Semiquincentennial Project #2: The Fish That Saved Pittsburgh

 

 

 

The Semiquincentennial  Movie Project is an ongoing celebration of the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States. During the course of this project your humble blogger is choosing a movie a week to represent each of the 50 states in the Union, as well as a movie scheduled for 4th of July weekend that will represent the nation's capitol, Washington D.C. The order of the weekly entries will coincide with the order of each state's entry into the fold (although, not necessarily coinciding with the date of their entry into said fold).

 

 

 Week #2: Pennsylvania :

 

 

The state of Pennsylvania was the second of the original colonies to be established as a state in the United States. It became a state on December 12, 1787.

Details about Pennsylvania:

State bird: Ruffled grouse

State flower: Mountain laurel

State tree: Hemlock

 The Fish That Saved Pittsburgh (1979):

 

 

It's fitting that the Pennsylvania entry in this project centers around basketball. The basketball movie and Pennsylvania almost go hand in hand. Just look at the list of basketball movies that centered in the state. Celtic Pride, That Championship Season, Full Court Miracle, The Mighty Macs. One of the films that sailed under the radar was a comedy about the fictional Pittsburgh Pythons, a team that apparently couldn't shoot it's way out of a match-up with a team of pre-schoolers.

Pittsburgh is a big sports town, of course. They are represented in the NFL by the Pittsburgh Steelers, in the MBA by the Pittsburgh Pirates and in the NHL by the Pittsburgh Penguins. It seems astounding, to me at any rate, that their is no professional NBA team in Pittsburgh. To be fair there have been a few attempts, but it seems that Pittsburgh is considered a small market city when it comes to basketball. Not to mention the huge competition with the perennial powerhouses in the NFL and the NHL. 

This movie features many basketball stars of the time (late '70's). In film roles playing members of the hapless Pythons were Julius "Dr. J." Erving, Meadowlark Lemon (of the Harlem Globetrotters fame) and Jerry Chambers, but also appearing as themselves on the various courts of the game were a plethora of basketball stars:  Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (L.A. Lakers), Bob Lanier (Detroit Pistons), "Cornbread" Maxwell (Boston Celtics) and Kevin Porter (Detroit Pistons).

The Pittsburgh Pythons are the laughingstock of the NBA. Even the worst teams in the league at least garner some fans who brave the jeers of casual fans and band wagoners who only go to the games when the team is winning. The opening scene of the film shows a vast landscape of empty seats. Nobody, and I mean nobody seems to want to go to the games, and that includes a set of wheelchair bound geriatrics who seem to be serving some kind of punishment, because even they complain:  "I don't want to be here. I wanna go home!" 

 

The Pythons have a problem, not only with being able to perform well on the court, but also with being able to interact with each other off the court. One of them, Lucian Tucker (Jerry Chambers), even openly tries to express his disgust with the team on court, demanding that he be traded forthwith vocally, even while in the process avoiding performing his duties on court. And he doesn't get along with his teammates, especially Moses Guthrie (Julius "Dr. J." Erving), whom he basically calls out as a over paid hindrance.

 

The coach for the time, Jock Delaney (Flip Wilson) is more than a little miffed with his team. You get the idea that he would do anything, if he could just get these malcontents to pull together as a team, but he just doesn't have the General mentality to get things back on track.

The only one who seems to have any faith in the team is a young kid, the ball boy, Tyrone (James Bond III). He tries to give Guthrie some encouragement, saying that Guthrie is just in a slump and he knows that Guthrie can turn it around. Guthrie tells Tyrone that he is a Pisces and he just needs to check his horoscope, which starts the wheels turning in Tyrone's mind.

 

He thinks astrology is the key to turning the Pythons around. So he goes to a local astrologer, Mona Mondieu (Stockard Channing) to get her advice. He tries to convince her to be the team astrologer. In so doing, he tells that the team are ALL Pisces. Of course, they aren't really ALL Pisces... at least, not yet. But fate has thrown it's hand into the fire because most of the team just walks. This sets up a need to get a team together, but fast.

 

They hold open tryouts for any and all basketball star wannabes. Which gets, among others, a local D.J., Jackhammer Washington ( Jesse Lawrence Ferguson) and a local preacher, Reverend Grady Jackson (Meadowlark Lemon) to come to the open tryouts. But there is one stipulation... all of the potential players HAVE to be born under the zodiac sign of Pisces.

 

The owner of the Pythons is a scatterbrain rich guy, H. S. Tilson (Jonathan Winters) is all gung ho about the idea, but his older brother Harvey (also played by Winters) is convinced his little brother is a nitwit.

 

But H. S. intends to follow through with this decidedly off kilter idea. Including the aforementioned Jackhammer and the Reverend, several other players are destined to try to make this idea work, including Setshot Bufford (Jack Kehoe), Driftwood Haney (Peter Isacksen), and Bullet Haines (Malek Abdul Mansour). Most of these guys wouldn't even get a second look by the scouts, but they have one advantage... they are all Pisces.

 

This astrological mumbo-jumbo must have something on the ball, because this group of malcontents go on a tear, moving from last place lunkheads to contenders.  They take on some power houses in the league and mop the floor with them. Of course, this being about a fictional team from Pittsburgh, the rest of the teams are only known by their cities: Boston, Detroit, New York, and of course Los Angeles. But if you are quick eyed (and are familiar with the players of the late 70's) you can't help not missing some big names.

The highlight of the movie has to be the end. The Pisces are playing a game 7 in the NBA finals against Los Angeles, whose team includes the big guy himself, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. But a monkey wrench has been thrown into the mix as Harvey, owner H.S.'s unscrupulous brother, kidnaps Mona. In the end the Pisces end up having to rely on themselves, rather than their astrological mentor.  

 

With a budget of $4 million, the movie made a pretty decent profit, pulling in $8.3 million in ticket sales. It didn't get much fanfare from the critics. (It doesn't even have enough reviews to get a rating on the vaunted Tomato meter, although IMDb user ratings put it at just shy of 5 stars). Is this a great movie? My opinion is it's not entirely bad, although it seems quite predictable. Often during the film certain situations are telegraphed long in advance. For instance, you just had to KNOW that the combative Lucien Tucker, the one who kept demanding to be traded at the beginning of the film, would end up being on the team that the Pisces faced in the finals. Sure, that's a standard trope in sports movies, so it's not like you wouldn't have expected it in the first place.   

In the end, I really can't tell whether this movie is disparaging the idea of belief in astrology or if it is trying to advocate it's power. Just so you know, I don't really believe in all that mumbo-jumbo of the stars having some kind of pseudo magical influence on my life, But then again, I told a woman who did believe in all that hocus pocus stuff and, without having told her beforehand my birth date, she said "You must be a Sagittarius." I was born in early December, and that falls under the Sagittarius zodiac sign, so maybe there is something to this stuff after all...  (Naaaah!)  

That's it for this week.

Quiggy 

Claustrophobic Terror

 

 

This is my second entry in the Film. Release. Repeat. Blogathon hosted by Hamlette's Soliloquy and yours truly.

 

 

 

I make no bones about it. My favorite director is John Carpenter and five of his films are in my top ten favorite movies of all time. I missed out on Halloween when it first hit the theater, so my first John Carpenter movie was actually Escape from New York. Not long after I saw that, which highly impressed me, I went back and saw the aforementioned Halloween, as well as The Fog. And I also began to anticipate each new film that came out in subsequent years.  The five that occupy space in my top ten (in no certain order) are Big Trouble in Little China, They Live, The Thing, Escape from New York and Christine. 

My review of The Thing has been a long time coming as a feature film at The Midnite Drive-In. I feel certain if I hadn't gone through a lethargic period of writing during Covid that it would have long been reviewed. Same goes for Christine (and that will soon be remedied too.) Carpenter made four films with Kurt Russell back in the day, including a TV movie on Elvis, Escape from New York and it's sequel Escape from L.A., Big Trouble in Little China and The Thing. 

 

The Thing (1982):

Note: In the interest of not turning off some of the more skittish readers, I have refrained from using any pics in this review depicting the creature in it's changing process. If you really want to see them you can google images of The Thing 1982...

 

The film starts out with a dog. The dog is being chased by some guys in a helicopter. The occupants seem intent on killing the dog. When they arrive at the U.S. based camp they are still intent on killing the dog, but this is seen as an attack on the scientists and they kill the interlopers. Of course, if one or the other groups had been fluent in the other's language the US group might have been forewarned, but the interlopers only speak Norwegian and the US guys only understand English.

 

The base helicopter pilot, MacReady (Kurt Russell) and the base doctor, Copper (Richard Dysart) decide to go up to the Norwegian base and see what might have happened. They find the base in shambles, and an odd malformed body which they take back to the US base camp. The camp biologist, Blair (Wilford Brimley) is given the task of performing an autopsy on this weird body. What Blair finds inside are normal human organs, heart, liver and the like.

The crew decides to go try to find out what the Norwegians had been doing just prior to the havoc that happened at their camp. The end up finding a spaceship that appears to have been hidden under the ice for some 100,000 years. They also find the leftover remains of what may have been a body the Norwegians uncovered in the spaceship. 

 

The dog is put in the kennel with the base camps' dogs, because, after all, as far as they know, its just another dog. But this "dog", of course, is NOT a dog. Which is why those Norwegians were trying to kill it. The camp kills the odd thing as it is in the process of changing, and the day is saved. Roll credits.

 

Not so fast. The creature is able to replicate itself and disappears into the attic above the dog compound. Blair autopsies the dog thing the group killed and comes to the conclusion that the creature could assimilate any living organism, and through computer simulation estimates that if it got loose it could assimilate every living thing on the planet within a few years. As a result Blair becomes just a wee bit paranoid, since virtually any one of them could now be the thing, posing as one of them.

Blair, in his paranoia, wreaks havoc on the compound, virtually destroying any avenue that the thing could use to escape the compound: demolishing all radios, computers, sleds, etc. The crew manages to subdue Blair and lock him in the tool shed. Dr. Copper suggests that they take blood samples from each of them and compare them to blood samples held in storage in the compound, but of course, the thing has anticipated this and contaminated the samples.

 

No one knows exactly who to trust. Each of the crew immediately begins to look with suspicion upon his co-workers, and since they are isolated at the bottom of the world now, without any lines of communication with the outside world, it gradually becomes a matter of finger-pointing. Of course, everyone insists that he himself is the same as when he first came into the camp and thus not the alien creature. The one that is the creature also claims this, of course, but then why would it admit it was an alien?

In the end, virtually everyone in the crew has been killed, either because it was actually a part of the thing's assimilation process, or through misadventure. The remaining three crew members determine that the alien plans to go into hibernation again. MacReady and his remaining cohorts decide to demolish what is left of the base camp, although, since the creature can apparently survive in hibernation indefinitely, I am not sure what this would accomplish. As MacReady and Childs await the inevitable freezing to death that is coming now, they decide to share a bottle of Scotch.

 

The Thing  was a remake of a classic sci-fi film from the 50's, The Thing (from Another World). The original novella, Who Goes There? by John W. Campbell, Jr., has much more in common with the 1982 remake than it does with the 1951 original film. Basically the creature in the 1951 film, joking referred to these days as "an intelligent carrot" was just an alien form of a vampire. It killed, but it didn't kill to propagate it's species, it only killed to find sustenance off of the humans. (The "intelligent carrot" remark refers to the fact that, although it was filmed in black and white, the alien itself was orange, and had characteristics of a vegetable life form.)

What made this version of The Thing so compelling is that, like predecessors in such films as Invasion of the Body Snatchers, this creature had the ability after it consumed its victims, to take over their characteristics. (Much the same way the creature in the original novella did.) Carpenter had some good help in the special effects department on this film. He brought on board Rob Bottin, with whom he had worked on The Fog, to create the special effects of the creature transformation.

BTW, if the effects in the first Alien movie had you running for the porta-potty, let me just say "You ain't seen nothing yet". The special effects are one of the reasons that the movie got such initially bad reviews from critics. Initially Carpenter was not going to direct, because at the time he preferred directing movies in which he was actively involved in the original story, and filming a previously published story was not in his interest. As such Tobe Hooper (of Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Poltergeist fame) was approached, but producers became disenchanted with the way Hooper was doing it. Eventually they were able to convince Carpenter to do it.

As far as Kurt Russell as the star was concerned, he wa the last of the film's characters to be cast. Not that Carpenter was reluctant to work with him but he just wanted to keep his options open. Some of the actors considered were Christopher Walken, Brian Dennehy, Scott Glenn, Jeff Bridges and Nick Nolte. The most intriguing of those, in my opinion, would have been Jeff Bridges. I think Walken would have taken the character in an entirely different and not altogether sympathetic direction.

When the movie was initially released it was not well received, but in retrospect it has garnered some praise. Personally I think that it is an excellent remake. The creature in the original just never gave me the willies like the Carpenter/Bottin creation. And the atmosphere created by the film made it all that much more attractive. The claustrophobic situation, what with all the action taking place in an isolated are like Antarctica and the fact that no one can trust anyone else to be whom they seem to be has a profound effect on the terror the situation creates.  

The film barely made its original investment back and was NOT the hit that Carpenter hoped would boost his credibility. Coming in on the heels of Steven Spielberg's E,T.: The Extraterrestrial, which was a much more upbeat movie, to the say the least, of aliens, the dark and somewhat nihilistic The Thing was viewed as probably coming in at the wrong time for the political landscape. The country was in the middle of a recession, and hope for a better future was not prevalent in the film. In retrospect, however the film has been gradually gaining some more appreciative audiences. 

Watching this film in conjunction with the Philip Kaufman 1978 version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers might cause the most susceptible paranoiacs to run for the hills. Still, all in all, one of the reasons why  I consider this movie to be a good remake, not withstanding Carpenter's hand in it, is the fact that it entertains, even despite some of it's flaws.

Well, folks, time to crank this old Plymouth up and head home. There is snow predicted tonight, so my isolation may be a little discomforting...

Quiggy

 

 

 

 

The Film. Relase. Repeat. Blogathon is Here!

 

 

 

 

 

As we all know, the old adage of "there is nothing new under the sun" is pretty much stale in most areas. But when it comes to Hollywood, that adage is replaced with "what's good for the goose is good for the gander", so to speak. Just in the past calendar year there were no less than 6 movies in the top ten money maker movies of the year that were either reboots (or remakes) of classic theme subjects (such as a new Superman movie) or movies that were sequels to big movies from the past (with or without a number after the title; Zootopia 2, Wicked: For Good).

The goal of this blogathon was the germ of an idea that sometimes Hollywood can outdo itself in following a formulaic theme, but then, they can also push a story too far, all in the name of the Almighty Dollar. Rachel of Hamlette's Soliloquy and I present some of those sequels and remakes that Tinseltown put forth.

For the most part (as of this writing) it appears that most of our entrants decided to highlight the successes in that endeavor, but occasionally you might get one that calls out the filmmakers onto the carpet. (See my review of Star Trek V for an example of that.) Over the coming weekend, the bloggers who chose to participate are posting reviews of sequels and remakes that made their impact on the theater (good or bad). As always, if you have a last minute entry, and you would like to join in the fun, feel free to add your URL at the end, and I will get it added to the roll call.

 

Roll Call:

The Midnite Drive-In delves into space with Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.

 

Realweegiemidget Reviews takes us on a harrowing ride with Beyond the Poseidon Adventure.

 

 Angelman's Place delves into what price stardom charges with A Star is Born.

 

 

Nitrateglow points out the folly of trying to remake a classic with You Can't Run Away From It.  

 

 

Crítica Retrô gives us a peek into the life of Gidget (maybe) with Gidget Goes Hawaiian

 

The Midnite Drive-In looks into the terror of isolation with a monster in The Thing.

 

Movies Meet Their Match gives us a who list of personal favorites: Top Ten Sequels.

 

Hoofers and Honeys gets Egyptian on us covering The Mummy. 

 

Silver Screenings takes a look at the marriage of Dagwood and Blondie. 

 

 Hamlette's Soliloquy gets into the intricacies of internet romance with You've Got Mail.

 

 

 

 Hope you all had fun. 

Quiggy

Star Trek V: The Search for a Plot

 

 

 

 

This is my first entry in the Film. Release. Repeat. Blogathon hosted by Hamlette's Soliloquy and yours truly.

 

 

Star Trek, as a franchise, has had it's ups and downs.

A brief history, for those three or four people out there who have never even heard of Star Trek.  The first incarnation of Star Trek began with creator Gene Roddenberry pitching the idea around Hollywood for a science fiction series for adults. Previously science fiction had been in the realm of shows primarily aimed at kids (Captain Video, Space Patrol and Tom Corbett, Space Cadet). Roddenberry envisioned a series that, although it took place in space, would end up addressing social issues of the day. He struggled to get anybody to understand the concept until he just said "It's Wagon Train to the stars!"

The original Star Trek TV show, (affectionately referred to in these later days as Star Trek: TOS (The Original Series), had a following of devotees, but never really took off enough to keep it going, and thus lasted only 3 short seasons. But the fans refused to let it go. 

 

So for a brief period there was an animated series, Star Trek: TAS (The Animated Series) to try to appease them, but that one never really took off, lasting only 2 seasons. (You could chalk that up to the fact that it was a cartoon and most of the fans were well into adulthood, but I don't think that really encapsulates why it was not a success...) So, the fans became even more ardent, starting sci-fi conventions solely dedicated to the series, and, coupled with the astounding attention from the original series then in syndication, it sparked Hollywood's interest.

 

Thus, beginning in 1979, a series of 6 movies that expanded on the original series were released. Some were great, some mediocre and one was a dud from the outset.  The interest in Star Trek would eventually spawn several offshoots of the Star Trek universe, including the first follow up TV series, Star Trek: TNG (The Next Generation), which in turn would also spawn 4 theatrically released movies. 

 

Following Star Trek: TNG would be several other series, none of which spawned a theatrical movie release, but were nonetheless good, or even great: Star Trek: DS9 (Deep Space Nine) which lasted 7 seasons, 

 

Star Trek: VOY (Voyager), which also lasted 7 seasons, 

 

and Star Trek: ENT (Enterprise), which lasted 4 seasons. 

 

In addition, there have been numerous streaming series available if one had access to them. There have also been 3 movies featuring a new cast in the roles of the classic series characters. I refer to these as "reboots".  As well, a recent 2025 new look film, Star Trek: Section 31.

At the time of this writing there have been 14 of them. Although my rating of them differs from the consensus in many cases, most everyone agrees that Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is the worst of the output. (Note: I consider it still too early to make the call on the recent Star Trek: Section 31, which currently occupies last place on a list of Star Trek movies on the Tomato-meter...) 

So just for clarity, I will rate my personal opinion of the ranking of the Star Trek movies before delving into today's review:

1.  Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) {a TOS film} 

2.  Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991) {a TOS film}

 

(Both of those films were, coincidentally, directed by Nicholas Meyer, who also gave us Time After Time, a film still waiting for a review on The Midnite Drive-In...)

 

3.  Star Trek: First Contact (1996) {a TNG film}

4.  Star Trek (2009) {a "reboot" film}

5.  Star Trek: Generations (1994) {a conjoining/transition film which includes TOS and TNG characters}

6.  Star Trek: Beyond (2016) {a "reboot" film}

7.  Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) {a TNG film}

8.  Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013) {a "reboot" film}

9.  Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) {a TOS film}

10. Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) {a TOS film}

11. Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) {a TNG film}

12. Star Trek: Section 31 (2025) {a different "reboot" film} 

13. *Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) {a TOS film}*

14. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) {a TOS film}  

 (*Note: Contrary to the public opinion of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, which usually ranks it much higher, the in your face, environmental, "save the whales" message just turned me off, this despite the fact that I adore movies that feature time travel. So no apologies if your opinion differs...)

 

 

 

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989):

The  beginning of the film is your standard fare for a Star Trek movie. A native of Nimbus III is digging holes on his land. Why? Who knows. All logic of this movie vanishes the moment the native sees a cloaked figure riding up to his position. The native is initially hostile and wary of this interloper, but it becomes immediately apparent that the newcomer has no hostile intentions against the native. As a matter of fact, the newcomer exhibits compassion and care for the native and asks him to "share his pain".And here is where the movie goes off track.  It seems to have a new age feel to it. And just what the hell is a "new age philosophy" doing in a Star Trek move?

 

Anyway, this newcomer, name of Sybok (Laurence Luckinbill), is some sort of mystic visionary. He is also a Vulcan, and the later revelation, that Sybok is related to Spock is almost telegraphed from the very beginning. Sybok's intentions become clear. He has plans to invade the capitol city of Nimbus III. There, as the planet is a neutral site, three envoys, one a Terran, St. John Talbot (David Warner), one a Romulan Caithlyn Dar (Cynthia Gouw), and one a Klingon General Korrd (Charles Cooper) are meeting to negotiate a peace treaty.

 

Sybok's intentions are to take the three envoys hostage, thus inciting rescue operations. But Sybok's intentions are not to incite a war. Instead he desires to take command of a starship. And why, you might ask? He seeks out the mythical birthplace of life as we know it, known variously as Sha'ka'ree or Eden or any other religious mythical name. And he wants to meet "God". face-to-face. (So we went new age, which rejects Judeo-Christian myths, to actually striving to prove the existence of a Judeo-Christian mythos? Geez, Shatner, couldn't you get a grasp on what you wanted to say?)

Anyway, as usual, the only starship even remotely nearby enough to go on the rescue mission is of course the Enterprise. (OK, so we have to be used to this development. since it was the reason the Enterprise was sent to encounter the mysterious force headed to Earth in the first movie, and also to go check out the mysterious goings on with Project Genesis in Star Trek II.)

 

The problem with using the Enterprise is that it is in serious need of a shakedown. In case you didn't know the timeline, I'll give you a bit of background. In Star Trek III the crew of the Enterprise hijacked the ship to go rescue Spock, and in the process had demolished the ship. A new Enterprise was commissioned at the end of Star Trek IV. This is the one that Kirk and crew have to maneuver  to rescue the hostages, and it is not entirely ready for the mission.

Meanwhile, a renegade Klingon captain has heard about the mission and decides on his own to chase down Kirk solely for the glory of defeating the vaunted legendary Captain. One wonders why the Klingons don't have their own rescue mission mounted to save their own envoy on Nimbus IIi, but given the Klingon predilection for honor in battle, perhaps they figured the Klingon ambassador deserves his fate. It is hinted at that General Korrd must have committed some grievous error to be in the "demoted" position of a lowly ambassador...

 

When Kirk and his crew arrive at Nimbus III, they find they don't even have the ambassadors as allies, since Sybok has managed to work his mumbo-jumbo to get them on his side. He also manages to convert many members of the Enterprise crew as allies, through his "sharing" of their pain and forcing them to face their fears. The only person who refuses to submit to Sybok's ministrations is Kirk himself, who insists that his fears and pain are what makes him Kirk, and his pains are important to him.

Still Sybok does manage to get the rest of the crew, including Spock, to at least let him have his way with the ship and they travel to the Great Barrier of the universe. No ship has ever crossed the Great Barrier and returned, so no one knows what is on the other side. But Sybok is certain he will not only find the mythical  Sha'ka'ree, but will also encounter "God".

Of course the ship has to cross that Great Barrier and enter into the unknown, otherwise this whole movie would have been entirely pointless (notwithstanding that it is mostly pointless anyway...). Once beyond the Great Barrier, they do manage to encounter "God". But before you get the idea that it is a validation of the existence of a Supreme Being, this "God" turns out to be just a powerful entity whose power is somewhat limited to just the area where it resides. And apparently, there must be some greater power behind the scenes, because this "God" character is a prisoner on this planet.

 

He (it?) somehow managed to contact Sybok and maneuver the Vulcan in order to bring a starship into the vicinity so it could escape it's prison, and... do what? Wreak havoc over the entire universe? Kirk, being Kirk, asks the most obvious question... "What does God need with a starship?" This of course angers the being and it (he?) attempts to kill or at least punish Kirk for his impertinence.

 

Having lost it's way long before this point, the renegade Klingon shows up and attempts to destroy the Enterprise. He discovers that Kirk is not aboard the Enterprise, but is actually on the planet and thus aborts his attempt to destroy the Enterprise. Instead he turns his attention towards the planet, intending to take his prize defenseless.  But eventually he saves Kirk rather than kill him. The reason for this developmental change is just as egregious as the rest of the movie, but the fact is that Kirk does not really win the day at the end, but is saved by a sworn enemy. Which is even more astounding by the fact that Shatner was renowned for his attempts to make Kirk the focal point of the Star Trek universe. (He would often steal lines that were originally intended for other characters...)

Harve Bennett, the producer of the film, is quoted as saying that Star Trek V  "nearly killed the franchise". Besides the ridiculous plot, another thing that had a bad impact on the film was the subpar special effects team. Originally the production company was going to go with Industrial Light and Magic, the special effects company who had produced the effects for the previous three films. But ILM was involved in two other projects, Ghostbusters II and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, both of which used up much of the company's top talent, so the film had to seek other avenues. 

The worst special effects, in my opinion, come when Kirk and company finally arrive at Sha'ka'ree and meet "God". The wizard encounter in The Wizard of Oz was loads better, and they didn't even know what CGI was back in 1939. Much of the rest of the space scenes seem to have been done on the fly rather than actually have been done in earnest to give the viewer some bang for his buck. 

Star Trek V had high hopes upon it's release, despite the fact that it was competing  with a whole raft of big budget movies, not only including the above mentioned Ghostbusters and Indiana Jones films, but also the first Tim Burton Batman film, the second Back to the Future film, the second Lethal Weapon film and a few gems that became bigger events for the year, Look Who's Talking and Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. Ultimately the movie didn't even crack the top ten grossing films, making it the first of the franchise to not earn that honor. In addition it was also the lowest grossing film in the franchise.

Critics excoriated the film. Roger Ebert called it "pretty much of a mess - a movie that betrays all the signs of having gone into production at a point where the script doctoring should have begun in earnest."  Probably the best (or worst) indication of how bad Star Trek V was is the fact that it was nominated for some Razzies, an award given out to the worst movies of the year. William Shatner "won" Worst Director and Worst Actor and the film won Worst Picture. To put that in perspective here are some of the competitors that year: Worst Picture: The Karate Kid Part III and Road House. Worst Director: John G. Avildsen for The Karate Kid Part III, Rowdy Harrington for Road House and Eddie Murphy for Harlem Nights. Worst Actor: Ralph Macchio for The Karate Kid Part III, Patrick Swayze for Road House ans (big surprise) Sylvester Stallone. ("Big surprise" because Stallone was almost a shoo-in to win a Razzie whenever he was nominated...)  (And just a side note: Sorry, John Wilson, but I think Road House was pretty good. 

Star Trek movies are almost always worth at least one viewing. It takes a pretty bad movie to make me have to actually have to work at finding the energy to watch it a second time. I can do most "bad" movies twice, standing on my head... I delayed watching this movie the second time,  because it was such a bad experience 35 years ago. This is only my second time to watch it and it still was the same stinker I thought it was when I left the theater in 1989. Rarely do I recommend that you DON'T give a movie a shot, but if you haven't seen this one yet, take my advice... save your rental fee.

Until next time.

Quiggy