Change Your Image
warren-1976
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
District 9 (2009)
Prawntastic!
20 Years ago, an enormous alien spacecraft drifted to rest over the South African city of Johannesburg. Within are discovered a race of insectoid aliens derogatorily known as 'Prawns'. They are in a seemingly broken vessel that has come to rest on Earth, whilst having lost their leadership. Due to a hive-like societal structure, the worker populace are somewhat aimless and not exactly of superior intelligence. Wikus Van Der Mere (First time actor Sharlto Copley) is the hapless human tasked with evicting the aliens from their makeshift shanty town of District 9 below the giant craft, in order to relocate them for the benefit of the resentful Human populace. He works for the MNU (Multi National United) who are also one of the largest arms dealers in the world, and currently in the process of trying to master the miscellaneous weapons brought by the aliens. It's not long before Wikus finds himself embroiled in a situation that will have him fighting for his life and re-assessing his priorities and beliefs.
District 9 is that rare thing. A science fiction movie with an allegorical message that is not preachy, and does not compromise it's science fiction elements in the process. On it's most obvious level, it is an allegory for the former apartheid situation in South Africa, but it can be read on many other levels, including but not limited to the potential in all of humanity to act vindictively or dismissively to another they feel as being inferior.
Wikus is presented to us as neither a particularly sympathetic nor loathsome character. He is a perfectly constructed balancing act who is a product of his environment and upbringing. We see him doing things that are (Unwittingly to him) repulsive. Yet likewise, he will make an effort when he sees action being taken that goes against his innate morality. Wikus is without a doubt the greatest strength of District 9. Watching his character grow and change with the story, is the element that keeps us riveted to the screen. Wikus can be humorously inept at times, right through occasionally amoral, flawed, yet ultimately sympathetic, courageous and touching.
The story has been used many times in the past (e.g. Alien Nation). Where District 9 succeeds as something new, is by making its alien species less immediately sympathetic. We are not presented with an easy side to take. The aliens are sometimes stupid and often repugnant in their behaviour, making it all too simple to feel sympathy with the humans who detest them. This is yet another strength of District 9, avoiding the simple and often over-used contrast of 'Good aliens, bad humans' though perhaps as the film continues this is weakened a little with somewhat stereotyped villains.
On a more basic cinematic level, the film is again a careful balancing act. We have all seen the hand-held 'documentary' style of film-making (Blair Witch, Cloverfield). Where District 9 succeeds is in using such techniques for much of its beginning, yet gradually segueing more and more into traditional 3rd person style. As such we do not get tired of the technique, as we can do with the other examples, and because much of that footage in District 9 is shown as either news or security camera feeds, it does not have the nausea-inducing tendencies of the above.
One of the most jaw dropping visual aspects of District 9, are its special effects. Amazingly, almost all of the alien creatures were CGI. On the whole, District 9's digital effects are flawless and stunningly photo-real, created using a combination of cutting edge effects from WETA digital (Owned by Peter Jackson and created initially for the Lord of the Rings films) and creature designs that do not require fur or a great deal of moving flesh. This means that even with the film's limited budget, they have been able to use the most positive aspects of the technology without too many of its flaws.
The action in District 9 is also brutal and tough. This isn't your average glamorised blockbuster with wire-stunt kung fu experts doing the impossible with nary a bruise or scratch. Bodies are ripped apart, exploded, shot, electrified and generally dismembered in a variety of ways. When the film kicks into its action scenes, they are pulse- poundingly raw and visceral.
District 9 is director Neill Blomkamp's first feature film. Originally recommended by Peter Jackson to direct the feature adaptation of the computer game 'Halo', but when the deal fell through, Jackson reportedly gave Blomkamp thirty million to make a film of his choice. Blomkamp then went on to make the full length version of his short film 'Alive in Joburg'. In my view, we are lucky that events unfolded in this way, because I am much happier to see an original piece of work, than yet another miscellaneous video game adaptation.
This is an adult film that has not been watered down to stay safe for the kids. The characters swear repeatedly, and everyone has a tough time of it. It is by no means an 'easy' film to watch, but it will leave a lasting impression and keep you thinking. Is it perfect? No, there are some things that happen too easily for the sake of plot convenience, occasionally unanswered questions that are more frustrating than mysterious, and the story ideas are often far from original. Yet on the whole this is a genuinely impressive, often gruelling and hard-hitting film. I also have it on good authority that the accents and cultural references are dead on the nose. It is neither a video game or comic adaptation, or a remake of an older film. As such it is a real treat amongst all of the other genre offerings of recent years. Just be warned, if you eat out and see a prawn dish, you may find yourself inadvertently uttering an appropriate expletive often used in the film. Trust me, you'll see what I mean...
Surrogates (2009)
Visit the Waxworks
Surrogates takes the basic premise of what would happen if almost everyone in our world were able to live their lives through an idealised robotic replacement. These replacements feed each person all of the sensations required to feel everything as normal, while their real body lies in a sensory chair at home. In this world, actual murder and most crime have been made pointless, because any crimes carried out, are done so via 'surrogates' on 'surrogates' (So presumably most crime would class as vandalism and criminal damage).
Bruce Willis (Die Hard, The Sixth Sense, TV's Moonlighting) and Radha Mitchell (Pitch Black, Silent Hill, TV's Neighbours) play a pair of police officers tasked with investigating the murder of two people whose deaths occurred via the destruction of their surrogate bodies. This leads to a relatively straight forward plot involving a mysterious new weapon and a mad genius intent on mass murder. Meanwhile Willis' character re-discovers what it means to be human when he becomes separated from his surrogate body.
Where Surrogates succeeds, is in having a somewhat original story concept (For cinema, at any rate). The initial idea is extremely interesting, and does make us think about how life would be led in such a situation. Where the film fails somewhat, is in its execution. Initially it is off-putting with the actors all looking waxy and perfect, their emotions rather wooden and their physical motion always perfect, and begs the question, how many people would live out their lives this way, when the alternate versions of themselves are lacking in many basic aspects of human appeal? Perhaps this is a moot point, given that many people live such lives already online, addicted to part time lives that are severely limited in comparison to the real world. On the positive side, this does all create an effective contrast later in the film, when our lead begins to return to life in the normal world as his human self.
Other films that question our humanity and what it means to be human in different ways, such as District 9 or The Sixth Day, avoid giving us easy answers. They present us with the possibilities in such a way that there is no clear cut right or wrong, yes or no. Surrogates makes its message far too direct. "It is wrong to live life through a Surrogate!". There are no ambiguities about the lifestyle presented in the film. No 'what ifs?'.
A lot of the general concept points are also skirted around. Why is murder practically non-existent?Although it seems reasonable to say that most crimes of passion and anger would be drastically cut, most reasons for other murders would not change. For example, political murders, revenge, money, etc. Also, what about muscle wastage for Surrogate users? A simple explanation that something in the seats keeps muscles active would have sufficed, but there is none.
Bruce Willis looks somewhat unnerving in his surrogate form, essentially a 'Young Bruce' via the miracle of modern CGI effects. Whilst the other actors get similar treatment, though obviously to a lesser degree. Unfortunately the lead characters seem a little underdeveloped. The troubled relationship between Willis' and his wife, played by the reliable Rosamund Pike (Die Another Day, TV's Wives & Daughters), is rather cliché and should have been explored in more depth. Radha Mitchell's character seems almost unused and superfluous, simply a plot- device for the finale. Likewise, the villain and his motivations come as no surprise and merely make us wish for something more original. It could be argued that James Cromwell (Babe, Star Trek: First Contact, I, Robot) is cast in practically the same role as he had in I, Robot, in order to undermine our expectations, but this seems rather too subtle for Surrogates and I suspect it is simply a case of bad typecasting.
Unfortunately, Surrogates' greatest weakness is its finale. It certainly pulls the old 'Deus Ex Machina' trick to some extent, with little set-up or reasonable explanation as to why things would work the way they do. Yes, we are given explanations, but they appear rather suddenly and conveniently, everything is concluded far too simplistically. Not to mention a voice over at the end stating that everyone is okay, after a situation that really implies a whole host of potential problems. What about those flying aircraft via surrogates? What about doctors using surrogates who are in the middle of operating on live people? What about babies in hospital wards, or mothers giving birth, where the doctors and nurses would likely be surrogates? I won't give away the plot by explaining why I am asking these questions, but if you see it, you will most likely find yourself asking the same things.
On the whole, the effects are excellent, though there are one or two extremely obvious green-screen environments that pull us out of the story. The action is all fun, though nothing especially original. It may sound like I'm being extra hard on Surrogates, as I did enjoy it. I enjoyed the originality, but as you find yourself questioning the story afterwards, it quickly loses its charm. It is better than much of its recent competition, but is perhaps most frustrating due to its under- used potential. Again, as with so many films of recent years, this may be symptomatic of its graphic novel roots. A medium rife with high concepts and visual flair, but often lacking the basic thought, character and emotion of normal literary fare.
The director, Johnathon Mostow (Breakdown, Terminator 3), is functional, taking few risks and showing little of the potential he once showed years ago with Breakdown. Surrogates is not a bad film, but it has (ironically, considering its subject matter) been made on automatic, when it had the opportunity to be so much more. It is enjoyable, and certainly worth seeing, but don't expect it to stay with you for very long.
Outlander (2008)
What Could Have Been...
It's always frustrating to hear of how the Hollywood 'suits' treat some films, whilst throwing money at others. Outlander has been the unfortunate victim of bureaucratic idiocy.
Outlander was an independent feature, made on a moderate (by today's standards) budget of nearly $50 million, around which $35 or so went on actual production, and the rest on various legal fees, etc. The production, direction and effects help it stand out as a much more professional film than many of the recent crop of bloated big-budget pictures. Yet as a result of the 'Weinstein' company's decisions (The 'Weinstein' company in America gained the rights to cinematic and DVD release in the U.S.), it was essentially forgotten. They had apparently made little initial investment, and therefore (presumably) decided just to make a chunk of money back through the minimal effort of a DVD release, while avoiding the expense and effort of giving it a cinema release. So it is a tragic shame that we didn't get to see this as a sleeper hit, which I believe it may well have been, along the lines of something like Pitch Black.
But what of the movie itself, you ask? Spaceship crash-lands amongst the Viking Fjords on Earth, during the iron age. So enters our hero, the lone survivor of said ship, who joins with the local populace to defeat the terrible alien that was also on board, and has started slaughtering the nearby inhabitants. Yes, it sounds cheesy on the surface, but it's great fun. It's all been well thought out, and given far more depth and story than you would otherwise expect.
The production has managed to gather a fantastic cast, including James Caviezel (Frequency, Passion of the Christ) John Hurt (Alien, Nineteen Eighty Four, Hellboy, Harry Potter), Sophia Myles (Underworld, Thunderbirds, TV's Moonlight) Ron Perlman (Hellboy, Alien: Resurrection) and promising up-and-comer Jack Huston. They all have great fun with their parts, without hamming it up (Though Ron Perlman's role is somewhat shorter than expected).
In terms of general production, oft-used creature designer Patrick Tatopoulos (Stargate, Godzilla, Pitch Black) has created probably his best creature design since 'They', trying to come up with something original for the alien. Its face is perhaps a bit too reminiscent of his earlier Godzilla design, but the fiery glows and shapes really make the Moorwen (As the creature is called) stand out. Meanwhile Geoff Zanelli (Hitman, Disturbia) has written a suitably stirring and epic soundtrack score. Since this is one of his first few feature film scores, he could well be one to watch.
There are plenty of interesting characters in Outlander, all used in ways that are not too stereotyped. For example, Kainan (The lead character, played by Caviezel) bonds with a young boy, 'Shane'-style, yet this is not forced or overplayed. Likewise the slight hints of romance with Freya (played by Myle's). Other characters start off with certain stereotypical expectations, only to turn out more nuanced and interesting than you thought. Even Kainan has a story that you enjoy learning about, as he tells it in hushed tones. His personal tale is nothing original, but uses those types of cliché that only become that way because there are few better ways to motivate and emphasise a character.
Outlander is a wonderfully fun adventure in the greatest old style. The action is gory and exciting. The characters are interesting and make you want to follow their story. The filming is slick and polished, modern while not bowing to over-used 'trendy' techniques.
The director, Howard McCain, should be applauded for the job he's done here, considering he has only really started his career, and created a movie that, given a chance, puts to shame most of the recent blockbusters. There's not too much to say about Outlander, other than just enjoy it for what it is. There are so many films you could say it has similarities to, from Alien to Lord of the Rings, but even they have their own prior influences. Outlander adds enough of its own twists and fairly original turns stand out, and hold its head proud. If you get the chance, just enjoy an old-fashioned science-fiction adventure.
End of Days (1999)
It Depends On Your Perspective
End of Days gets a bad rap, but I think a great deal of this is due to its initial premise. It's extremely 'cool' to be anti-religion these days, so big-budget movies with a core religious theme tend to get unnecessarily slammed. I'm not religious myself, but I do often enjoy supernatural and religiously themed stories, due to the themes and issues they frequently explore. So its success all hinges on whether you can accept a plot guided by supernatural religious elements or not. If you can, and you enjoy action movies occasionally, you'll probably enjoy End of Days.
Arnold plays a depressed ex-cop turned high-level body guard with a suitably tragic back-story. Some people will enjoy his performance, others won't. Again, it depends on how you come to this. If you are expecting a versatile actor who changes personality with every performance, then you won't enjoy it. If you like Arnold, because he is exactly what he is, Arnold, then you'll probably have a ball. After all, who ever hired Charlton Heston or Humphrey Bogart or Christopher Walken to play a part in any way other than the specific way they do? You don't hire such actors because of their chameleon-like acting abilities, you hire them because their sheer screen presence is such that they stand out from the crowd and you enjoy seeing THEM in the role. As such, you either relish those actors in their parts, or you you dismiss them as wooden or bland. It depends on the viewer.
The director, Peter Hyams (2010, Outland, Timecop, The Relic), has a tendency to enjoy very dark cinematography, and in this case it suits things perfectly. There are lots of scenes lit primarily by flames or torchlight, that set the tone. Meanwhile, John Debney's (Cutthroat Island, Passion of the Christ) score is also one of his best, and probably one the most effective 'demonic' soundtracks since Goldsmith's Omen trilogy. I would be remiss not to mention the effects work as well. Having watched the DVD special features, I was extremely impressed with how much old-style artistry and craftsmanship went into many of the effects. There was a great deal of miniature work involved, which is too often sidelined for less effective CGI these days. End of Days used a careful blend, only really using CGI where necessary.
End of Days is a great roller-coaster ride of a movie, entirely suited to the date it was made for, and has a surprising amount of depth. Under the action and excitement, it's really a story about the main character's redemption, finding himself again, and discovering a meaning to his life after all he thought he had lost. It's also a classic good versus evil tale. To top it all off, we get a surprisingly touching and moving finale, which perhaps left a lot of people on too much of a downer, yet I found it the perfect conclusion to the story.
All in all, End of Days is either a love-it or hate-it movie. It's not perfect, but I thought it was an excellent film, and one of Arnold's most interesting characters. If you don't mind religious themes, enjoy larger-than-life characters and adrenaline pounding action, then chances are you'll probably have a fantastic ride.
Star Trek (2009)
Forgettable Fun
I've never been a huge Star Trek fan. I enjoy the original series for some of its originality and sense of adventure, while most of the original-cast feature films are great fun, sometimes even excellent. Next Generation, it's associated movies and the later TV spin-offs were all fairly lacklustre. Occasionally forgettable guilty pleasures. So in essence, I came to the new movie without too many preconceived expectations. I was happy to see a new and fresh take on the original material.
What we get is a movie that is reminiscent of the best Next Generation efforts. It uses a hackneyed time-travel story, with little-to-no reason or point, except for the excuse to change the paths of the original characters. Unfortunately, it also needed to be a story with some grandeur and mystery, perhaps even a villain who feels villainous. I won't go into the vague and contrived plot, as it would be a futile effort. There's nothing original or interesting in here, and there are too many pointlessly contrived elements to criticise the science (Never Trek's strong point, but at least it used to try and make some sense within its own internal logic, discounting Next Generation onward).
The plot and characters should be of equal importance, however in this case, the plot is simply a device with which to have numerous new 'character building' scenes, since this is a reboot. To some extent this works. It's all fun, vibrant, and enjoyable fluff. There are numerous amusing nods to the original series and films, that often raise a knowing smile and chuckle. The shame is that these nods are in fact the film's strongest selling point. Most of the actors are forgettable, (or in parts too small to make much note, though Ben Cross, Winona Ryder and Bruce Greenwood do their jobs well.) Zachary Quinto fits the role of a young Spock rather effectively, even though he comes over as playing Sylar in another location and time again. Chris Pine is merely serviceable as Kirk, and brings nothing to the role that makes him stand out, other than 'arrogant teen'. Zoe Saldana and John Cho do well as Uhura and Sulu respectively, without making any real impression either. Anton Yelchin makes a memorable turn as Chekov, but unfortunately only because he has been written and played in such an annoying manner. Simon Pegg is fine as Scotty, though played perhaps too much as purely comic relief. Eric Bana as the villain, Nero, could have been played by anyone. The real stand-out is Karl Urban, who makes an excellent Bones. If the rest of the younger cast members had been able to play their roles with comparable weight in a better story, we really could have had an excellent film. He impressively embodies the way DeForest Kelley played the original character, without being a simple 'impression'.
On a separate note, I also have to comment on the soundtrack, which is decidedly lacklustre. The original films often had wonderfully expressive, emotional, dramatic and exciting scores. Sometimes even better than the films appeared to merit, but they always embodied the mystery and grandeur of space and adventure. This soundtrack by Michael Giacchino does little to inspire or even consciously note. Though perhaps it is unfair to blame him, as we do not know what he was instructed by the director and producers to create. 'Bland' is probably the best word to describe it.
The real shame with this film, is that considering the limitless playground the writers had to play in, they chose a very small corner, and decided to huddle in it. The story all feels very limited and small scale, more due to the villain, his reasons and why events unfold, rather than the nature of the action that happens in the film itself. There was also perhaps a bit too much slapstick, but this could be excused if the overall product had been improved.
It may sound as if I hated the movie. I didn't. It's great fun, and it's nice to see space adventure on the cinema screen again. Having said that, this is simply a forgettable and an unfortunately missed opportunity to do something significantly better.
Blood Diamond (2006)
A Resounding Surprise And Success
I have to admit, I wasn't expecting a great deal from this film. Leonardo DiCaprio, and a Hollywood 'message' movie rolled into one. I am very happy to say that I was truly surprised and impressed, and my worries were proved unfounded.
Djimon Hounsou is excellent as Solomon, while Jennifer Connelly is good in a somewhat limited and slightly stereotyped role. However, the real stand out performance is DiCaprio. I will freely admit I have never been a fan, usually finding him weak and unimpressive in his younger roles, and in more recent years he has proved reasonably good but not awe inspiring. In Blood Diamond he got me. For the first time, I wasn't watching DiCaprio act, but the character he played. Rightly, both DiCaprio and Hounsou were Oscar nominated for their performances.
Whether Blood Diamond is an accurate or exaggerated portrayal of events I don't know, and only those who experienced what happened in that time and place could say. As a story though, it fires on all cylinders, providing a thought provoking and hard-hitting tale. There are various themes, and it portrays its characters fairly even-handedly. Danny's character is a grey and nuanced individual, who doesn't fit all the typical stereotypes. He can be selfish, insulting and prejudiced whilst also showing that beneath it all he can be self-sacrificing and thoughtful. The other characters and events make him re-evaluate his priorities and goals, but not in a typical 'life changing' way. It's more as though he already was that person, he just needed reminding. It makes a change from the type of character who 'sees the light and suddenly becomes good'.
Jennifer Connelly does well in what is really a thankless role. In essence she is a sounding board for revealing Danny's character, and getting over the film's political and social conscience and/or message. Her character is also somewhat of a stereotype, with the 'exposing incorruptible reporter', but it's to her credit that we do not lose sympathy with Maddy.
The film is not perfect. There is one scene where Solomon acts stupidly and out of character, shouting at a passing truck in the darkness, but this can be forgiven as it does not affect the story, and is primarily a story device used to trigger a dark character moment between Solomon and Danny. The conclusion of DiCaprio's character is possibly the most predictable and clichéd event, but from a story perspective, it is the most effective and meaningful. Sometimes such story devices have to be used, as they work well for a reason.
Some have criticised the film's ending for being too 'Hollywood' and proceeding beyond what was necessary. In all honesty, I felt that without that ending, without that conclusion for the characters, the impact of the overall story would have been lessened. It is like the ending of a movie such as The Shawshank Redemption, where critics managed to complain about its ultimately uplifting 'Hollywood' ending, stating that it was out of place and at odds with what went before. Yet that is the whole point. It is the contrast that lifts up the story's conclusion, and gives everything leading to it, a point and reason.
With regards to how it was filmed, it has to be said there is some wonderful cinematography to be found. I genuinely felt drawn into the film and its story, and was never jolted out of it by any false and forced 'documentary' style camera work, which has become an over-used technique in recent years. The pace and editing show their quality, when you suddenly realise you have watched a film that is over two hours, without once feeling it.
All in all, it is a very human and personal tale, set against tragic events. By centring on the characters, it tells its story and message to best effect, without too much preaching and posturing. If you took away the message, it would still be an intense and riveting tale about the individuals involved, and that is why it works so well, and makes for an excellent film.
The Dark Knight (2008)
A Disappointing Continuation
Where did it all go wrong? Unfortunately all the hype turned out to be exactly that. Just hype. This is a mediocre and highly repetitive film, perhaps marginally better than average action movie. It certainly is a major improvement over the recent mess that was The Hulk, but that's not saying much. Then again, even The Hulk managed a little better in the character department for its first third, before devolving into mindless dross.
They seem to have forgotten the things that made the first of the new Christian Bale Batman movies a success (In more than just box office). Dark Knight is a bloated misshapen mess of a film, with little coherent structure. From it's rather lacklustre opening to it's weak finale, we are just treated to a variety of scenes that just seem to have been lumped together.
At 152 minutes, someone needed to seriously take the editing scissors to the negative. Then again, if the fat had been trimmed from this film, there wouldn't be much left. The first film worked, because we had different locations, an interesting back story, and some genuine character moments, that all came together to make the 'action' parts enjoyable. Because they had a reason for being, and we became invested in what happened to the characters.
Dark Knight is simply a collection of action scenes, and 'Joker' scenes for the sake of it. Heath Ledger is serviceable as the Joker, but it's by no means an Oscar worthy performance. Jack Nicholson at least had a certain level of theatricality to make the character work, in Burton's Batman. Though in Heath Ledger's defence, he had very little to work with, character-wise. I think he did the best he could with it, despite lots of pointless 'Joker-giggling' and 'oh, look, I'm insane' expressions. There are virtually no meaningful character moments in the film, no real structure to the story, and so there is no emotional involvement in the action. The fight scenes seemed to lack any genuine sense of threat or risk, because it never felt like Batman was ever in danger. In the previous film, he was fighting people of equal training and skill, so you felt he was having to struggle to defeat his enemy. In Dark Knight, he's simply going through the motions. And any genuine threat in the violence is shied away from. Don't believe the other reviews. There's plenty of 'action' in this film, but not a lot of 'violence' as such. Which isn't always a good thing. It may keep it child-friendly (in a way) for the most part, but leaves us with no real sense of consequence or risk.
In terms of setting, this time around they decided to film mostly on real city locations. The idea being, that this will make the atmosphere more realistic. Unfortunately this works against it. The ever so slight fantasy feel of Gotham in the first film, helps us as the viewer, to dwell in their reality and accept the fantastical parts. By bringing this new film more into the world of everyday reality, the more outlandish elements become less believable than they might have otherwise been, thereby resulting in a detachment from events, rather than drawing us in.
Morgan Freeman is poorly used, with little to get his teeth into. While perhaps he did not have a large part in the previous film either, he was at least imbued with some sense of personality and a genuine feeling of necessity to the plot. Michael Caine fairs a little better, and is one of the few characters to maintain a reasonable level of personality and purpose, that is on a par with his character in Batman Begins.
As for the Harvey Dent character, Aaron Eckhart is simply adequate, but apart from his general role as the District Attorney, his evolution into the 'Two Face' villain feels utterly superfluous and tacked-on for the sake of cramming in another temporary antagonist. Though admittedly, he has stunningly well executed CGI enhanced make-up. (unfortunately the un-shrivelled eye ruins the effect, since it simply would not have likely survived the wounds, and even if it had, would dry up and wither, without its surrounding tissue, eyelids and moisture.) He is supposed to be some sort of example about how evil can change and affect even the best of people, but it all feels clumsily executed and poorly resolved.
So what's good? Maggie Gyllenhall as Rachel Dawes, brings her character some much needed depth. She's a more mature actress, both in style and looks, than Katie Holmes was (As the same character in the previous film). She also has a rather sad and tired appearance, which keeps her from looking like the typical overly-pretty female love-interest. She felt like a character that you could imagine he had grown up with and loved for herself, rather than simply an attractive face.
To be honest, that's about the best that can be said, in comparison to the previous film. And in it's own right, it is a movie that can best be described as an enjoyable distraction, with virtually nothing to remember once you walk out.
Sadly, this is very much another forgettable summer blockbuster. What makes it so disappointing is not that it is actually that bad, but simply that it should have been so much better, and certainly does not live up to the hype.
No Country for Old Men (2007)
Look Deep Into The Hole, And See What You Find
No Country For Old Men has garnered a great deal of praise for its pseudo-philosophical musings and contemplations, but what purpose does it truly serve?
People who fault the film are derided for 'not understanding' its deeper meanings, and it is assumed they dislike it because of its lack of adherence to supposed Hollywood cliché. On the other hand, I would suggest that perhaps this form of movie is becoming as much a cliché as any other, struggling almost too hard to buck tradition and stereotype.
Films that explain everything are (often justifiably) criticised for never leaving any questions, yet like anything in life, it is perhaps best to find a happy medium. The greatest films leave us questioning and thinking, but they are also about something, and say something. They are films that point us in a general direction, that we can then narrow down in focus to interpret in our own fashion as individuals. Yet what happens when the film doesn't even point us in a general direction? When it is so aimless that it can be interpreted in any way, or not at all, in equal measure? A film that tries so hard to avoid saying anything at all, is as vapid and empty as the thing that leaves no room to question.
NCFOM is so open to multiple interpretations of practically every element, that it becomes an empty shell of a film. Those who wish to, can read absolutely anything they want into it. Unfortunately, in the style of the Emperor's New Clothes, those who choose to question its lack of substance are quickly hushed and told in condescending fashion that they do not understand this 'deep and meaningful' experience.
There is little point going into the possible interpretations and meanings in this review, as they are so open and varied. It is like a blank piece of paper, upon which we are told to draw a line from a to b. We could draw it anywhere in whatever way we wished. It provides freedom, but since we are not attempting to create our own work of art with the line, but interpret that of somebody else, it becomes an ultimately futile and most importantly, pointless exercise.
It is an expertly crafted movie, and from a visual standpoint, often a pleasure to watch. The acting from the leads is rarely (if ever) less than good, and often excellent. Beyond that, take from it what you will. Some of you will look at the deep, dark, bottomless hole and see a near endless myriad of images and meanings. Others will pick up the piece of paper with the hole drawn on it, and say that it is only an illustration of a bottomless hole, and really contains nothing but a fine drawing.
The Accidental Husband (2008)
Alternative title - "The Lucky Escapes!"
My goodness, what can be said about this? I enjoy a feel-good romantic comedy as much as the next person (Probably more than many blokes), but the biggest problem with The Accidental Husband is that it misfires on every front. Uma Thurman can be a good actress, however she can also over-play things very easily, and this is a perfect example. However, how well she played the part is essentially irrelevant, as the best actress would not have been able to save this mess.
For starters, The Accidental Husband is replete with some of the worst 'RomCom' clichés, but they alone do not a bad movie make. The biggest problem is that the two romantic leads illicit no sympathy and have little-to-no chemistry, with a completely shallow and trivial story that makes them un-likable.
The character of Patrick Sullivan (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) is supposedly deeply in love with Sofia (Justina Machado). She breaks up with him on the basis of advice from radio love-guru, Dr. Emma Lloyd (Uma Thurman). The next thing we know, he is falling for Emma(After the oh-so-amusing 'accidental husband' revenge scenario which he was petty enough to carry out after being dumped), with nary a glance back at Sofia. Take in contrast Richard Bratton (Colin Firth) who loves Emma, but realises she doesn't feel the same about him, gives her time to make her mind up, and is even eventually decent enough to let her go and be happy with Patrick, on their would-be wedding day. So we are supposed to cheer on the man who is fickle enough to decide he's deeply in love with one woman, only to forget about her and fall for another shortly after, over a man who is patient and understanding? Not to mention Emma being our romantic lead, who happily sleeps with Patrick before she breaks up with Richard, (And even changes her mind and stays with Richard till the point just before the wedding).
There's not a lot else to say, except that for a romantic comedy this falls flat in almost every way. The few humorous moments are limited to the character of Deep (Ajay Naidu). Instead of being left with a smile at its conclusion, I was left with a slightly sour taste. A better title would perhaps have been "The Lucky Escapes" for the characters of Sofia (Who seems to have made the right decision) and Richard, for escaping a life with a fickle and untrustworthy wife. It would have made for a much more interesting romance, to see those two characters as the leads, who end up together!
Revolutionary Road (2008)
An Excuse For 'Acting'
I have to admit, I went into this with a little trepidation. The trailers implied a film with little-to-no plot, and two people shouting and arguing a lot. Unfortunately, I wasn't proved wrong.
There's nothing wrong with the idea of an interesting drama documenting the break down of a marriage and/or abortion issues, but Revolutionary Road has no subtlety or progression in dealing with these. Essentially, the marriage is already broken at the start of the film. They start to dream of a new life that will give them a fresh start and fail. The marriage then descends into collapse and the unintentional death of a character.
Of course there's all sorts of 'meaningful' messages here. The real question, is whether they're told in an interesting and effective manner. With the exception of the 'slight' hopefulness of the two leads moving to Paris, the film is utterly one-tone. The characters are never really established with back-story or through any other narrative method. In essence, all we ever learn about them, is: "This is a suburban couple in the 50s. They shout at each other a lot and are apparently unsatisfied with their lives" They even have a couple of children that appear briefly in one or two scenes as plot devices, but otherwise seem not to exist. It's as though they have been shoe-horned in after 90% of the film has been completed, to be causes for more of the 'dramatic' scenes between the leads. Obviously this is not the case, but the way it is filmed and told, it may as well have been.
Any messages this film may have had, are lost in the contrived plot and barely even two-dimensional characters. Yes, the basic 'facts' of the story are as realistic or unrealistic as you want them to be, but they are all bound up in a false and extremely forced package. A sign of good characterisation is the ability to think "If (random event) happened to the character, how would they react?" and being able to formulate some idea of your own, based on what you have seen and heard. The two leads in Revolutionary Road had no consistency of character at any point. They were just hollow shells for DeCaprio and Winslet to 'act' with.
The whole film comes over as a contrived mess. One of those movies that make the old mistake of thinking "Lots of dramatic shouting, crying, and vacant long looks, equals good acting and drama." Yet perhaps that was their main point. To give Winslet and DeCaprio a vehicle in which to indulge in melodramatic over-the-top acting, without lumbering any of the 'acting' scenes with the problems that can be encountered when you establish characters, or give them real reason to behave the way they do. The 'plot' was simply a device by which to have 'emotional acting' scenes for the actors to enjoy getting their teeth into.
The highlights of the film, and some of the few moments it comes alive, are when the somewhat disturbed character of 'John Givings' (Played by Michael Shannon) pops up to deliver some 'home truths' so-to-speak. Sure, he's a blatant device used to hammer home the film's plot points/messages in case we missed them while watching, but nevertheless, he easily becomes the most interesting character in the whole mess. Inadvertently (Especially in his final scene) his character truly sums up the utter banality and pointlessness of the whole story, and how shallow and empty the characters are. Another highlight, is the very final moment of the film when the character's father turns off his hearing-aid in order to blank out the inane ramblings of his shallow wife. Which again, sum up the entire film perfectly.
Perhaps Revolutionary Road is best summed up as the acting equivalent of a bland, plot less summer blockbuster with lots of special effects. Except in this case the 'effects' are Winslet and DeCaprio's 'acting' for the sake of acting, and once you get past that, there's not a lot left that's Revolutionary.
Fringe (2008)
Pretty Good So Far
Anyone who has seen The X-Files will no doubt see a great deal of similarities, and they wouldn't be wrong. The question really, is whether or not this is a bad thing? After numerous similar shows over the years, none of them have recaptured that enigmatic 'something' that made the X-Files work. (Itself hardly the most original concept, which can trace it's origins back to earlier shows).
To give Fringe its due credit, its similarities are more blatantly on the surface, but it is so-far staying away from supernatural story lines, and (With the exception of one episode that leaves questions of the possibility) has steered away from aliens. Those aren't bad story paths, but they have been done so much in the past on other shows, it's nice to see Fringe at the very least not centring on them. Since the X- Files is no more, and hasn't been for some time, I think there's room for an enjoyable series of this nature, and Fringe has taken a good stab.
The most fascinating character is without a doubt, John Noble as Walter Bishop. His portrayal of the absent minded genius professor with questionable sanity, and occasionally dubious morality, is a brilliantly written and excellently played part. He really is the core of the show, without whom it would lack a great deal of what makes it enjoyable and interesting to watch. Joshua Jackson's role as his son is suitably interesting, and well played. Unfortunately the most disappointing and unsure character is the lead, Agent Dunham, played by Anna Torv. She's serviceable in the role, but you can't help wondering whether she's been miscast. Though admittedly, she also has very little to work with, (character-wise) at this point.
Among Fringe's other positives, are its (apparent) plot progression. (We can only hope this is actually going somewhere, and not one of those situations where it's made to look that way, but just becomes dragged out interminably without any conclusion.) So far it feels like each story provides a satisfying conclusion and plot, while also adding to another larger arc. Fringe also has a much more 'adult' atmosphere to it than some similar shows have had in the past.
All-in-all, it's shaping up to be an excellent series, that if it carries on as well as it has started, will continue to make for compelling and satisfying viewing. I only hope they can improve Agent Dunham in some way, and make her a more compelling character, while dragging more than one expression out of Anna Torv.
V for Vendetta (2005)
Ultimately Disappointing
'V for Vendetta' is a mixed bag. It has a lot going for it, but is it enough? In the trend of 'totalitarian future government' movies, we are offered a vision of Britain where fear, along with religious and moral extremism, have created a world where everyday freedoms have been lost, and the population is controlled by an evil government.
Carrying on from such films and stories as '1984', 'Soylent Green', 'Equilibrium', the biggest problem with 'V for Vendetta', is that having been written in the 80s, its vision of a future Britain seems surprisingly quaint and out-of-date. Ironic, when films such as '1984' or 'Soylent Green' actually appear MORE relevant now. It is as though the Wachowski's (creators of the 'Matrix' trilogy) have added in Islamaphobia and terrorists to make it up-to-date, but forgotten to remove or update the elements that are OUT-of-date. Britain's public are already suffering under far more surveillance than the society of 'V for Vendetta'. That it would be controlled by extreme Christian fundamentalists, seems utterly unlikely, in a society that now ridicules and marginalises those with such beliefs.
There are other such marked elements, that simply stop the story ringing true. Were it to take the route of a film such as 'Equilibrium', using a fictional state, we could accept the differences. Being placed in a real country, it loses its credibility. Yet of course this story by its nature, MUST be set in Britain, and so should have been updated accordingly. The closest comparison would be 'Children of Men', which, while it has its own faults, does at least create a believable extrapolation of how British government and society could go. There are too many bad stereotypes in 'V for Vendetta', that betray its graphic novel roots, both visually, and story-wise. It is a shame that there is such a current trend for adapting comics and graphic novels. As a result, we are too often nowadays, treated to films that are visually intriguing, but ultimately lack the depth of much that has come before them.
The other primary drawback is much in line with 'The Matrix'. The Wachowski's (even though not directing this time) take an interesting premise and basic story, dress it up, then do little with it, masking the flaws with 'striking' visuals, or the like. Though admittedly, 'V for Vendetta' does not go down this route quite so markedly. The reason it probably didn't succeed as hoped, is because it didn't use the same trick as 'The Matrix', of covering its flaws with overly-exotic fight scenes. As such, it ironically makes for a better film, but less of a crowd pleaser.
The cast, for the most part, is pretty good. Hugo Weaving is functional, in a thankless role that doesn't allow him to do much, while Natalie Portman does her best, but unfortunately can't quite maintain a consistent British accent. Perhaps the most interesting, but undeveloped character, is the police officer who gradually pieces everything together. John Hurt chews the screen suitably in a limited role, but has an unfortunately lacklustre demise.
Overall, it is an interesting film, with at least a little depth to make you think. It'll pass a couple of hours, but ultimately leave you most likely a bit disappointed at the missed potential.
Soldier (1998)
Sorely Underrated
Soldier is an unfortunate film, in that it doesn't fit into the modern stereotypes, and as a result failed. On the surface, many expected simply a modern explosion filled action movie. Instead, they were delivered much more, while those who might have enjoyed it, probably didn't see the film because they thought it was simply mindless action.
Soldier harks back to the 80s style of action adventure movie in many ways. At its core, we have a story about a traumatised character, raised from birth to be nothing but an emotionless military weapon. Both Kurt and the role, have been criticised for the lack of script, but that is the ESSENCE of the character. He is a killing machine, learning to be human. If anything, Kurt should be applauded for his subtle approach to the role. It's the small things that give the character such pathos and depth. From identifying with the mute boy, to his confusion at shedding a tear after being ostracised. Even the minimalist expressions and gestures between he and his men at the end, as he picks up the boy, speak volumes. There is more character in a few of his looks and actions, than any number of overly verbose, two dimensional movie heroes.
In some ways, perhaps the problem for many people, is that it truly is a film of two halves. First, we have a character piece, exploring the emotions and situations of this soldier. What makes him the way he is. How his life has been conditioned and controlled. Secondly, we have an all-out battle, where he fights to save the new life he has found, finally finding a purpose, something that gives him meaning. Perhaps the result was that people only wanting only one or the other, didn't feel satisfied.
A lot Soldier's depth is beneath the surface, hinted at visually and emotionally, rather than handed out on a platter, and it's easy to see how it can be missed. On another note, when we do hit the action scenes, they are brutal, quick, and full of impact. The climactic battle is one of the most satisfying hand-to-hand fights to be seen in years. This isn't a film where people jump around on wires in slow motion. They get hurt, they bleed, they die. As a result, it probably didn't appeal to the newer breed of action fan, either.
I'm not a particular fan of Paul Anderson, but this is his best work, and tragically underrated. Soldier is an atmospheric, stylish, and surprisingly layered character piece, that still manages to be an excellent old-style adrenaline ride. If you like your science fiction and your action movies with a bit more depth and punch, you could do worse than see Soldier.
Dracula 2000 (2000)
Better than you think
Now I'm not a huge fan of most Vampire films and TV series. The subject has had the life sucked out of it (no pun intended!) so many times, by so many people, who feel they have a unique take on the idea, and often change only one or two variables ever so slightly. It is a fascinating sub-genre of supernatural fiction, but since the original Bram Stoker tale, there have been few stories to stand out, with rare exceptions like Matheson's 'I Am Legend'.
Dracula 2000 (Or 2001 in the UK) stands out by genuinely doing something unique and different, in the midst of all the Buffys and Blades. There are some very neat twists, not all original, but combined to create an enjoyably satisfying film, though the final revelation stands out as one of the most interesting concepts in recent years, from an otherwise tired genre. For once, the religious undertones of the Dracula myth are used to good effect, truly integrated with the story, while the characters, even the most minor, are often at least amusing and engaging.
Also to its credit, perhaps surprisingly for such a film, are the performances. Gerard Butler makes for an excellent Dracula, while Justine Waddell shines as a convincing and nuanced lead. Christopher Plummer plays an interesting and world-weary Van Helsing, with Johnny Lee Millar as his protégé, plunged too early into the thick of things. Even the supporting cast is strong, with the likes of Jennifer Esposito, Omar Epps, and Jeri Ryan, obviously relishing their roles.
The film is obviously aimed at a young audience, yet while modern, is surprisingly restrained, never trying too hard to woo the all-action 'Blade' or 'Matrix' audience at the expense of its story or credibility. The script is sharp, witty, and intelligent, while Marco Beltrami's score sets the mood perfectly, and Carol Spier's production design gives everything a suitably detailed and textured atmosphere.
It's not a perfect film. At roughly around the 90 minute mark, it sorely screams out for more character based scenes, yet these are small concerns for a movie that can honestly hold its head high, in the overly polluted sea of vampire fiction.
Pride & Prejudice (2005)
A Disappointing Adaptation
It was inevitable that fans would compare this to the much loved 1995 BBC version, however, if we try to view it separately, how does it fare? In many ways it tries hard, but ultimately falls flat on its face in many respects. The traditional length of just over two hours running time, is not a lot, when trying to condense material of this size and nature. However, when the right director and script writer are teamed, it can be achieved. Sadly, this is not the case, with Pride & Prejudice. Instead, we are given a story that feels like it is on fast forward. Things often happen in one scene, that would otherwise have occurred over several. As a result, it often doesn't flow naturally, and instead appears forced. Conclusions, decisions and emotions seem leapt to, without due reason.
Then we have the filming style. True, the tones of the film are lush and vibrant, with lots of detail, however it seems that they borrowed a camera man from NYPD blue. It's toned down, but we are still treated to that 'documentary' style of film making so popular today, intended to make the viewer feel as though things are being filmed live. The camera shifts constantly, just tiny subtle moves, a slight pan to the left, a slight zoom, etc. It is quite simply inappropriate to the tone of the film, and jars the viewer out of the atmosphere. The composition of a shot no-longer seems important, when instead the director can just keep the camera on the move rather than think about what is going on film.
Finally, there's the casting and script. Characters like Bingley are portrayed as a wild haired buffoon, rather than simply a shy and naïve gentleman. The Bennets, while not a rich family, were certainly not poor. However, here they are portrayed practically living in squalor on a collapsing farm. Characters act in ways that seem far too modern, which is admittedly perhaps the goal, to draw in those who couldn't cope with subtler dialogue. Last but not least, we have Keira Knightly. A proficient, and pretty enough actress, but far too lightweight for a nuanced role like Elizabeth Bennet. She would have been far better suited to the role of Lydia, and indeed almost comes over as a flighty, 'giddy teen'.
The rest of the cast do what they can with their roles, in most cases well enough, with Rosamund Pike and Tom Hollander standing out. While the normally reliable Donald Sutherland tries his best, in a dreadfully miscast role. Macfadyen plays his part mechanically, but well enough, simply coming over as a different take on Darcy, rather than especially better or worse than others.
Yet to round it all off, we are given a conclusion straight out of a bad Mills & Boon novel (either the American, or British end). Ultimately, it is a disappointment, to see such strong material, simply raced through, and 'spiced up' to appeal to a contemporary audience, who are probably just being under-estimated in their ability to enjoy something with depth and subtlety.
The Time Machine (2002)
A Missed Opportunity.
The biggest problem for The Time Machine, is its heritage. Both the Wells' book, and the George Pal 60s film. When held in comparison, it doesn't stand favourably. It works best, when you try and distance yourself, and view it simply as a fresh new story.
It's biggest mistake, is the time travel. That is the film's central core, yet instead of enjoying a passage of time through various stages of history, we get two VERY brief glimpses of the near future, and then the far distant Eloi and Morlocks. It desperately needed some feeling of exploration, instead of simply bypassing everything in about five minutes worth of montage. The core of the original, both film and book, is the protagonist's vision of how time does, and doesn't change man.
It's other major error, is in its motivations, though you can understand why they thought it was a good idea. The film maker's attempt to give the Time Traveller an emotional basis for his efforts, with the death of his fiancée. On the surface this seems a good idea. However, by doing so, we are robbed of not only his sense of exploration and adventure, but his reasons for travelling to the future seem flimsy at best. Not only that, but it forces the film to spend unwarranted time on this subplot, before we delve into the interesting aspects.
Thirdly, the finale is so mindless, that it makes little sense. The 'explosion' of the time machine, is so utterly contrived a plot device, simply for an alternative to the old 'blow something big up for the end' trick. How does he know his machine will do precisely this, when he sets it to malfunction? What makes him think he will have enough time to get the girl out and save her by doing this? It just feels utterly contrived, and tacked on for the sake of a wham-bam Hollywood finale.
If we do compare the versions, it's surprising how this veers even more from the book (considering it's director's relation) than the Pal version. Lost is the contrast of the practically helpless Eloi, as they simply appear to be a fairly self-sufficient tribal race. The Morlocks, who originally came over as abominations, hideous debased humans (despite the dated make-up of the time), now come over simply as mindless animals. While Jeremy Irons' Uber-Morlock is an attempt, too late in the game, to provide a central villain to defeat.
It had real potential, and despite its flaws, is an enjoyable enough romp. Unfortunately, that's all it is, and it seems a shame that even with all the extra time, money and effort, it still couldn't equal, let alone surpass, its 1960s predecessor.
Casino Royale (2006)
Good, but ultimately lacklustre
What can I say? Underwhelming comes to mind. There are many things to like about Casino Royale, but ultimately it falls flat.
So what's good? Daniel Craig actually does make a satisfactory Bond. Certainly an improvement over the generic Brosnan. Craig makes the role his own, as did Connery, Moore, and Dalton. Thankfully, the action scenes are stunt based, rather than CGI. Casino Royale's Bond is far more realistic, less tongue-in-cheek than he has been in a long time, and it helps the atmosphere no end. The gadgets are restricted to a minimum, and for once, we genuinely feel there is some emotional investment in Bond's romance.
Where Casino Royale stumbles, is in the plot department. It's all over the place. There's no consistency, and it goes nowhere. While I'm glad they tried to be different, there's something to be said for having a central plot and antagonist to defeat. The closest we get to a villain in this film is Le Chiffre, who himself is merely trying to stave off further villains. On top of that, it's not even Bond who gets him in the end. As for the multitude of others, well, they're killed off as soon as they're introduced, with the exception of 'Mr White' who was practically superfluous anyway. It feels like Bond is chasing a trail of breadcrumbs, that never really lead anywhere.
As a result, the action scenes fail as well. They are well executed, but we the viewer, have nothing invested in them. Do we want to see Bond defeat this Villain? Well, we don't know them, so we don't care. Is there anything at stake in this action scene? Well, not really, so we don't care (With the possible exception of the Airport scene, where Bond at least had a disaster to stop). The final action scene would have been great, IF we'd even vaguely known who these villains were, or why they were doing what they were doing. Considering this lack of investment for the viewer, in the action scenes, they feel ridiculously long. How many jumps does Bond REALLY need to do at the beginning, or the man he's chasing, to know that, yes, they're both good at this? How many times does Bond need to chase, lose, and catch up with the bomber at the airport? And considering the many reviews and comments stating how violent and brutal Casino Royale was, I found myself wondering what they were talking about. This is no more violent than the average Bond really, except with less comedy, and a more serious tone, it's marginally more effective. If you want violent and brutal, the average Arnie flick will still out-do this any day of the week without even breaking a sweat.
Ultimately, when the film concludes, it feels as though we are still waiting for the final act, while the preceding acts haven't really lead to anything anyway. Casino Royale is disappointing not because it is especially bad, but because of all the potential it showed, and barely scratched the surface of. Saying that, it's still considerably better than the last couple of Brosnan's.
The Matrix (1999)
Scratch Beneath The Surface
Like many films, there's a lot of heated debate about this one. So what can be said? On many occasions, I have heard grand statements from its fans, about the incredible, thought provoking story. The whole 'What is Reality?' issue. Well, actually, in Science Fiction, this is a pretty well-trod concept. Oddly enough, the Matrix escaped its SF roots, and managed to be seen by a wider audience who were unfamiliar with SF or its concepts. As a result, there were resounding cries of how original and creative it was. Is it good that it made a few more people think? Yes. Does that by default mean that it did it well? Films such as "ExistenZ", "Dark City", or "The 13th Floor" (from around the same time), all explored the idea of 'What is Reality?' in far more depth. They simply didn't get the same level of exposure. The Matrix wins, because it was one of those lucky films to fill the right niche at the right time. It utilized Computer Effects in a relatively new way for the cinema 'wow' factor. It appealed to the all-action, gun-toting, look-cool-in-black leather, fans. It rammed the 'kung-fu-wire-stunt' style of action film into over-drive. It had a 'hip' soundtrack to appeal to the masses (Which will date it badly in years to come).
It's difficult to criticise The Matrix, because there's nothing really bad about it, as long as you enjoy, or at least don't mind, that style of film. What it fails to do, is bring anything else to the game. There's nothing really fresh or creative idea-wise, here. The characters are thinly drawn stereotypes. The action tends to be about lots of shell-casings rather than anything else. Scratch the surface, and what few ideas there are, aren't explored to any consequence.
It is a perfect example of style over substance, pretending to say more than it actually does. 'Emperor's New Clothes' if you will. There's nothing wrong with a good mindless action film, from time-to-time. Cinema, in many ways at its core, is simply about pure entertainment. There are numerous films of this kind, but the difference is, they don't pretend to be more than they are. Perhaps that is where the Matrix fails. It sets itself up as though it is exploring some grandiose, thought-provoking topic, and is really just a roller-coaster action film. On rare occasions, some films can do both. This isn't one of them.
If you take it as that, a mindless action trill-ride with a couple of fun concepts, there's nothing wrong with it, to waste a few hours. If you're expecting more, chances are, you'll find it lacking.
Saturn 3 (1980)
A Forgotten Gem
Saturn 3 is an often over-looked minor sci-fi gem. It's by no means perfect, but there's a lot to enjoy. In many ways, it initially comes over as a robotic take on Alien. This is not inaccurate, but it's a small part of it. What we have in Saturn 3 is a wide selection of themes. Love hidden away in a far-flung corner of a permissive, hedonistic society. The evils of simple lust, jealousy and envy. How man's creations can turn on him, totally dependant on how we create them, and what parts of ourselves we allow them to emulate. It's not just about the 'robot-gone-bad' scenario. Hector is a villain, only because of the worst parts of humanity that he becomes imbued with. On top of that, we have a solid, dark adventure. In fact, you'll see some scenes that look to have directly influenced James' Cameron's 'Aliens', notably the hiding-under-the-floor scene, amongst others.
Saturn 3 has some wonderful production design for the interior sets and props. Hector is a fantastic fusion of ideas. Hulking body, twisted and exposed muscle and vein-like wiring, and a set of eyes that perfectly undermine your expectations to create something rather more menacing. You expect a large, threatening head on that body. Instead you get only two searching eyes. The interior of the outpost is excellently realised. It doesn't go for the obvious route, emulating either Alien or 2001, but is somewhere between. It's own take on those. There are occasionally some obvious 70s influences, making it less timeless than a film like Alien, but they're not detrimental to the over-all film.
Unfortunately, it is badly let down by some fairly dreadful model effects, for which there was little excuse in the wake of Star Wars and Alien. Though you do get the impression this is due to budget cuts at the end of production. The design of the ships, etc, is excellent. It is simply the effects themselves that clearly lacked time and money.
To top it all off, Saturn 3 has an outstanding score by Elmer Bernstein. It is full of atmosphere, sometimes full of awe and grandeur, while at others almost demonic in its themes for Hector.
Kirk Douglas delivers a solid performance, while Farrah Fawcett is functional, and a suitably attractive damsel in distress. Harvey Keitel does a fair performance as Benson, and ironically I feel he is more menacing with his voice dubbed by Roy Dotrice (Done well enough, that if you didn't know Keitel, you couldn't tell).
There's a lot to enjoy in Saturn 3. It's full of ideas and stands up surprisingly well (Excluding some model effects). It's one of those films where you feel, with just a little more effort, really could have been a sci-fi classic. As it stands, it's still an under-rated and excellent film.
Battlefield Earth (2000)
Popcorn Fun
This is a difficult film to defend, due to it being so widely criticised. I will say this, though. It's not half as bad as you've heard, if you fulfil a couple of criteria first.
1 - Don't take it seriously. This isn't an Oscar Winning Drama 2 - It helps if you don't mind watching movies for fun sometimes. Some people seem to hate anything that is less than Oscar winning perfection, but let's face it, few things are.
I'm not going to say this is perfect. Some scientology types like to defend it against all odds. Others like to totally pan it beyond reason. Ask yourself this. Are you the type of person who enjoyed watching Independence day? Or Waterworld? Or the Matrix? These are all films so full of plot holes, cheesy lines, and over-the-top action, they'd sink in the dead sea. Yet they are also (for the most part) good fun, switch-your-brain-off B-movies that most people enjoy a few hours watching. Battlefield Earth is no better or worse. I love genuine, serious SF from The Day the Earth Stood Still and 2001, through to Gattaca or Dark City. I also enjoy a good old-fashioned joy ride from the same genre.
Sure, it has some plot-holes you could sail the Titanic through, but it harks back to those old 50s science fiction movies, like This Island Earth, or Invaders from Mars, with inventive (if unbelievable and unrealistic) fun. You can tell Travolta is having a great time playing the villain, and if you just go along for the ride, you may just have a good time too. For those who say this is the worst movie they've seen, all I can say is, they've not seen a truly bad movie yet. Ignore the Scientology roots. I've certainly seen far worse blockbusters that get praised beyond reason.
There are better things you could do with your time than watch Battlefield Earth, but you can say that about any film. The trick is, if you want some popcorn fun for a couple of relaxing hours, you could do far, FAR worse, than waste your time watching this! ;-)
Children of Men (2006)
A Message In Search Of A Meaning
Children of Men is a strange film to judge. The story is not original (Simply think The Handmaid's Tale from 1990, taken to an extreme), then again, few stories are. What it gives us is an interesting and updated spin on an old idea. Perhaps 'interesting' is the key word, though.
So what works in Children of Men? Its vision of the future is extremely realistic, and really does feel round the corner. Carrying on current trends, certain items are plausibly advanced, while others haven't changed at all. The society it portrays is again, simply an extreme extrapolation of where things are headed now.
The 'action' scenes are excellently portrayed, keeping you on the edge of your seat at every window smash, ricocheting bullet, and explosion.
The cinematography carries on the recent trend of 'documentary' style film-making all the way. This is perhaps its greatest advantage, and its downfall. Instead of watching a story, we feel as though we are watching a documentary. It often gets bogged down in these scenes, that while harrowing and intense in a way we've become used to with films such as Saving Private Ryan, or Black Hawk Down, do not progress the plot, or characters. Children of Men is most interesting when it takes a pause. The moments with Michael Caine's character. The conversation between Moore and Owen as they meet up again, and we gain a few glimpses of their underlying character. The discussion at the farm, with the dilemma of how to proceed.
Saying that, these scenes are few and far between, and afterward, you realise that the extremely effective 'action' set pieces are almost a mask to the somewhat limited script and story.
Children of Men is a message in search of a meaning. On the surface, it seems to be saying a lot. Scratch beneath, and you realise that it doesn't really know what it wants to say. The conclusion is disappointingly stereotypical. We expect the blunt and unresolved end that comes with this type of film, as if to say in capital letters 'Look, it's all very serious, depressing and meaningful stuff, and we're leaving you to interpret it the way you want'. The shame is, with Children of Men, that 'message' just leaves the film drifting like the characters in their row-boat.
To a certain extent we are still treated to that oh-so-popular message of today: "Authority figures=Evil, Weed smoking anarchist hippies=Good", but to its credit, Children of Men at least doesn't glamorise the 'resistance'. They turn out to be as villainous, if not more so, than the government they oppose. It doesn't take sides the way you expect, even though it does beat us over the head occasionally with a few politically correct messages. At least the two leads Theo and Kee are essentially average people caught in the middle.
I wanted to like Children of Men, but it doesn't quite work. Far more could have been made about the repercussions of Kee and her child in this dystopian, barren world. Children of Men is a good example that sometimes when you try not to say anything specific, you end up saying nothing at all. It is a brave attempt, and well worth seeing. It makes a change to see some thought-provoking and intelligent science fiction, but we've seen it all before and explored in far more depth.
Starship Troopers (1997)
Miss it, and you're missing out.
Starship Troopers is one of those rare films, that is substantially more than the sum of its parts. The shame is, that most don't see past the enjoyable gloss, and see it as simply a mindless action movie.
So what sets it apart? For one, it contains the biting satire, grim humour and violence of Paul Verhoeven and Edward Neumeier's previous science fiction collaboration, Robocop. Starship Troopers can be seen on one level as a tale of lost innocence, and coming of age. On another, it is a satire, based around the idea of a somewhat controlling alternative form of government, that frighteningly works. (To simply call it fascist, is an easy dismissal, and misses the point, I believe) It is nothing extreme or outlandish, except in the left wing world of Hollywood, where script writer Neumeier was vilified somewhat for adapting it from Heinlein's novel. It is simply a thought provoking tale, dressed up with the fun of action and adventure.
In many ways it is a shame that the film veered so much from the original novel, yet it does succeed amazingly well in its own right. It is perhaps better to simply view them both as differing takes on similar issues.
Starship Troopers isn't for everyone. You have to enjoy over-the-top violent action, and dark humour. If you can, there is a lot to gain from watching Starship Troopers, with far more depth than you would otherwise expect beneath the surface.
To top it all off, it would be criminal not to mention the outstanding special effects, most especially Phil Tippet's work on the Bugs themselves. You will rarely see such convincing scenes of destruction in space, and war against an alien foe. Unlike many films, the effects are done selectively and cleverly, so that almost nothing will date in Starship Troopers, unlike many of its contemporaries, or even far more recent films.
Starship Troopers is a fantastic ride if you just want straight action adventure. On top of that, if you take it tongue-in-cheek, you'll often find yourself coming back for more.
They'll keep fighting! And they'll win!
AVP: Alien vs. Predator (2004)
AVP - Could it ever win?
Could this film have ever won? The usual complaints have been levelled at it from fans of both franchises. There's too much action. There's not enough action. There's not enough about the humans. We don't care about the humans, let's see the creatures fight. The predators should/shouldn't do this. The Aliens should/shouldn't do that. Alien Vs Predator (Or AVP for short) has a formidable task. It has to satisfy rabid fans of both franchises from around the world, while creating a marketable film that will appeal to a wider audience. Does it succeed? The director, Paul Anderson, has a patchy career, with the dubious distinction of having started his career with several video game-to-movie conversions, such as Mortal Combat, and Resident Evil. Oddly enough, he has been one of the few successful directors in this unusual sub genre. However, video game movies are notoriously difficult to raise above the level of cheap popcorn fun, and rarely gain critical praise. His other films, such as Event Horizon and Soldier, have also met with relative critical apathy. Many fans balked at the idea, when they discovered Anderson was to helm the new AVP movie, fearing a disaster.
Creating a tangible link to the original Alien films, Anderson has roped old pro Lance Henriksen, back into the franchise. By placing the film in our present/near future, he is able to set up Henriksen as the billionaire businessman Charles Bishop Weyland, progenitor of the all-controlling 'company' that would become Weyland Yutani, and eventually create the android 'Bishop' in his image for Aliens and Alien3. As such, AVP becomes a prequel to the Alien films, setting up the 'company' and explaining its possible fascination with discovering this alien species.
To his credit, Anderson has managed to include some original twists to both franchises, re-creating for the first time since Alien, a real sense of discover and mystery. Going against the expected archetype, Weyland is not the usual 'evil' businessman, but someone trying desperately to give their life meaning before they die. Sanaa Lathan provides a suitable replacement for the 'Ripley' type lead character, previously play by Sigourney Weaver in the originals. The supporting characters are all drawn quickly and well, though perhaps a little more expansion would have been welcome.
As for the Predator franchise, we are treated this time to not one, but three of these formidable warriors, their weapons are expanded upon a little, and for the first time we almost come to see one in a heroic light.
Anderson admits to being an enormous fan of the originals, and you can see this in his work. There are several visual cues that subtly reference the older films. As for the setting, Anderson has made a very brave decision, and avoids simply re-treading the same old thing. By placing us in the frozen Antarctic wastes, we are still in an almost alien world, remote and isolated, yet still on earth. In turn, the temple maintains the dark and menacing atmosphere he needs, while not placing us in the usual confines of a metal spaceship or future world. Bucking current trends, he also opts for shorter action scenes, which are brutal and frightening, rather than the balletic kung-fu that seems the current norm.
One complaint levelled at the film, was also its PG-13 rating. Yet there is plenty of gore on display here, in comparison to the earlier films. Would Alien or Aliens really garner a much higher rating if released today? This is by no means a bloodless movie. It just so happens that most of the blood isn't human, and as such the sensors go easy.
All in all, AVP is a good movie. Not without its faults, it still manages to raise itself above the level of most disposable special-effects action flicks of recent years. CGI is also kept to a minimum, and effective old-style effects used where possible. It is a worthy entrant in the ongoing Alien and Predator franchises, and you could do far worse. If you see AVP, you may not see a masterpiece, but if you don't go in expecting miracles, you will see a good movie that leaves you satisfied, and doesn't disappear from memory the moment you finish watching.
Battlestar Galactica (2004)
Climbing on the shoulders of others.
The fans of this show, like to use the excuse that the negative reviews are only from un-reasoning fans of the original, who don't like the new version. So let's look at it objectively, regardless of the original.
What are the positives about the new Galactica? 1 - It's gritty, and feels realistic (atmospherically) 2 - The production quality is top-notch 3 - Imperfect characters with personal conflicts
And what are its failings? 1 - The gritty and realistic approach is so forced, as to negate its positive effects. Shaky camera work has its place, but this is one of those shows that tries so hard to use the technique, it makes NYPD look like it was shot with a tripod. Over compensation. It's as though the film makers are embarrassed to be making Science Fiction, and try their hardest to hide the fact. 2 - The production quality IS top-notch, but so were the new Star Wars films, and I think most people would agree, they weren't anywhere near what they could've been. 3 - The characters are SO imperfect, that they become unrealistic caricatures, and the viewer loses any sympathy whatsoever for the leads. Also, not ALL humans are selfish, self-absorbed nihilists. If this show wanted to be realistic, at least SOME of the characters WOULD be good people (Who can still make the odd mistake).
Many of the fans claim this is superior television, because "it isn't scifi, it's drama". They show a complete lack of knowledge for the genre they are criticising. Their view of SF is probably dictated by a few old Star Trek:TNG episodes they saw as youngsters. "It's all about bug-eyed monsters, and men with pointy ears". The truth is, most television Science Fiction is easily accessible, because it has to appeal to the masses, but all good science fiction is dramatic, thought provoking, challenging stuff that goes beyond our pre-conceptions. It makes us THINK.
Yet the new Galactica does its best never to challenge the viewer. You will never have a plot that couldn't be directly transplanted to a soap-opera, or political/military drama. In fact, it doesn't even try to disguise this, but simply lifts its plots from the latest headlines. (Why write something thought provoking and original, when you can appear daring and cutting edge, by just watching the news for your plots?)
They are right when they say this isn't science fiction, but what they don't understand, is that it isn't a good thing.
Doctor Who (2005)
A quick review of the first series
Rose Does anything actually happen in this episode? It introduces our two leads, a slow-witted grinning idiot of a Doctor and an utterly un-interesting companion. There's no plot to speak of, childish humour, mixed with some extremely bad pacing and incidental music. What else is there to say, really?
The End of the World A marginal improvement, in that we see our first outer-space scenario. Subsequently brought down by poor contemporary humour, paper-thin logic, very poor pacing, and tired SF clichés.
The Unquiet Dead Best episode to date showing what can happen when someone knows how to structure an episode, write interesting character dialogue, AND integrate an intriguing plot. Let down solely by the Doctor and Rose.
Aliens of London/World War Three - Doctor who degenerates into farce. What more can be said. Penelope Wilton brings the proceedings a little gravity, trying her best in dire circumstances. Some poorly written, and out-of-place soap opera elements come to the fore in these two episodes, and a return to poor pacing, bad plotting and cringe worthy humour/satire.
Dalek Not great, however still far above the RTD fare to date. The pacing and script are all fine (though the Doctor and Rose still irritate). The effects and menace of the Dalek are introduced well. The finale, however, took an interesting premise that reduced the Doctor's most notorious foe, into a cuddly touchy-feely mess, and turning a previously un-seen menace, to a blue rubber squid that looked like a child's toy.
The Long Game - The first RTD script to show any plot, even if it was in a clichéd 80s style. Still, it was marred somewhat by his usual over-reliance on juvenile jokes, placing it too far in the future to make logical sense, and again poor pacing. Not as bad as his previous efforts, but instantly forgettable.
Father's Day The initial premise could've been vaguely interesting, but common sense and logic abandon this episode from the very beginning. Also, we are treated to a whole episode of Soap Opera. Before you start thinking this is all about characterization, remember, there's a big difference between lame Soap Opera and characterization. On the plus side, it does prove RTD isn't the worst script writer so far.
The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances - This started off in a mediocre way, with some cringe worthy moments, and some illogical mistakes that even a primary school pupil wouldn't make (Well lit windows in a blackout, anyone?). After this, the first part takes a more interesting and sinister turn. Florence Hoath truly steals these episodes, showing us what an interesting companion could've been like. She could also act. Instead we get the annoying and politically correct Captain Jack as the new companion. The conclusion was a little hasty, but sufficient. The pacing and script improved with a reasonably good storyline, making these two episodes quite atmospheric and intriguing.
Boom Town - I have to be honest, except for a few examples, I had been so disillusioned by the current series, that upon seeing the trailer for another 'Slitheen' episode, I gave up and didn't subject myself to the torture.
Bad Wolf - Reality TV, arguably the worst facet of the modern media, is basically used as the premise. There's no subtlety whatsoever. Do we get any interesting social commentary as in the likes of The Running Man or Truman Show? No, of course not. This in an RTD episode, so they're basically here to cynically try and pull in the audience of said shows. Once again, logic goes out the window, as we're placed 200,000-something years in the future. RTD tries pointlessly to shoe-horn in some 'over-arcing' story here, with no relevance other than it's own existence and when the villains are revealed at the end... They make empty threats, and the Doctor grins once more like an idiot for the climax! Faster paced for the most part, than RTD's other efforts, this has one or two interesting moments. Otherwise, another lacklustre instalment.
The Parting of the Ways - The big finale. More of a damp squid, literally. All of the Dalek menace set up in 'Dalek' is brought crashing down, as they become rather pathetic. So many plot holes riddle this episode, with typically poor contrivances. Daleks want to harvest humans as Daleks, but then vaporize entire continents? Dalek's can vaporize said continents, but not destroy the Tardis in space? The Tardis is now indestructible and can land anywhere, even over people so they can be saved in it? This ability can't be used to easily destroy the Dalek 'god'? The Daleks can vaporize entire continents, but don't just nuke satellite 5 to destroy the doctor, and instead let him play around? The doctor is a pathetic coward without the conviction of his actions, after eradicating his whole species to try and eliminate the Daleks? These and many other holes aside, we are treated to the lamest dues ex machina solution ever conceived, joined with a near pointless story arc.
So what can we say about the new series, all-in-all?
Would this have gained a second series if it were anything other than Doctor Who, with RTD behind it? Would most of the episodes have been seen as anything other than un-original and forgettable, if they were anything other than Doctor Who, and had RTD's name attached? I think not.
Some people would have us think we can't say anything against RTD, since we owe him for bringing Doctor Who back to our screens. However, this at the expense of good characters and stories. Personally, I'd rather not have a poorly planned, ill conceived product, churned out at that price. I'd rather wait till someone could come along and make a genuine effort. For the most part, this is the kind of puerile rubbish that gives SF a bad name, marring what is otherwise the most creative genre.