This gallery contains 44 photos.
More Galleries Le Blog
We spent a few weeks in January pondering the best movies from twenty years ago. But before you find yourself waxing nostalgic about how they don’t make ’em like they used to, here’s a little reminder that Hollywood made just as much crap thirty years ago as they do today. If you’re looking for bad movies, sequels are usually a pretty good bet. 1998 had its fair share of clunkers with very few bright spots to even the scales. It’s not the worst year in sequels we have seen so far, but it’s still pretty lousy. Let’s relive the mediocrity of the sequels of 1998
The Golden Raspberries started off as an informal joke. Something for a publicist and his friends to do after the Oscars had ended. Over time, it has become and enduring and irreverent tradition. In theory, The Razzies poke fun at the worst movies of the year. But like any awards ceremony, the Razzies frequently make the wrong call. We’re going back and looking at the history of the Golden Raspberry Awards one year at a time.
The tenth annual Razzies nominated the movies of 1989. Batman and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade were the big movies that year. Driving Miss Daisy won the Oscar for Best Picture and Daniel Day-Lewis won Best Actor for My Left Foot. But the Razzies were suffering from a bad case of sequelitis.
Set your phaser to stun cause I’m ranking all the Star Trek movies. Hopefully you will find my rankings logical. But if anything makes your green blood boil, you can let me know in the comments section.
The success of Star Wars ushered in a wave of science fiction that included The Black Hole, Battlestar Galactica and the return of Star Trek. Star Trek had originally been intended to return as a new TV show. But after Star Wars showed how much money could be made with a science fiction movie, it got promoted to the big screen.
Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry had high ambitions for the first Star Trek movie. He envisioned something akin to 2001: A Space Odyssey. What he ended up with was lots of scenes of the crew watching now-dated special effects on the ship’s monitor. A friend of mine jokingly refers to it as Star Trek: The Motionless Picture which I think is an apt description.
Over at That Moment In, they take a look at one of the better scenes in the movie in which characters actually get to interact instead of just staring forward at a big TV screen looking at swirling space.
In the far reaches of space, a trio of Klingon warships fire upon a strange blue-ish geometric cloud, though their proton torpedoes have no effect. The squad leader calls for evasive action, suspecting a retaliatory volley. He’s not disappointed. Nearby, Epsilon IX, a Starfleet monitoring station picks up the exchange and witnesses the destruction of the Klingon vessels, one-by-one, each by powerful bolts of blue plasma energy emanating from deep within the anomaly. Worse, the crew of the station make a terrifying calculation: the massive cloud appears to be on a fixed heading straight for Earth! Cue the music.
View original post 2,820 more words
With Neill Blomkamp’s latest science fiction movie, Chappie, opening March 6, we thought it would be fun to look back at some of the most memorable robot characters in movie history. Some of them are good, some of them want to kill us. Some of them look like humans and others are clearly machines. Robots have been part of movies since the early silent picture days. In this bracket game, we pick our favorites.
“I think a lot of us have realized that being a nerd … it’s not about what you love. It’s about how you love it.”
–Wil Wheaton, King of the Nerds
In the 90’s, Ashley Judd was one of the most promising actresses in Hollywood. She has been nominated for two Golden Globes, played a young Marilyn Monroe and for a while she practically owned the thriller genre. But later in her career, Judd transitioned from suspense movies to chick flicks and political activism. Since then, Judd’s movie career has shifted into low gear. These days, Judd is better known for her political aspirations than her latest movies.
What the hell happened?
It’s hard to believe it has already been four years since J.J. Abrams rebooted the Star Trek franchise. Abrams’ 2009 Star Trek was slicker, faster and more popular than anything in the long-running series’ history. It was arguably also the most dumbed-down version of Star Trek to date. Abrams admitted that he was never a fan of Star Trek. He set out to make a Star Trek movie for people like him – people who couldn’t get into the high-minded science fiction aspects of the series. And he succeeded in that goal by delivering an action-heavy spectacle filled with his signature lens flares and a young, attractive crew.
The sequel, Star Trek Into Darkness, follows the same formula as the 2009 reboot. Freed from the obligations to reintroduce the Star Trek characters to the uninitiated, Into Darkness is faster and more hyperkinetic than the original. I’m not sure it is any less dumbed-down, but it does manage to dig into slightly deeper territory than the first film. And it benefits from a stronger villain and the lack of a ridiculous time travel plot.
Like all Abrams’ projects, Into Darkness is shrouded in secrecy. The cast and crew refused to discuss the identity of the villain played by Benedict Cumberbatch. Internet rumors swirled that Cumberbatch was playing an updated version of Khan, the most popular villain from the original series. All of the secrecy is largely unnecessary. The movie has some surprises, but it telegraphs them from miles away. I saw the movie without spoilers and never once did it surprise me.
Spoilers follow after the jump.