Star Trek V and VI

The final two original cast films in the Star Trek series are Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, released in 1989, and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, released in 1991.

GREEN'S CRAZY VULCAN COUSIN REVIEW:

Why, oh why, is it so hard to write a review about a crappy movie? Let's just say, this film is as bad as I remembered it to be when I saw it in the theater. I only saw it in the theater because I worked there at that time and I got in for free. Actually, I was looking forward to this installment after thoroughly enjoying II, III and IV. What a letdown. [Ahem, anybody wanna buy my Star Trek V pin for the bargain price of only $5.00?]

Enjoying vacation, Kirk and McCoy are summoned back to Starfleet Headquarters when news arrives that hostages have been taken by some renegades on the peaceful planet of Nimbus III. Kirk and company, of course, are called in to investigate and discover that the leader of the renegades is Spock's, previously unheard of half-brother, Sybock. Sybok manages to take the Enterprise hostage and coerces the crew to fly to the center of the galaxy, to a planet called Shaka-Ri, which is where God is supposed to live. Add to the fun an ambitious Klingon Warrior who seeks glory by confronting and possibly killing Klingon nemesis, Captain James T. Kirk.

Everybody loves to pick on this film and rightfully so. As the worst entry in a remarkably good series of films, Shatner proves here that he is better on the screen than behind the camera, as he co-wrote and directed this mess. If Shatner (and his ego) were half as good at directing as he thinks he is, perhaps he would have been afforded more directorial opportunities in his career. The actors (including Shatner's) performances are once again strong, and they prevent this film from being a total disaster. The story typifies human vanity and arrogance, with the idea that man can approach "God" on his own terms rather than on God's and then tell "God" off when he doesn't act like we think he should. Sorry boys, it just doesn't work that way.

Oops, I guess Shatner's "god" is just some big ol' alien dude who wants to steal a starship.

* out of *****

SCRIBE'S I BEG TO DIFFER REBUTTAL/REVIEW:

Everybody loves to pick on this film, much the same way they love to Pick on The Phantom Menace. Many missed the point, others didn't seem to care what the point was. I'm willing to bet many have even forgotten that this movie incurred the wrath of fringe-dwellers on the Religious Right because it dared to portray God as living on a planet.

Ironically, Star Trek had by this time endured decades of criticism for not dramatizing a future in which God had a place. You just can't please religious fanatics, as I found out the year I tried to incorporate images of Mohammad into episodes of the Teletubbies to appease extremist Muslims and their counter-parts, small children. (Cue Family Guy flashback sequence)

And we're back! The Final Frontier is not the failure people love to label it as being. In fact, it stays true to Roddenberry's vision by taking humanity's quest for answers to the next logical step. And logic is exactly the point of this film. Can we logically presume the existence and location of the Almighty? Sybok thought so, and he placed the lives of hundreds in danger to test his wacky beliefs. Sound familiar? It shouldn't. On Earth we don't stop at a mere few hundred when it comes to insane religious odysseys. We jeopardize entire nations.

Shatner's commentary puts it best. This film was misunderstood and considered preposterous when it came out. Nowadays the concept of a madman in the desert talking people into doing crazy things as a way of finding god doesn't sound so far-fetched, does it? Of course, like my friend above, God-lovers missed the point of this film entirely and got this weird idea that Shatner was saying god could be found in space, despite his line near the end that God is found in the human heart.

Shatner's direction was fine, despite the popular opinion. In fact, if you dissect his camera angles, he was quite bold and experimental. Perhaps there wasn't enough time devoted to the ancillary characters, but the holy trek-inity of Kirk, Spock and Bones was never rendered more perfectly. Underrated.

*** out of *****

GREEN'S PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE OR ELSE REVIEW:

The battle-tested Enterprise crew are asked to do the unthinkable. To escort the Klingon emissary and his entourage into federation territory to negotiate a historic peace treaty between the Federation and the dying Klingon Empire.

After a tense dinner aboard the Enterprise, the Klingon party returns to their ship. Shortly after their return, the Klingon ship is hit by two torpedoes at close range. Gravity is disabled and the Klingon Ambassador is brutally murdered. Now the mystery begins. Did the Enterprise fire the torpedoes? Is it a conspiracy? Who is involved?

Sentenced to a life of hard labor in the snowy underground hard-labour prison camp of Rura-Penthe, Kirk and Bones must escape to prove their innocence. One big problem, though. No one has ever escaped from Rura-Penthe and lived to tell about it.

This murder/sabotage mystery is a classic way to send the original Enterprise crew to a happy retirement. It's a Star Trek version of the US-Soviet cold war ending. Like in life, some welcome the new peace while others are afraid of growth and change.

Returning to direct is Nicholas Meyer, who does a masterful job, after a three film absence. The story is compelling and the script is well written with plenty of snappy dialogue.

Casting notes I found interesting: Michael Dorn, who would play Worf in TNG, plays Colonel Worf, court appointed defense attorney for Kirk and McCoy. Christian Slater has a brief Cameo as an officer on the USS Excelsior, and Rene Auberjonois, who would play Odo on DS9, has an uncredited cameo as Colonel West, a diplomat meeting with the Federation President to discuss the fates of Kirk and McCoy.

**** out of *****

SCRIBE'S WHY THE HELL DID THEY END WITH THE BEST ONE REVIEW:

I knew from the first preview that this was going to be an erection-inducing film of orgasmic proportions. Without boring you with a second plot recap (Green excels at those) the "topical" allegory of the Chernobyl incident plays out beautifully in this film.

By the time this one was released, the Next Dengeneration had been on the air for four years so it only made sense to link up the two by finally explaining what caused the Federation and the Klingons to get all chummy.

Director Nick Meyer is an expert at subduing Shatner's tendency for scenery chewing. His secret? He made Shatner do take after take until he got bored and just acted without trying to be a leading man. The results are incredible. Everyone is still in character, but they have grown older gracefully...except for the prejudice in their hearts.

Star Trek VI is one part mystery, one part political thriller, and all parts thrilling. (Dammit, if it came out now they would use that line in the reviews!!!) I weep openly every time it goes off because for me it symbolizes the end of a great era.

***** out of *****

Star Trek III and IV

Up next we have Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, released in 1984.


Scribe's Remind Me Why They Killed Him Off Just to Bring Him Back Review:

It took me a long time to love this film as much as I currently do. My mom was quite literally obssessed with it. As a Trekker (the preferred nom de geek) she was devastated when Spock died saving his shipmates in the previous installment.

When the film was released on home video, I would wake up to the opening flashback sequence nearly every weekend for what seemed like years. Yet, when I'd first seen it, Trek III served to remind me why I was slowly becoming a casual fan of the series.

This was also the darkest of the six original films in tone as well as lighting. First time director Leonard Nimoy does a damn good Ridley Scott impression, creating what is effectively a film noir involving crushed souls and the opportunity for redemption.

The Genesis Device's legacy continues to cause problems as well. Despite Kirk's belief that Spock is dead on the surface of the newly formed Genesis planet, his son the scientist has a dark secret he's keeping regarding his role in the creation of the torpedo used to create life from lifelessness. It is a secret that can turn it into a weapon of destructive force. However, one Klingon, a misguided patriot, has decided it already is a weapon and races to aquire it for his own people.

Shatner has never been finer in this somber film, his usual quirks and scene-mugging subdued to the point of nigh-extinction. The visuals are great, thanks to the wise decision to start using ILM on the previous film, and the story, while predictable in some spots, still has the ability to shock and awe, in one scene in particular I won't reveal to those who might not have seen it due to living in the sewers for the past 20 odd years!

***** out of *****

GREEN'S UNSTABLE EXPLODING PLANET REVIEW:

Finally realizing that Spock mind-melded with McCoy before dying, Admiral Kirk and crew purposefully disobey Starfleet orders when they leave Earth to bring Spock's body back to Vulcan, risking their careers in the process. An over eager Klingon commander seeks to claim the secrets of the Genesis Device for himself as an ultimate weapon.

This is the first of two consecutive Star Trek moviess directed by Boston, Massachusetts native Leonard Nimoy, who wonderfully displays his directorial talents here. It's an excellent film that successfully bridges the gap between my two favorite films in the original cast films.

What will forever taint this movie for me came when I was in college in the late 1980's or early 1990's. I was watching a Rodney Dangerfield comedy club show on HBO that featured many (at the time) up and coming comedians. During one of the acts, one of the comedians noted that Commander Kruge is played by Christopher Lloyd, who for many years played Reverend Jim on the television series "Taxi". He did an imitation of Kruge in the drunken/stoned voice of Reverend Jim that was so spot on good that I still have difficulty in my mind separating the two characters. I don't get that sensation in anything else I've seen Christopher Lloyd in. It's kind of weird how our minds associate stuff like this.

Some other interesting cast notes from this film that I noticed were John Larroquette ("Night Court") as the Klingon Maltz and Miguel Ferrer ("Robocop" and "Crossing Jordan") as the First Officer. Robin Curtis, in her screen debut, does an adequate job replacing Kirstie Alley as Lt. Saavik.

**** out of *****


This was followed by Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, which was released in 1986.

Scribe's Save the Whales Review:

This was the Trek film that appealed to fans and non-fans alike. By wisely deciding they'd gone a little too far into fan-boy/girl territory, the producers realized it was time to lighten up the mood with a story for everybody.

Time travel tales were always among the more popular ones on the original series, so that is what Nimoy and company did. Directing for a second time, Nimoy also reprises his role as a newly ressurected Spock who must re-learn all the human minutiae he's picked on over the decades.

The plot is hippy-dippy central. An ancient space probe arrives tearing the Earth's oceans apart and killing all power sources looking for...something. The Enterprise crew, now mutineers awaiting their day in court, speed back to Earth in their stolen Klingon vessel when they hear the probe's transmission. Turns out it is speaking in whale language. Only problem there is whales are extinct in the 23rd century.

It's a relatively simple matter to slingshot around the sun and travel back to 1986 where whales are still alive and bring them back to their present to tell the probe to go away, everything's cool.

But---say it with me --- wacky antics ensue and nothing is as simple as it seems. This results in some truly funny moments, especially Kirk teaching Spock about 20th Century swearing. Not my favorite in the series because it was a little too mainstream, but a great film none the less.

**** out of *****

GREEN'S CETACEAN BIOLOGIST WANNABE REVIEW:

On the return voyage to Earth, the Enterprise crew, forced to fly home in a Klingon Flea-trap, ummm...Bird of Prey, learns that the Earth is being damaged and on the verge of being destroyed by an alien probe (that looks like a giant Slim Jim) whose communications humans cannot understand. Kirk and crew are forced to identify the creature that can successfully communicate with the probe so they can, as McCoy said, "tell the probe what the hell to go do with itself."

This installment is right up there with "Wrath of Khan" as my absolute favorite films in the original cast Trek movies because the story took me (and many other people) totally and quite pleasantly by surprise. What we end up with is a brilliant contemporary commentary on how man has become careless and irresponsible with the earth and other living creatures that inhabit it, neatly and inoffensively packaged as a Star Trek film.

Leonard Nimoy returns to direct this film and again does a superb job. Catherine Hicks is very believable as Gillian, the cetacean biologist with a soft heart for hard luck cases. I love the scene where Gillian first picks Kirk and Spock up in her beat up green pick-up truck.

Trivial cast notes that interested me from this film were Madge Sinclair, who, according to imdb, became the first female Starship captain shown in any Star Trek television show or movie, in her role as the unnamed captain of the U.S.S. Saratoga. Kirk Thatcher, who played the hood on the bus, wrote the song "I Hate You" that is playing on his boom box. He also provided the voice of the Vulcan computer and served as an Associate Producer of this film.

***** out of *****

Star Trek I and II

The scribester managed to snag himself the boxed set of original cast Star Trek movies and suggested that we watch and review 'em all for you! I figured, why the heck not? As a bonus, American Guy has agreed to add his bonus review on some of these movies but couldn't guarantee he'd watch 'em all. We're each going to write a paragraph long review for each film, so we won't entirely bore you to tears. Unfortunately, that's proving harder to do than I thought. Deal with it.

The first of the series is "Star Trek: The Motion Picture", which was released in 1979.

GREEN's BETTER THAN EXPECTED REVIEW:

The only other time I watched this movie was sometime in the early 1980's and I did not like it at all because I thought it to be too long and boring. That being the case, my expectations this time weren't any better. I was actually dreading watching this film to be honest.

Much to my surprise though, it wasn't as bad as I had feared it would be. The Director's Edition, at 136 minutes, is better than the theatrical release of this film but still waaaay too long, especially for the non die-hard Trekkie crowd, like at the beginning when we're looking at the USS Enterprise for, what seems like an eternity. The story takes too long to get interesting. Once invested though, it was better than I remembered it to be, primarily because great philosophical questions are raised as a part of the story. Philosophical questions that are eternally and universally relevant today but will not be discussed here, for obvious reasons.

Watching some of the end credits, I found the following names attached with this film interesting: John Dykstra, because he also worked on the original Star Wars film (Episode IV) in the same capacity, serving as the Special Photographic Effects Supervisor. Noted author Isaac Asimov was a Special Science Consultant for this movie. In the cast credits, Mark Lenard played the Klingon Captain. Lenard is better recognized as Spock's Vulcan father, Ambassador Sarek. Majel Barrett here plays Dr. Chapel. Barrett also played Deanna Troi's mother in TNG, is the voice of the Enterprise's main computer and was Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry's real life wife. According to IMDB, Indian born actress Persis Khambatta (Lt. Ilia) died of a massive heart attack at the tragically young age of 47, in 1998.

Unfortunately I don't have time to view any of the special features included with the DVD. Maybe if I snag myself a boxed set like scribey-wibey has, then I'll make the time to watch. Perhaps my initial low regard for this film stems in part because I was young when I first watched it as a kid and because most of the sequels are superior in every way.

*** out of *****

SCRIBE'S MAMMARY LANE REVIEW:

I first saw this movie when I didn't have any pubes. Sadly, that was about a week ago but I have 'em now, ladies. Sprouted like a hill of beans. Now I gotta buy a larger size of underwear!

OK, maybe not but dammit, I was determined to find a way to work my pubes into a Trek review at some point, might as well be in the beginning. I loved this movie when I first saw it as a child. Until then, Trek seemed like a really old, cheesey and boring show. But when the film was released and I realized it could be done on a Star Wars scale, I fell in love with the whole concept.

If I have any negative criticisms of the film, they are brief and simple: Slow-paced and too much time devoted to characters who won't be in the sequel, if you catch my drift. Other than that, it is a great film and a fitting return of a crew of legendary spacefarers.

****1/2 out of *****

The second film in the series is "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan", released in 1982.

GREEN'S GENESIS DEVICE REVIEW:

Brilliant! Absolutely Brilliant!

This film is masterfully drawn from episode 1.22 of the original Star Trek television series (aired 16 February 1967), "Space Seed", in which Kirk and the Enterprise crew defeat Khan and his gang and leave them to colonize a distant planet. Fifteen years passes and during a scientific research mission, a Federation starship accidentally discovers the remains of Khan's ship, the USS Botany Bay, marooned on the planet. Khan siezes control of the ship and sets off to seek revenge against Admiral James T. Kirk.

The original television episode was compelling and from start to finish, this film is equal to the task. Ricardo Montalban is superb in his reprise of Khan. Notable in the cast is the big screen debut of a thin and attractive Kirstie Alley as the Vulcan Lt. Saavik. This, along with Trek IV, are my favorite installments in the original cast films.

***** out of *****

AMERICAN GUY's STUNNING ONE WORD REVIEW:

KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Truly one of the best lines in cinema history!)

**** out of *****

SCRIBE'S SCENERY CHEWING REVIEW:

This was the one that convinced audiences that Star Trek was a viable franchise. The movie studio was already convinced based on the financial success of the first film.

However, wisely realizing that the original film was far too cerebral for mainstream movie audiences, new poducer Harve Bennett decided to recapture the feeling of the more adventurous TV show episodes. The results are not mixed. This was an operatic, thrilling return of the crew of the Starship Enterprise featuring some of the most glorious scenery chewing a la Montalban and Shatner one will ever see!

I can't really add much to my review that hasn't already been written about this film so I will briefly list the things I have come to appreciate about it, especially as I've grown older and hopefully improved as a writer:

1. The ethical debate over the Genesis Device and its ability to "create life from lifelessness."
2. The idea that Kirk's arrogance and negligence created a potentially lethal threat in the vengeful Khan.
3. The fact that the crew acknowledged getting older gracefully.
4. The moment Kirk places his granny glasses on to look at a readout screen.
5. The fact that director Nicholas Meyer found a way to have a dogfight between two gigantic starships by making the action occur in a nebula.
6. Kirstie Allie's boobies in her Starfleet uniform.

***** out of *****

He said, she said and he said

While we were waiting for the news of my blog partner's romantic rendevous, fellow blogger lccb and I decided it might be interesting for us to do another guest review on this here blog. Thus we came up with 2 films neither of the other had ever seen, not too difficult considering our vastly different tastes in...everything.

LCCB dared me to watch The Notebook, the film version of the Nicholas Sparks bestseller and I dared her to watch The Big Lebowski, the film version of a guy the Cohen Brothers know in real-life (watch the DVD extras if you doubt me).

So without further ado, I present to you reviews of both films. Keeping true to the format Green and I created whilst drunk and hanging out in a Tijuana tit bar, the challenger's review appears first in each section. Ladies first:

SCRIBE'S CHALLENGE:
The Notebook

LCCB's sexy guest review: When I suggested this movie to my dear Scribe, I had not actually seen it. I had read the book and had cried buckets at the ending. Even the previews made me tear up. So in terms of tear factor, this movie was a success. I was sobbing towards the end. I should say it was a particularly hormonal time of the month for me, but that aside, I think I would have cried anyway, just not as hard.

This movie is a love story told by an older gentleman to a female friend who suffers from dementia in a nursing home. He tells the story of star-crossed lovers who you hope in the end will not be so star-crossed. Girl and boy meet, girl and boy fall in love, girl moves away sooner rather than later as mother disapproves of said poor boy. Years later he sees her but she's engaged to a much wealthier boy so she does not see him. Before she gets married she goes to see him as she has doubts and… well, she has to choose. (Insert suspense here)

The good thing about the movie is that while it is predictable in the traditional love story sense, it takes has twist that reflects reality – the love that is not just about the love story but about life. So needless to say, the story itself is great.

In terms of the acting, it was not first-rate but it was good. The pace was a little slow but I have a personal belief that most movies don't have to be more than 1 hr. 30 min. It's not the kind of movie that kept me glued to my seat but I genuinely liked most of the characters and wanted to keep watching past the slow parts.

***1/2 out of ***** (Tear factor: 5 tears out of 5 tears)

Scribe's sexier review: I was surprised at how watchable this film was. I was expecting schamtlz and, for the most part, I got it, but it was nowhere near as painful as I thought it would be.

The film, based on mainstream author Nicholas Sparks' bestseller, concerns an elderly woman with Alzheimer's and the man who comes to see her daily in order to read from a notebook that tells the story of an unlikely love between two people who should have ended their romantic affair at the end of the summer during which they met.

Sadly, the film depends heavily upon flashbacks, the refuge of a lazy writer. Even sadder, the acting in the flashbacks is painfully awkward when first we meet the young Allie and Noah. He is from the wrong side of the tracks and she is a wealthy girl with the world at her feet. I was stricken by the originality of the concept, as I 'm sure are you. Young Noah (Ryan Gosling), cocksure and charming in an unrefined yet oddly intelligent way, goes to great and embarrasingly hackneyed lengths to get a date with the yummy Allie (Rachel MacAdams) and of course she gives in.

The early scenes in the late 1930's are awkwardly rendered, due in no small part to the fact that no actor under 30 seems capable of realistically portraying people from that time period anymore. McAdams is fine and credible but Gosling is not. There was not a single moment that I bought his performance; it was too contemporary and unconvincing. By contrast, James Garner and Genna Rowlands are incredible in their performances, despite looking absolutely nothing like their younger counter-parts. Although they are only in 25% of the film, those two are the only reason to keep watching.

Another point in this film's favor is the fact that the filmmakers don't try to hide the "big secret" for the entire film. Only an idiot wouldn't have known what was happening and they wisely revealed it at the movie's middle point.

Nicholas Sparks is one of those writers whose works have convinced me that James Grisham is not the biggest hack in the field after all. His dialogue is rancid, his situations are right out of the charts for writing romance fiction, and his narrative is filled with horrific cliches' and bad imagery.

So, it comes as no surprise that the ending falls flat and fails miserabley, due in so small to the fact that it is the tactic of a first semester creative writing student. It was hoakey and far-fetched and ruins the film's overall message, which is the continuation of devotion despite harsh conditions. Still, there is a compelling quality to the story that garners it a decent review.

*** out of *****

Green's Two Cents: I had not watched this film before. Had no desire to, actually, until the Scribester suggested I add my review in here. Actually, I had read the book this summer (can't refuse a challenge from a beautiful woman) and liked it. This is one of Nicholas Sparks' thinner novels and from what I remember, the book doesn't have nearly the early character development as the movie needs to have to beef up the run time to a healthy 124 minutes.

True, it is a sappy story, but what love story isn't sappy to some degree? Generally I agree with scribe-o-rama that relying on flashbacks is a poor writer's way of doing business. In this case it works because the story deals with the main older character's fight vs. Alzheimer's Disease and her beloved husband reading to her from a journal that she wrote to help regain her memory for brief periods.

I thought Rachel McAdams did a great job as the young Allie and (gasp!) I'll agree with Scribey-Wibey again that Ryan Gosling's performance as young Noah was stiff and uninspiring. I can't believe that in this day and age of movie CGI characters and superb make-up artistry that McAdams and Gosling weren't suitably age-enhanced to portray their characters' older selves. Joan Allen was a scene stealer as Allie's conceited and uppity mother.

And a record third agreement with Sir Scribe-a-Lot that James Garner looks nothing like Ryan Gosling. Gena Rowlands passes adequately for an elder Rachel McAdams but barely. Still, Garner and Rowlands performances were excellent.

This is a watchable film because of the emotional nature of the story and it's real life victims, even if the suspense is dull razor-blade thin and the ending predictably adding to the sappiness..

*** out of *****

LCCB'S CHALLENGE:
The Big Lebowski

Scribe's compelling review: Simply put, this is one of the greatest examples of anarchy in filmmaking ever put on the screen. Unlike most mainstream movies, it doesn't concern itself with plot progression and muli-layered storylines.

Quite simply, it is the story of "The Dude," (Jeff Bridges) a Hippy slacker who happens to share first and last name with a millionaire whose trampy trophy wife owes loan sharks money. Unfortunately for the Dude, the idiots sent out to collect the money get the wrong address and wind up roughing up the wrong guy. The Dude is cool with getting his face slammed in the toilet, but when the "Chinaman" pees on his rug, that's just going too far.

You see, that rug "really brought the room together." He is willing to forgive the transgression at first, but this is 1991 (film released in 1997) at the height of Desert Storm and Dude decides to draw a line in the sand, prompted by his unlikely buddy Walter (the underrated John Goodman) a Vietnam vet and gun nut who enjoys bowling and celebrates Jewish holidays in honor of his ex-wife.

Soon The Dude and Walter find themselves embroiled in a kidnapping plot that may or may not be staged, hunted by pancake-loving German nihilsts, a disgusted heiress (Julianne Moore) and quivering at the sight of convicted sex offender "The Jesus" (John Turturro).

In the midst of it all, Bridges, Goodman and Steve Buscemi as the terribly treated Donny display a style of acting and a timing rarely seen in film these days. The lack of structure almost becomes a structure of its own as this movie creates its own reality and energy.

The Big Lebowski is a journey into a world inhabited by fringe-dwelling weirdoes who, for no apprent reason, make us feel like the world is a place worth fighting for just because it can create such hilarity and lack of purpose.

***** out of *****

LCCB's feminist-leaning review: Really? I just sat through that movie because of a damn rug? I will be the first to admit that I didn't get this movie. I mean, I got the story line, I got the characters, I got the jokes (ok, not really) and I got The Dude. But the movie did not arrive anywhere. It didn't really start anywhere. I'm not sure how to even begin to describe this movie.

Basically, there are two Lebowskis, the rich, old one married to "Bunny" and "The Dude" whose a total slacker. The Dude gets confused for the rich one and his rug gets peed on. This sets him off on a journey to get a rug replacement, which puts him on the path of trying to figure out a kidnapping and trying to get some cash for his slacker unemployed self. That's pretty much it. Except it isn't. I know that I must have missed something, because I know I did not just spend almost two hours watching something that had absolutely no point!!! (And which one is the Big Lebowski anyway????? Whatever.)

John Goodman's character was my favorite by far. The script is littered with great one-liners. It's a funny movie. But I still don't get it.

*** of ****

Green's Better Late Than Never Review: The Since the scribester did an excellent job reviewing the plot for us, I won't waste your time (or mine) doing it again.

The best thing I can say about this movie is that Jeff Bridges makes a very convincing hippie slacker "dude". John Goodman is cool in virtually every role he's ever done. Otherwise, this makes it into the top ten list of the worst/dumbest films I have ever seen. Maybe this movie would be funnier if I were drunk while watching it. Maybe not. No, probably not. Even mass quantities of liquor (or some of the ganja "dude" smokes) floating through my body wouldn't be enough to alter my opinion. Save yourself. Avoid this movie at all costs.

* out of *****