash, cocky, good looking and the son of another career officer who died on the job, I'd resign my commission. Clearly, Starfleet has a different set of priorities than when I signed up.

Another sign of the unprofessionalism: two of the bridge officers, the top people aboard the ship, officers so good that their daily assignment is to the decision making "brain" of the ship, are openly seen making out on the transporter pad prior to an away mission. Professional people do not do things like that. Professional people get fired for doing things like that. Not so in J.J.'s Starfleet, because J.J.'s Starfleet is run by kids. It has kid priorities. Kid rules. Kid thinking behind it's decision making.

I realize the whole point of the movie was to bring Star Trek to a new generation of kids, to create new Star Trek fans where there were few before. But I just wish we didn't have to change things to the point of pandering in order to create those new fans. I wish we hadn't gone quite so far to reach an audience that sees high achievement as a turn off...."See slackers, you can be a Starfleet officer too! No maturity or experience necessary".

But, after all, it's just a movie. And I did like the movie. When it comes out on DVD, I'll buy it. When they make sequels, I'll see them too. Maybe the writers will have tightened things up around the ship by that time. I hope so. Kids need to see professionalism, too.

I wonder that this film has never seen the light of day on DVD. I watched it for the first time the other night on television and believe it to be one of the best things Hammer Studios ever produced.

I must admit though, I had reservations to begin with. As the film got underway I found myself thinking, "My gosh, but this thing has aged." The opening act, set in London of the swinging early sixties, with it's "teddy-boys" in leather jackets behaving like the kids who weren't nearly tough or bad enough to get into "A Clockwork Orange", seems a bit silly by today's standards. But stay with it and you'll be rewarded. By the end of the film I was thinking, "My gosh, how incredibly current and powerful this is." Dealing with an effort on the part of a scientific program to create a means by which humanity might survive a nuclear war (to say it in more detail would be too great of a spoiler), it deals with themes of the end justifying the means, of where the lines of right and wrong should be drawn when one is dealing with a situation that is, in it's inception, unconscionable. Fine performances abound from Oliver Reed, Macdonald Carey, Viveca Lindfors and Shirley Anne Field. The fact that it comes out of Hammer Studios might lead one to believe it's a monster-on-the-loose tale. Not so. It's plot line is far more subtle, the evil it explores much closer to real-life and thereby more troubling. This is a rare Hammer film indeed, one that not only entertains you while you're watching it but gives you something to contemplate when it's finished. Please, whichever studio controls this title, give it the DVD release it deserves.

I just recently watched this film, as well as The Big Boss, for the first time in many years. I was impressed with them in ways that I hadn't noticed on previous viewings. Of course, Lee's athleticism and martial arts prowess are well on display here. That's to be expected. But there is more at work here than that. Far more. Lee displays a polish as an actor and film star here. He's playing a character who can best be described as a loose cannon, someone who is psychologically unhinged by the death of his mentor and father figure. This is displayed immediately by his over-the-top reaction at his master's funeral. From that point on we see him responding, scene by scene, in an obsessive way. He pursues his master's killers relentlessly, despite the costs to himself, his friends, the woman he loves, and his cherished school. Not the sort of stalwart heroics one would associate with this type of film. In addition to these anti-heroics, Lee also carries off some comedic characterizations while in various disguises. In short, the guy was good at far more than just kicking the daylights out of people.

I know the rest of the critical world has endowed this show with the highest of accolades. Numerous websites are straining their voices to sing it's praises. So am I the only one who finds these characters so annoying I want to scream? I cannot remember a show that was so desperate to be adored, that went so far out of it's way to be precious. I've tried a couple of times to get interested in it. After all, with so many praises being heaped upon it, there must be something, SOMETHING I'm just not seeing. And every time I watch it I'm ready to strangle every character on the show within ten minutes. I watch the lead characters of Lorelai and Rory (could they have possibly been given more precious, saccharinely "darling" names?) and keep waiting for one of these characters in this mother/daughter relationship to behave like an adult. A REAL adult, not the kind of hip, cool writer's-creation version of an adult that could only exist in a television show (usually found on the WB).

I'm growing to hate this show more and more each time I see it. Unfortunately, syndication is making it increasingly difficult for me to avoid it. It's cloying and annoying, and if you are someone who prefers your television with at least a touch of reality, I recommend avoiding this one at all costs.

I went to this film with hopes high knowing that I'd previously enjoyed the work of Stephen Sommers, Hugh Jackman and Richard Roxburgh. I thought, "We're in very good hands here...what could possibly go wrong?"

What indeed.

This movie, an exercise in Hollywood's current addiction to vulgar excess, is a mess from top to bottom. It's chief flaws are in it's utterly dreadful script and the terrible, and I mean bloody AWFUL, performances by most of the cast. From the opening sequence, shot as an homage to the horror films Universal Studios produced throughout the 1930's and 40's, the performances go so far over the top as to be almost unwatchable. One of the key elements in making a successful horror fantasy is the audience has to be able to believe the world you're creating for them. They have to have something recognizable as being true to life so they can accept the remaining fantastic elements at face value. That something is usually found in the performances of the actors who, if they're good at their craft, know they have to make everything they're doing in this hokey environment utterly believable. But I'm afraid Mr. Summers and company give us nothing to believe in here, from the overproduced design elements, including some impossibly anachronistic prop weapons for the hero, to the clunky dialogue, to the bad performances by most involved. The worst, or wurst if you prefer, performance comes from the usually reliable Richard Roxburgh, whose portrayal of Dracula relies far too heavily on Gary Oldman's tantrum-throwing whiner of a count in the unfortunately titled "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (unfortunate because if you actually read the novel you realize Bram Stoker had very little to do with this version) and does nothing to sustain the mood established by Bela Lugosi or the power and menace created by Christopher Lee (still the screen's greatest Dracula).

Still, I try and find something positive to say about every film and in this case we have good news in the performance of Shuler Hensley as the Frankenstein Monster. He brings to the creature a sympathy that was very affecting, even though he was asked to perform under an outrageous amount of make-up (excessive once again). His operatic background made him well suited to play the role with a truthfulness that was sorely lacking in most of the rest of the cast.

What Mr. Sommers hoped to create was a continuation of the hybrid Horror-Comedy-Action film he started in "The Mummy" pictures. In "Van Helsing" he made a Horror-Comedy-Action film the was neither frightening, funny, or exciting. Instead it's a perfect example of Hollywood Summer Blockbuster filmmaking: runaway excess that is without an ounce of substance, or to quote Shakespeare, "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." I hope these talented people will exercise better judgement and produce future work more worthy of their talents.

...unfortunately, Hammer didn't make that one.

(Possible spoilers ahead)

In an effort to make their Dracula series more relevant to the 1970's audience, The Powers That Be at Hammer Films decided to move their villainous vampire into a contemporary setting. This, in and of itself, was not a bad idea. It could have worked well if properly handled. Unfortunately, this film just doesn't really get the job done. For example, they go through all the trouble of getting Dracula into the year 1972, then leave him stowed away in an abandoned church FOR THE ENTIRE FILM. Why not cut the old boy loose? Let him see how the world has changed and then see how he can still wreak horror and chaos upon that world. His motive in all this is getting his revenge on the house of Van Helsing, which is okay up to a point. But Dracula in the past always had loftier goals, like preying on entire nations and races with his vampiric appetites. Sure, go after the Van Helsing's. Why not? I'm sure, if you're Dracula, you think they have it coming. But while your at it take London in 1972 by storm. The Dracula I grew up with would have taken one look at it and said, "I own this dump."

Still, the film is not without merits. Peter Cushing, arguably the single most under-appreciated actor of his generation, elevates the proceedings with yet another stalwart performance. And it's always fun to watch Christoher Lee in the role of Dracula, even if he's under-used. Cushing and Lee's first moments together are in the opening sequence wherein they are battling each other while atop a runaway horse-drawn coach and it's an effective sequence. In addition, Stephanie Beacham, as Van Helsing's granddaughter, displays much charm and talent as the story's distressed damsel.

But the film also contains some cringe-inducing moments that were probably intended to be hip and cool in '72 but are now high camp. I will sometimes turn to the black mass scene just for the fun of hearing Johnny Alucard (played with much scenery chewing by Christopher Neame) bellow "Dig the music kids"! There's a good ten minute laugh right there. And that awful band that plays at the party the kids crash early in the film....oh my word!

All in all, I can't say the film is a great Hammer Dracula film. It just isn't. But I can't help but like the darn thing, notwithstanding. For me, Hammer Films were the cinematic equivalent of pizza: when it's good, it's REALLY good; and when it's bad, it's still pretty good. "Dracula A.D. 1972" isn't good Hammer pizza. But still...

I purchased this film on the strength of reviews that suggested it was worth a look. I want my money back. There is very little about this film that is worth looking at once, let alone repeated viewings. It appears to be an effort to emulate the unique style and tone of Roman Polanski's "The Fearless Vampire Killers" but fails in the attempt. I like Freddie Francis a great deal, particularly as a cinematographer but also as a director. His work has always had a touch of class even if the scripts he was given did not. Unfortunately, this is not an outing of his that I would recommend to anyone. Mr. Francis must have needed the job to take on this dismal horror-comedy that is totally lacking in horror and evokes few smiles and no laughs.

As I watched this film I kept imagining kids in the year 1965 watching this at Saturday afternoon matinees and thinking this was the coolest thing they had ever seen in their lives. What more could you ask for: a handsome and likable hero in Tab Hunter, a stunningly beautiful leading lady, the delightful David Tomlinson as comic relief, the masterfully sinister Vincent Price as the villain, an undersea world filled with mysterious and treacherous caverns, monstrous mer-men, and a nearby volcano threatening destruction at any moment. That's a pretty good Saturday afternoon if you ask me. And if you can approach this film in that way, allowing for the time and place in which it was made to inform your judgment, I think you'll find this a very enjoyable picture. For the most part it looks great (especially when one considers how tightly AIP held their purse strings in those days) if a bit dated by today's standards, but that too can be part of the fun.

The word "bad" just begins to scratch the surface for this film. New words would have to be invented to fully appreciate how truly awful this movie is. I sat with my jaw hanging open at the unrelenting barrage of cliches, stolen moments from other films, bad acting, atrocious dialogue, inept plotting, and the almost complete lack of a story.

Is there anything good about it all? Well, let's see...it's in focus and the actors seemed to know their badly written lines. That's about it. Please, don't make the mistake I made and put your hard earned money in the hands of the morons who made this mess.