I actually rewatched CONGO last year. Hadn't seen it since it was in the theatres in the 90s. Still goofy, of course, but I had forgotten how violent it was. Quite fun. It was probably one of the first 20 soundtrack CDs I got, while I was still living at home, but while I liked bits of it (especially the Lebo M opening track), I wasn't thrilled with the score a whole, so I remember trading it in for Elfman's NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS at the record store. A very wise choice at the time, but I've come to appreciate the score more in later years.
I mean, he did seem to settle down and find happiness later in his career. I think his family life was at its most stable just when his music became (to my ears) virtually devoid of any interest, vigour or elements of surprise. But then again the films had changed. Still, I'd rather listen to anything from his "troubled period" than to anything he wrote when he was happy.
That's been discussed in other threads, and I agree, when his life was more unstable his writing was much more aggressive, and when he became happier (and sober) he got more predictable and rote. Although as you say the shifting nature of movies in general, towards having a faster pace and a louder soundscape, may have lessened the need for complex music in his view. Plus of course he was getting older. But I don't think any of that affected what assignments he got associated with. After spending years of being seen by the industry as an innovator, his image might have been shifting towards being thought of as "old school". The higher profile projects might not have sought him out as much. Their loss, of course.
It also makes me sad every time I see someone list Congo. Again, I understand fans of the book (which I’ve heard is far superior) being disappointed in the adaptation, but taken on its own terms I find the movie to be a delight, especially thanks to super fun performances by Ernie Hudson and Tim Curry. The great Bruce Campbell is very memorable in a small role as Laura Linney’s(!) fiancee. And damn it, though it gets silly near the end the whole thing is just super fun and quotable. (“STOP eating my sesame CAKE!”)
I am sad to be in the no camp on that one. I saw it recently, after hearing many recent, decent reviews of it on its own terms, as you say, and interviews with Ernie Hudson confirming those terms. It's sort of shooting for a '30s-'40s style jungle adventure vibe, like a Weissmuller Tarzan picture, or the pre-Kong scenes King Kong. I was ready for it to be what it was, to roll with whatever I got and just enjoy myself, but so little of it worked for me.
And I unapologetically love Star Trek V, even if by many criteria it's the worst of the films with the original Trek cast. Again, it didn't quite all come together, did it? Shatner had some great ideas and alas often not the budget (or available special effects house) to realize them.
Yes, the effects were simply embarrassing, at a time when the bottom level had been reliably raised such that they were properly unacceptable, but so were many effects in the 1989 Indiana Jones picture (deal-breakingly bad), and to some degree Ghostbusters II. 1989 was a really weird year for that. I think Shatner's ideas on religious belief are pedestrian at best, but that's de rigueur, an easily dismissible flaw. His ideas about character are indeed, in some places, just great.
I most dislike how badly it treats the supporting cast (after Leonard Nimoy had given every one of them good moments in each of his two films). But for my money it also has the BEST depiction of the Kirk/Spock/McCoy relationship of any of the six films! Luckinbill is a very charismatic antagonist. Some shots (like in the opening) are cinematically ambitious like none of the films since Wise's original had been. The story/journey is quite arguably more of a STAR TREK than any of the other five films!
I can't agree with that. As a series, none of the movies is 'everything Star Trek was', including Wrath of Khan, so for me the bar has been does it fit at all, and five of the six films do so well. Motion Picture is well in line with The Corbomite Maneuver, Wrath of Khan with Balance of Terror, The Voyage Home with Tomorrow is Yesterday, The Undiscovered Country with Journey to Babel, and your #5 with any episode where some Admiral takes command for some wild, personal cause. Only III is an outlier in my ability to connect it with any series episodes. The other five are equally representative of the series, each with a different part of it in mind.
Goldsmith's score is MAGNIFICENT and elevates everything immeasurably (even smoothing over the effects issues, for me) -- easily his best Trek score outside of his original... and my own personal favorite.
We certainly agree there. Your clip may be the best proof, though I think it's scoring a moment of solid cinema.
And oh yeah, it provided DeForest Kelley with an incredible scene, which I would argue is the best acting opportunity he ever received in his Hollywood acting career:
Here's where I 'disagree' in your favor, only with your clip, though, and the main reason I replied at all. I think you may be right about the Kirk/Spock/McCoy relationship, and you are right about this clip, but you only shared half of what is, in this bad movie, I think a unqualified great scene, all of it. I once thought it was the best scene in the whole series. I've calmed myself on that, but it is a standout, not only in this film which is pretty easy, but in all six. So here's that whole scene!
Don't let it fool you, though. If you haven't seen the movie, this isn't representative; the rest of it is nowhere near this level.
Also, I've posted all of the Siskel & Ebert reviews of the Trek movies over in the Non-Film Score Discussion area. Most of them are well worth watching.
These are my least favorite scores, not necessarily the worst films. But then again...
10 City of Fear 09 Rent-A-Cop 08 The Last Ride 07 Leviathan 06 The Don Is Dead 05 Take Her She's Mine 04 The Satan Bug 03 Sebastian 02 The Lonely Guy 01 Criminal Law
The Last Ride? I just googled it and couldn’t find anything. Is that the right name?
Re CONGO... I actually caught the last 30 minutes of the film last night on UK TV and it was WORSE than how I remembered it at the cinema (which was VERY BAD!!). That gorilla costume is AWFUL, especially when you consider it's years AFTER stuff like GREYSTOKE. The acting!! The dialogue!! Oy Vey! So it's not up for any re-evaluation from me.
But, Kev... you skipped all the BEST parts of the movie which might have made you more forgiving towards the end of it! At least, that's how it was for my wife and I. We were having so much fun with the movie up to that point that we just went along with the ludicrous ending.
--
I think Shatner's ideas on religious belief are pedestrian at best, but that's de rigueur, an easily dismissible flaw.
Well, as a religious person yourself I imagine a lot of classic Star Trek is similar for you... were many of Roddenberry's own ideas on religion much different?
I most dislike how badly it treats the supporting cast (after Leonard Nimoy had given every one of them good moments in each of his two films). But for my money it also has the BEST depiction of the Kirk/Spock/McCoy relationship of any of the six films! Luckinbill is a very charismatic antagonist. Some shots (like in the opening) are cinematically ambitious like none of the films since Wise's original had been. The story/journey is quite arguably more of a STAR TREK than any of the other five films! -- I can't agree with that. As a series, none of the movies is 'everything Star Trek was', including Wrath of Khan, so for me the bar has been does it fit at all, and five of the six films do so well. Motion Picture is well in line with The Corbomite Maneuver, Wrath of Khan with Balance of Terror, The Voyage Home with Tomorrow is Yesterday, The Undiscovered Country with Journey to Babel, and your #5 with any episode where some Admiral takes command for some wild, personal cause. Only III is an outlier in my ability to connect it with any series episodes. The other five are equally representative of the series, each with a different part of it in mind.
You misunderstood my sentence. I wasn't talking about "everything Star Trek was". In fact I didn't even say "The story/journey is more 'Star Trek' than any of the other five films" -- I was using the words themselves of the series' title; my point was that actual exploration (the trek!) of the stars was more at play in THE FINAL FRONTIER (hell it's even in the title) than any of the other Trek films.
The first film is about intercepting a threat that's coming towards Earth. It's arguably the most "Star Trek" of all the films but they aren't literally trekking through the stars exploring them, therefore not as much of "a star trek". In the second film the "Star Trek" aspect is mostly covered by Genesis, the new planet. Powerful Star Trekky way to end the movie, but the movie isn't about them exploring the cosmos really. There are ways in which all of these films are certainly "Star Trekky", but are they about "boldly going where no one has gone before" on *a* STAR TREK? For me, with the journey through the Great Barrier to Shakaree at the center of the galaxy, The Final Frontier fits that much more than any of the others.
Thanks for the Siskel & Ebert link David -- I'm going to check all of those out!
I actually rewatched CONGO last year. Hadn't seen it since it was in the theatres in the 90s. Still goofy, of course, but I had forgotten how violent it was. Quite fun. It was probably one of the first 20 soundtrack CDs I got, while I was still living at home, but while I liked bits of it (especially the Lebo M opening track), I wasn't thrilled with the score a whole, so I remember trading it in for Elfman's NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS at the record store. A very wise choice at the time, but I've come to appreciate the score more in later years.
I thought you traded Congo with me for the CD of the John Williams stage musical 'Thomas and the King'
THE PRIZE. This is one of those Hitchcockian films that would be a lot more famous and highly regarded if only Hitchcock's name was actually on it. It's certainly better than TORN CURTAIN and TOPAZ. The chief drawback is overuse of back projection and questionable optical effects -- but this plagued Hitchock's films as well. The highlight of Jerry's score is terrific "Nobel Prize" theme, which wouldn't go astray even now as the theme for a current affairs show. An enjoyable romp, in any case.
No ranking, just the first ones that came to mind. (The top two are definitely the worst ones I saw at the cinema - If you can make the sight of Owen Wilson's head bitten off boring, you have failed.) Congo The Haunting Baby: The Secret Of The Lost Legend Basic Instinct U.S. Marshals Supergirl Forever Young The Swarm Mom And Dad Save The World Damien: Omen II
DIT: Removed Lionheart (which was just bland) to put in U.S. Marshals (which was a completely stupid and unnecessary spinoff from The Fugitive that played like a terrible unsold pilot movie.)Also: Tommy Lee Jones in a chicken suit.
Executive Decision to me was a terrific sleeper, something I expected very little of seeing it in a theater and instead had a great, suspenseful ride—much better than the overblown and silly Air Force One and actually an extremely rare case where for me the movie was better than Goldsmith’s score which is serviceable but nothing special.
Yeah, The Haunting has a good cast and GREAT production design, but is ultimately let down by excessive 90s CGI (hey, so is The Mummy and that film has a lot of fans including me!) and an ending where everything unfortunately falls apart. But people act like it's utterly worthless probably in part because the original is so beloved. I think there's a lot to like in it, even if it shits the bed in the end. Here's a YouTube video essayist who agrees:
And I unapologetically love Star Trek V, even if by many criteria it's the worst of the films with the original Trek cast. Again, it didn't quite all come together, did it? Shatner had some great ideas and alas often not the budget (or available special effects house) to realize them. I most dislike how badly it treats the supporting cast (after Leonard Nimoy had given every one of them good moments in each of his two films). But for my money it also has the BEST depiction of the Kirk/Spock/McCoy relationship of any of the six films! Luckinbill is a very charismatic antagonist. Some shots (like in the opening) are cinematically ambitious like none of the films since Wise's original had been. The story/journey is quite arguably more of a STAR TREK than any of the other five films! Goldsmith's score is MAGNIFICENT and elevates everything immeasurably (even smoothing over the effects issues, for me) -- easily his best Trek score outside of his original... and my own personal favorite.
And oh yeah, it provided DeForest Kelley with an incredible scene, which I would argue is the best acting opportunity he ever received in his Hollywood acting career:
Yeah, there's also some trashy Nimbus III stuff like the uh...bar fight. Yeah, the Klingons are 2D caricatures especially in contrast to Nicholas Meyer's depiction in the following film.
But I still love it, and there's enough good about it that IMO it doesn't belong anywhere *near* Goldsmith's bottom 10 list amidst the likes of Inchon and The Swarm.
Yavar
Well put - my sentiments exactly concerning this film's strengths and weaknesses.
The tenor of this thread's subject rang a mighty familiar bell and so while stepping back into the DeLorean and driving for a spell...well, for whatever it's worth...
EDIT: Removed Lionheart (which was just bland) to put in U.S. Marshals (which was a completely stupid and unnecessary spinoff from The Fugitive that played like a terrible unsold pilot movie.)Also: Tommy Lee Jones in a chicken suit.
Yeah I outright hated US Marshals (after loving The Fugitive) and it may even play into my general ambivalence about Goldsmith’s score which I always found the most generic and going-through-the-motions of his 90s action output. (I’m grateful for the Deluxe Edition though because I completely forgot about that great theme that appears in “The Pen” and a few other cues.)
I’m glad you removed Lionheart from your list. If you ever revisit it, I think you might find that the primary “bland” element is just the main character/actor… Gabriel Byrne’s villainous Black Prince is anything but bland.
I had figured that a list of the worst films that Goldsmith had scored might be too depressing and negative.... but I just got to thinking about it. I made up an initial list of about 22 titles, and was surprised that honestly a list of his worst assignments wasn't much longer than a list of his best. He's had the reputation for doing a lot of bad movies, but his track record isn't really that terrible. It's just the frustration one feels at someone with his talent not getting the best projects. At times one might want to give his agent a good punch, but often it might be a case of a fine script not turning out well after filming. Making a good movie is hard.
And as often has been pointed out, a bad movie didn't mean a bad score. Goldsmith himself commented that weak movies made him work harder. Inchon for example is an incredible score. Consider these a list of challenges he faced.
1. The Salamander 2. The Swarm 3. Inchon 4. Caboblanco 5. High Velocity 6. SPYS 7. Damnation Alley 8. Rent-a-Cop 9. Players 10. Take Her, She's Mine
Yeah, The Haunting has a good cast and GREAT production design, but is ultimately let down by excessive 90s CGI (hey, so is The Mummy and that film has a lot of fans including me!) and an ending where everything unfortunately falls apart. But people act like it's utterly worthless probably in part because the original is so beloved. I think there's a lot to like in it, even if it shits the bed in the end. Here's a YouTube video essayist who agrees:
And I unapologetically love Star Trek V, even if by many criteria it's the worst of the films with the original Trek cast. Again, it didn't quite all come together, did it? Shatner had some great ideas and alas often not the budget (or available special effects house) to realize them. I most dislike how badly it treats the supporting cast (after Leonard Nimoy had given every one of them good moments in each of his two films). But for my money it also has the BEST depiction of the Kirk/Spock/McCoy relationship of any of the six films! Luckinbill is a very charismatic antagonist. Some shots (like in the opening) are cinematically ambitious like none of the films since Wise's original had been. The story/journey is quite arguably more of a STAR TREK than any of the other five films! Goldsmith's score is MAGNIFICENT and elevates everything immeasurably (even smoothing over the effects issues, for me) -- easily his best Trek score outside of his original... and my own personal favorite.
And oh yeah, it provided DeForest Kelley with an incredible scene, which I would argue is the best acting opportunity he ever received in his Hollywood acting career:
Yeah, there's also some trashy Nimbus III stuff like the uh...bar fight. Yeah, the Klingons are 2D caricatures especially in contrast to Nicholas Meyer's depiction in the following film.
But I still love it, and there's enough good about it that IMO it doesn't belong anywhere *near* Goldsmith's bottom 10 list amidst the likes of Inchon and The Swarm.
Yavar
I'll take The Haunting over Star Trek V any day. As innocuous as The Haunting is(not scary at all, overuse of CGI and the constant running from one room to the other "action" moments), ST 5 is just bad all the way around, with the exception of Luckinbill and of course the score. But the stodgy blocking of scenes, cheap sets, unbelievably bad effects, the infamous "fan dance" , etc. I cannot watch it again as much as I tried. And I still remember vividly to this day, when the credits began and a man 2 rows in front of me in a packed theater yelled out, "REFUND!".
