This is an interesting movie, it is appallingly bad in every way... except for Sean Connery. He is almost, but not quite, able to save the film simply by showing up and being That Damn Cool. Now, I've enjoyed other films with Connery before, but here we have the wierd spectacle of seeing him at his most fun to watch this side of "Goldfinger," only to have everything around him be a complete train wreck and waste of time. Still, fat old bald men simply should NOT be able to kick that much ass.

But sadly, I have to remind you that this movie really *is* a big stinker: bad story, obvious plot "twists," really bad CGI, dismal acting, pretty much you name it. And for those few who read the comic book version of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, prepare yourself to see about 100 IQ points chopped off the top of the story, and all the good characters butchered or replaced.

The Fog is not exactly a "horror" movie in the way most people think of them, and isn't that much like Carpenter's first hit Halloween. Rather, it is a creepy and atmospheric ghost story filtered through Carpenter's unique perspective. It won't scare the crap out of you or gross you out like The Thing, but it is consistently spooky and interesting, and looks way better than its microscopic budget should have allowed. I don't think it quite measures up to Carpenter's best movies, but it is definitely worth a look.

The Special Edition DVD has a decent amount of extras, but the main benefit is the excellent picture quality and sound. John Carpenter's commentary track is OK, but not as good as his ones on other films, especially the ones with Kurt Russel where he seems to have more fun and is more interesting.

My Rating: 3.5/5.0 stars.

After Star Trek V, which DID stink (sorry, Bill!), the powers that be did what everyone would hope they did: hire back Nick Meyer, who directed Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, to do a rescue. And while this movie does not hit the high standard set by that film, it is a very respectable bit of sci-fi fun and ended the whole series on a positive note.

If Meyer can be faulted for anything, it is for trying to stuff too much, well, STUFF in one film. This movie has political intrigue, an assassination plot, a murder mystery (!), some courtroom drama (!!), a prison break (!!!), a cat-and-mouse starship battle (shades of Khan?), then caps everything off with the wrap-up of the political intruge/multiple assassination plotline you almost forgot about with all the other stuff in-between. As Meyer might have said, but as far as I know never did, "Oy, vey!"

On the upside, almost everything is well done, so the end result is a fun Star Trek movie that, much like "The Wrath of Khan," is also very accessible, even if it lacks the sheer visceral punch of that Star Trek high-water-mark. Kudos, too, for the DVD extras, which have been consistently excellent in the latest run of Paramount 2-DVD Star Trek sets.

Alot of people slammed the original Lynch movie of Dune because it absolutely made no sense and changed or added so much junk (e.g. giving Baron Harkonnen purple zits, making "Wierding" really stupid, and so on). And they were right.

The Dune mini-series doesn't commit such obvious gaffes. It tells pretty much the whole story and doesn't add or invent insipid gimmicks just to make the movie more "cool" (such as heartplugs and the Baron harkonnen eating black slug juice?!). Did I mention they did alot better job with Baron Harkonnen? But it still stinks.

1. The acting ... . William Hurt was comatose, and Paul Atredies... who was supposed to be a deeply wise prodigy... came off as a ... wanker. Thufir Hawat, who works for the Atredies and is supposedly one of the deadliest people alive, comes off as a goofy bureaucrat. The best part of the cast was, in a 180 degree turn around from the Lynch film... Baron Harkonnen, who comes of as smart and devious (which he was) instead of really gross and insane. Give Lynch credit, though, at least he had Patrick Stewart play Gurney Halleck.

2. I'm sorry, but in Sci-Fi you have to bring SOME special effects to the table. This mini-series had pathetic special effects. We aren't talking about not living up to "The Matrix" here, we're talking about not living up to "Ghostbusters" or one of the more recent Star Trek TV episodes. To be fair, it WAS better than the Ghostbusters CARTOONS...

3. The one place where the Lynch film got it right was in feel; it really gave you the sense of being in a wierd, advanced-and-primitive-at-once far future. The miniseries had headache-inducing color schemes but that's it. Maybe if they scrimped on the miles of sumptuous fabric and paid for some decent CG effects or, God forbid, actually FILMED DESERT SCENES IN A DESERT instead of on a soundstage not fit for a "Win Ben Stein's Money" episode. And lest you think this unfair, at least Ben Stein filmed his beach-themed shows ON A BEACH. So it can be done.

I really wanted to like this miniseries but wasn't all that impressed. I don't know how they goofed up with such good source material, but there ya go. To be fair, though, probably the only way to really do the book justice would be to make it into 3 feature-length movies with a humungous budget and top actors. And Patrick Stewart. But no black slug smoothies.

Dirty Harry is, plain and simple, an outstanding film that is far deeper than its reputation. Those who denounce Dirty Harry as a fascist are so far off the mark it is pathetic. Because of his un-PC dialogue it is assumed he is a bigot. Because he defends himself and others with a S&W Model 29 .44 Magnum he is written off as a psychotic. And so on. As his hispanic partner points out, he is called "Dirty Harry" because he gets the worst assignments. Only the most pitiful, mewling moral weakling would consider this film an advertisement for fascism. It is an indictment of the weakening and -- far worse -- bureaucritization of law enforcement, of its growing concern with appearance over protecting the public. And, of course, a great flick.

The film makes plain that while he describes his vulgar world in vulgar terms, he is actually above it. We learn from the beginning of the film that his doctor, who he chats up with more warmth than his white bosses, is black. Remember, in 1971 it was still commonplace to just write off blacks as "monkeys" or worse. The idea of a black man being a doctor, period, was unusual... let alone a white man seeing him for medical care and considering him his equal.

It is cues like these that reveal the true heart of the picture. So many soft-handed worryworts miss the point of the film because they do not understand the CONTEXT. The film is full of signs that Dirty Harry is an egalitarian in a time (1971) where such a point of view was rarer than it is now. Dirty Harry says the word "Spic" and a certain class of people are all aflutter, even as he embraces (insomuch as he embraces ANYTHING) his hispanic partner and his black doctor, and is enraged by the murder of a black, and so on ad infinitum. Yet, of course, he is a racist and a fascist. Idiotic.

But enough of that. Dirty Harry is an outstanding combination of good acting, expert directing, action and suspense... as even most of its critics are forced to admit. See this movie.