whitepe Reviews

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

Spielberg + Kubrick = Success!

[9/10 · 31 July 2001]

A.I. began as an idea from the late director Stanley Kubrick. Kubrick was diverted to "Eyes Wide Shut" and passed away before being able to direct this film.

Steven Spielberg, a good friend of Kubrick's, was impressed by Kubrick's story and decided to direct A.I. in Kubrick's honor. What results is a successful collaboration between Spielberg and Kubrick.

In fact, Spielberg manages to effectively distance himself from himself in this film. I saw a lot of Kubrick elements in the film and very little of Spielberg. It's almost as if Spielberg and Kubrick had a psychic connection from beyond the grave!

A.I. is multilayered and intensely philosophical ... just like a Kubrick film. A.I. has an ambiguous ending ... just like a Kubrick film. A.I. gives you chills while watching it ... just like a Kubrick film. A.I. has hardly any dialog and uses imagery to convey its story ... just like a Kubrick film. A.I. explores the dark side of human nature ... just like a Kubrick film. A.I. presents a credible future ... just like a Kubrick film. A.I. even has one scene in a bathroom and several shots down long hallways... just like a Kubrick film.

The only Spielberg elements here are the lavish sets, excellent special effects, the superb score by John Williams, and the narrations from Ben Kingsley. (The narrations from Ben Kingsley should have been left out. They detract from the film a bit.)

The actors each do an excellent job. Haley Joel Osment is outstanding as David! (Notice how he doesn't even blink once during the movie!) Jude Law and Francis O'Connor give stunning performances as well! I recommend Haley Joel Osment for Best Actor of 2001 and at least supporting nominations for Jude Law and Francis O'Connor. Also worthy of note are Sam Robards (as Henry Swinton), William Hurt (as Professor Hobby), and Jake Thomas (who makes a good transition from Disney's "Lizzie McGuire" to the big screen as "Martin Swinton").

If you do see this movie, plan to be taken on a ride through several philosophical concepts: the future, love, intelligence, parenting, our fear of intelligent robots, etc. This film will arouse many questions but will allow you to draw your own conclusions.

See it for the acting. The acting is dramatic and very visual. Since there's hardly any dialog, pay attention to their actor's movements and facial expressions. They tell everything!

In the very least, at least see it to enjoy the great special effects: 1. New York City under water (You've got to see this, its amazing!). 2. The scene where they are repairing David. (His chest is open.) 3. The opening of the face of the female robot at the beginning. (This is pulled off so flawlessly!) 4. Rugue City. (The bridges across the river, the colors, etc.) 5. Henry and Monica's house.

So Weird (1999–2001)

A tale of two shows

[21 December 2000]

So Weird is like a PG-version of "The X-Files". It explores paranormal phenomena but in a way that is still suitable for younger kids.

The first and second seasons were good and entertaining. They featured Cara DeLizia as Fi, a teenage girl curious about paranormal phenomena. She portrays her character well, including Fi's unfulfilled longing for her father who died when she was very young. Patrick Levis played Jack, Fi's brother, well; and the sibling rivalry between Jack and Fi is humorous and easy to relate to. Mackenzie Phillips portrays "Molly Phillips", a concerned mom and singer, very well (and has a very good voice as well). Erik von Detton, an experienced actor, portrays his character, a member of Molly's bad who gets reluctantly dragged into Fi's adventures, very well also. You can sense true chemistry between the cast members as you watch these episodes.

Then, for some reason ... Fi is replaced as the main character by Annie Thelen. Instead of Cara DeLizia as Fi, we see Alexz Johnson as Annie. The explanation is that Fi moved away to live life as a normal girl, while Annie, as an aspiring singer, has decided to join Molly on the tour. Coincidentally, Annie just happens to be interested in paranormal phenomena... just like Fi ... hmmmmm. The only difference is that Annie can sing.

So while Alexz Johnson is a talented singer and actress, the third season (unlike the first and second seasons) is just plain silly with ridiculous story lines and one-dimensional characters. Annie's fascination with an invisible panther that she believes protects her does not have nearly the depth of Fi's unfulfilled longing for her deceased father. Annie's ability to sing does not make up for Fi's intellectual curiosity. In addition, the sibling rivalry between Jack and Fi is absent.

While references to Fi are made several times in the third season and we see Molly hug Fi (probably not Cara DeLizia) from a distance in the Thanksgiving episode, this show's third season just isn't as good as the first or second seasons.

That is why I call So Weird "a tale of two shows."

Battlefield Earth (2000)

This one definitely slipped through the cracks ....

[6 July 2000]

Mystery Science Theater, if you are reading this ... may I suggest "Battlefield Earth" for one of your episodes! I guarantee you, you'll have a field day with this one! There are enough bad elements of this film to keep the man and his robots speaking continuously throughout the film... ... just be sure not to get cricks in your necks from the diagonal camera angles. The producers and directors of this film need to drink their V8s before filming in the future.

In summary, the plot inconsistencies (to numerous to mention), wanton disregard for basic scientific principles, and lack of philosophical coherency (... NO THERE IS NO HIDDEN DEPTH IN THIS FILM ... IT IS JUST PLAIN BAD!!!!) results in a rating of 1/4 stars out of 4. Believe me, that is being generous to the worst film I have ever seen in MY ENTIRE LIFE!

7th Heaven (1996–2007)

A welcome breath of fresh air in today's media

[8 April 2000]

I became immediately entralled by 7th Heaven the first time I saw it about one year ago. It was the first family sitcom that I have seen in a long time. With the exception of 7th Heaven, most shows today really attempt to push the limits of good taste. They fill their shows with sexual references, with violence, and with sleezy insults between the characters. They make it seem as if doing these things are the norm in our society and that such is the best we can become as human beings. However, 7th Heaven presents a positive, uplifting message. It shows how a family can survive the turbulent challenges of our times.

The most interesting aspect of this show is the noninvasiveness of its message. Unlike most religious presentations on this theme, it humbly presents its theme of family without even the slightest trace of piety. It also effectively blends the traditional ideas of family with the newer innovative definitions of the family today. It shows that a family can weather any storm by simply applying the timeless principles of love, mutual respect, and open communication.

In additional to the shows excellent theme, the cast are well-suited to their roles. Stephen Collins and Catherine Hicks--aside of being in one Star Trek movie each (Stephen Collins was in Star Trek I and Catherine Hicks was in Star Trek IV)--display the perfect romantic chemistry between a husband and wife. The kids are all cute and sexy as their respective characters. The guest stars also fit in well with the tone of the series.

Overall, 7th Heaven is a shining beacon in the sea of moral depravity in our media today. I was immediately entralled by the first episode, and I now try to watch it every chance I get.

Mission to Mars (2000)

Too many inconsistencies in search of a sci-fi story ...

[2/10 · 1 April 2000]

Last night, I went to see Mission to Mars because it was the only movie still playing at the time. With the origin of life supposedly being its undercurrent, I expected this movie to be similar to "2001: A Space Odyssey" or "Contact". Instead, I was extremely disappointed. If you are going to see this film, I would wait until it comes out on video. It just simply is not worth the movie theater price--both the regular and dollar-theater prices.

The movie casts great actors in their various roles: Gary Sinise, Tim Robbins, Jerry O'Connell, and the like. Aside from the chemistry between the Tim's character and his wife, the movie suffers from a general lack of character development. The potential in these good actors is wasted on poor, trite character development and stale dialog.

The plot leaves much to be desired. It gave too little focus to the Mars portion of the film. In addition, the plot in general strains credibility and chronically suffers from a lack of explanation. A lot of things happen, but I was not told why these things were happening. After about half of the movie, the plot became abhorrently predictable, and I did not feel for one minute that anyone's lives were in danger. Then, the movie abruptly ended, and I walked out of the theater wondering, "Is that it?!"

The philosophy of the film is also poorly developed. This is probably because they waited until to late in the film to lay it out. As a result, they just had to rush through it in order to finish the film in under two hours. So, the philosophy is plagued with inconsistencies and general nonsense. It definitely lacks the intellectual depth of Carl Sagan's "Contact" or Arthur C. Clarke's "2001" book series.

Also, the movie presented several key inconsistencies about conditions on Mars. It is obvious that the writers did not do their astronomical homework before this film:

First, Mars' gravity is significantly less than Earth gravity. So, the characters should have been more agile on Mars. This is because they should weigh less. Also, things should have been easier to carry since they weighed less also. This is conspicuously absent from this film.

Second, Mars' is about one-fourth the size of Earth. Yet, the topography of Mars seemed the same as Earth. Since Mars is smaller, the curvature of Mars is greater. Therefore, you should not have been able to see as far to the horizon as the movie indicated.

Third, Mars' atmospheric pressure is far less that the atmospheric pressure on Earth. Yet, they were able to remove their helmets when inside of the greenhouse on Mars. This makes absolutely no sense.

In conclusion, this movie left me with a lot to be desired. If you must see this film, then at least do yourself the justice of waiting until it comes out on video.

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)

Skip it ... you won't miss much!

[4/10 · 12 March 2000]

Star Trek V definitely earns the dubious distinction of being the weakest film in the Star Trek series. Despite the good acting efforts by the actors, it suffered from a general lack of funding from Paramount Pictures. Paramount Pictures was not enthusiastic about this film at its very onset.

The movie begins with the Enterprise crew enjoying their extended shore leave as a reword for saving the Earth from total ecological disaster. Their shore leave is cut short when a disturbance occurs on Nimbus III, the Planet of Intergalactic Peace. Captain Kirk and the Enterprise arrive at Nimbus III only to have their ship hijacked by Sybok, Spock's half-brother. Sybok brainwashes the crew of the Enterprise and sets it on a suicide mission to rendezvous with "God" just past the Great Barrier at the center of our galaxy. Captain Kirk must then figure out a way to regain control of his ship and to fend off the Enterprise's Klignon pursuers.

The only bright spot in the film is the acting and directing. William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, Laurence Luckinbill, and the rest of the cast all give good performances. William Shatner also does a pretty good job directing this film.

However, the film suffered from a general lack of enthusiasm and funding. First, the part of Sybok was initially offered to Sean Connery, but he refused. So, Laurence Luckinbill got the part. Second, many of the special effects were severely cut back ... reducing the movies entertaining potential. Third, the scene that depicts the arrival at the Great Barrier left much to be desired. Finally, the romance between Scotty and Uhura in this film did not make much sense at all ... considering that no such romance ever occurred prior to this point in the Star Trek universe and it was never explained how such a romance could suddenly materialize between Star Treks IV and V.

Overall, this is a very weak film. You should probably just skip this film and move on to Star Trek VI. After all, the cast and crew made Star Trek VI partly to bail themselves out after their debacle with Star Trek V.

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)

Save the whales!

[7/10 · 12 March 2000]

Star Trek IV departs from the typical serious tone of the other Star Trek movies. It serves as a breath of comic relief from the more somber tone of Star Trek III, its predecessor. It definitely is one of the more entertaining films in the Star Trek series.

The movie begins with Admiral Kirk and his crew exiled on Vulcan. They have managed to resurrect Captain Spock and to procure the Klignon vessel gained during their defeat of the Klignons at the Genesis planet. They now decide to boldly return to Earth to face the consequences of their treasonous actions against Starfleet.

Meanwhile, an alien probe of unknown origin has set a direct course for Earth. This probe is unleashing an unusual signal aplified with great power at everything in its path. During its journey to Earth, the probe disables ships and the Starfleet space station at Earth as well as vaporizing the Earth's oceans and ionizing the Earth's atmosphere.

Admiral Kirk and his crew return to Earth to find it nearing total planetary ecological disaster. The probe has caused an immense cloud cover over the planet and has almost entirely vaporized the Earth's oceans. After analysis of the probe by Spock, Spock announces that the only way to placate the probe is to answers its signal. The answer can only be provided by the humpbacked whales.

The only problem is that humpbacked whales are extinct in the 23rd century. This extinction was caused by extreme hunting and poaching in the 20th and 21st centuries. Upon realizing this, the crew of the Enterprise realize the inevitable ... they must somehow travel back in time to 20th century Earth to obtain some humpbacked whales to respond to the alien probe! So, they aim their Klignon vessel at the sun and use its gravitational field somehow go back in time.

When they arrive at late 20th century San Francisco, they find a world that is both fascinating and hostile. They are bewildered by a people that use money, have many cars, speak with "colorful metaphors", and have "exact change" buses. Their experience of cultural shock as they adapt to our present world provides for some rather humorous encounters. They eventually manage to elicit the help of Dr. Gillian Taylor, a marine biologist who is steward to George and Gracey (two humpbacked whales--male and female).

However, despite their success in going backwards in time, several problems remain. Can they really obtain the two humpbacked whales they need to save Earth? Do they have the necessary fuel and resources to successfully return to the 23rd century? Is saving the Earth going to be enough to salvage their omenous careers in Starfleet? (... And even, what does "exact change" mean?)

This movie is successful because it is easy to relate to. You see our world and our culture in the light of a foreigner, a visitor from the future. You also see the consequences that can result from our sometimes shortsighted attitudes towards the environment.

Overall, this is a funny film with several good philosophical messages. It is obvious that the cast and crew had a lot of fun making this film.

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)

One dead, one alive ... yet both in pain.

[6/10 · 12 March 2000]

Star Trek III continues the story from its predecessor film, Star Trek II. Unlike the previous film, Star Trek III has a more mystical mood and is less action-oriented. While this film is one of the weaker films in the Star Trek universe, it serves as a good connecting film between Star Treks II and IV.

The movie starts with the triumphant return of Enterprise crew to Earth after their arduous battle with Khan, Kirk's greatest nemesis. Despite their relief of their victory, they each have paid heavy prices. Spock is dead, and McCoy has become inexplicably insane. The Genesis planet has become an immense galactic controversy, and the Enterprise is facing an eminent decommissioning by Starfleet.

The Enterprise crew is reckoning with their losses when Admiral Kirk receives an unexpected visit from Sarek, Spock's father. Admiral Kirk is surprised at Sarek's revelation that Spock's Katra, his living essence, is still alive! He then learns that Spock imparted his Katra, through a mind-meld, to Dr. McCoy just prior to his death. Sarek then charges Kirk with the sobering task of bring Spock's body and Dr. McCoy to Vulcan to perform a Vulcan reunification ritual that could effectively resurrect Spock!

After much contemplation, Kirk realizes that the only way to accomplish this task is to return to Genesis to reclaim Spock's body. When he is unable to get approval through proper Starfleet channels to return to Genesis, he and his crew risk their careers by stealing the Enterprise, sabotaging its pursuing Starfleet vessel, and setting a course for the Genesis planet.

In the meantime, David, Kirk's son, and Saavak have been aboard a research vessel at planet Genesis. They are scanning the planets surface when they discover an animal life form on the planet's surface! They beam down to find Spock's empty casket and a baby boy. They then realize the obvious ... the Genesis planet, a planet created by a life-generating experiment, has somehow regenerated Spock's DNA as a young child!

In addition, the Klignons have received information about the Gensis planet. They perceive the Genesis experiment as a threat to the livelihood of their nation and set a course for Genesis. When they arrive there, they manage to destroy David and Saavak's research vessel, take David and Saavak prisoners, and engage the Enterprise in an intense confrontation.

Meanwhile, the Genesis experiment has shown its critical flaw ... the probe was designed with protomatter, a highly unstable substance. The Genesis planet begins to age quickly. The quick aging promotes quick aging in Spock and various meteorological and seismic disturbances.

So, Kirk and his crew must figure out a way to defeat the Klignons and remove Spock from the planet before he and the planet suffer a tumultuous death.

Like the other Star Trek films, this one raises several philosophical questions. First, it asks the question, "Do we have the right to create life, or is this power reserved only to the divine?" Also, it retorts the question posed at the end of Star Trek II with the counter-questions, "Is the good of the many greater than the good of the one in ALL cases?" and "Are there things worth risking your life and livelihood for?"

Overall, this is a pretty good film that serves as a good connecter between Star Treks II and IV. It has a satisfying ending that leaves you longing for Star Trek IV.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)

"Revenge is a dish best served cold."

[8/10 · 5 March 2000]

Star Trek II takes the star trek movies in a different direction than its predecessor, Star Trek (The Motion Picture). It augments its philosophical underpinnings and great special effects with an action-packed plot.

This movie effectively plays off of the "Space Seed" episode of the original series of Star Trek. In that episode, Capt. Kirk and the Enterprise discover Khan (portrayed by Ricardo Montalban) and his crew in cryogenic freeze on the Botany Bay, a ship lost in space from the year 1996. When Khan is awaked, the Enterprise crew discover that Khan was the madman from history who nearly took over all people on Earth. Khan then tried to steal the Enterprise and murder Capt. Kirk. Due to the intelligence and resourcefulness of the crew, Capt. Kirk managed to defeat Khan's plans and then exiled Khan and his crew to spend the rest of their lives on planet Seti Alpha 5.

In Star Trek II, Chekov accidentally discovers Khan on Seti Alpha 5. Unfortunately, Khan's anger against (now Admiral) Kirk has kindled during his exile, and he is intent on accomplishing one thing ... killing Kirk for vengeance. Khan manages to steal a Federation starship (U.S.S. Reliant); raid a Federation research laboratory (Regula I); steal the secrets to Project Genesis, a potential destructive project; and engage in a deadly pursuit of Admiral Kirk and the Enterprise.

During this film, we see a transformation of its characters. We see Admiral Kirk regaining his passion for his duties in Starfleet and reconciling his relationship with his illegitimate son and his son's mother. We see Khan as an intelligent madmen who lets his desire for revenge overshadow his rational, and otherwise prudent, judgment. We also see Spock's genuine devotion to the livelihood of his fellow crew members.

In conclusion, this film contains great special effects, memorable dialog, and great acting. This film has intense action scenes and a breathtaking final sequence. In this film, we see the destructive nature of revenge, the creation of new life, and the necessity to reckon with past events in our lives.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

Who is 'VGER'?

[8/10 · 5 March 2000]

Star Trek: The Motion Picture is the first film in the Star Trek series, the most successful series in movie history. After all, the fact that a movie series can hold the public's interest for 21 years (and nine films) and that the whole Star Trek concept is alive and well after over 30 years says something about the genius of Gene Roddenberry, Star Trek's creator.

People seem to cricitize this film heavily. Some of the criticisms of the film that I have heard in my discussions with people include phrases such as "frightfully boring," "way too long," and "chronically lacking in action." However, if that is all you saw in the film, then you clearly missed out on the film's beauty. This film is not about guns, explosions, blood, or machismo. It is about the philosophical relationship between logic and emotion.

The film is masterfully directed by Robert Wise, the academy award winning director of "The Sound of Music." The film reunites the original cast of the Star Trek series with a few new faces ... Stephen Collins as "Capt. Decker" and Persis Khambata as "Lt. Ilia". It also recaps the events that have transpired in each original series character since the television series in the late 60's with a sensitivity to newcomers to the Star Trek universe. It effectively introduces newcomers to Star Trek without insulting the intelligence of those of us who are thoroughly familiar with Star Trek.

The plot features an intelligent, logical entity that calls itself VGER. VGER is an innocent entity with one mission ... "learn all that is learnable... transmit that information to the creator." VGER in its incredible journey has in essence gained knowledge that spans the very essence of the universe. VGER now has set a course for Earth in an attempt to share its knowledge with its creator. VGER believes that its creator is on Earth.

VGER becomes a threat to life on Earth when its destroys three Klignon vessels and a Federation space station with incredible destructive power. To counter this threat, Admiral Kirk takes command of the Enterprise and leads the Enterprise in an intriguing battle with this alien entity.

While battling this alien entity, Admiral Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the crew learn about the relationship between human logic and emotion. They explore philosophical issues such as "Is this all that I am?" and "Is there nothing more?". I believe Spock summarizes the quest for answers to these questions by his statement about two-thirds of the way into the film that indicates that "logic alone is not enough". They eventually learn to appreciate the unique attributes that make us human ... "our weaknesses ... and the drive that compels us to overcome them."

In conclusion, this film has a great plot, great special effects, and excellent music and cinematography. Definitely see it if you are truly interested in taking a philosophical journey into the essence of what makes us human.

The Sixth Sense (1999)

I did not know exactly what to expect

[9/10 · 21 February 2000]

When I initially entered the movie theater to watch The Sixth Sense, I did not know exactly what to expect. I liked the genre in general, and I had heard good reviews about this film from people I knew. However, I did not expect it to be nearly as good as it was.

Several elements made this film a success: the plot, the acting, the special effects, and the filming staff.

First, the plot was excellent. It was well thought out, and I was not expecting the ending. Usually, I find most films lately to be predictable with minimal plot and a high dependency on special effects and explosions to sell themselves. This film was different. It led you one way only to let you know at the very end that your perception of the situation was way off course. The plot had enough twists and turns to keep me interested in seeing more, and I actually watched it a second time a week later just to catch everything that I had missed the first time.

The acting was excellent.

Haley Joel Osment puts forth an excellent, believable performance as the tormented Cole Sear who claims that he "can see dead people." His performance is so real that you forget that he is acting. He definitely is a young actor with a lot of potential, and I hope he wins the Best Supporting Actor award for this movie.

Bruce Willis shows his full range of acting abilities in this film as well. He portrays a Dr. Malcolm Crowe, successful child counsellor who is troubled by the fact that he ultimately failed on one of his former patients. He is using Cole Sear, a young boy with similar problems, as a way to (in his mind) compensate for his former failure. Bruce Willis should have been nominated for Best Actor for this film.

Toni Collette does an excellent job as Lynn Sear, Cole's mom. She deserves to receive the Best Supporting Actress award. She portrays a mother who is perplexed by her son's unwillingness to communicate with her and by her perceived lack of esteem in her mother's eyes.

Olivia Williams also does a great job as Anna Crowe. She believably portrays a wife who is depressed by her seemingly degenerating relationship with her husband, Dr. Malcolm Crowe.

Donnie Walhberg's brief (pardon the pun!) cameo at the beginning of the film is spooky to watch as well.

The special effects of the film were well done. The film really built up suspense in various key parts. The makeup and props for the dead people were done very well.

Finally, the staff did a good job making this movie. M. Night Shyamalan did a good job directing this film. The music complemented its respective scenes very well.

Overall, this is a good film with lots of philosophical depth. I definitely recommended it to anyone.