Recommended for colorful small-town creepiness and old-fashioned visual excess.
This is a film from first-time director James Gunn, a Troma Entertainment veteran who (among other things) wrote the screenplay for the 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead. I rented it partly to see what Nathan Fillion was like when he wasn't playing Malcom Reynolds, Captain of the Serenity. And in fact, he’s a lot like Mal, even when he’s the sheriff of Wheely, a little town someplace in the heartland.
Wheely is the kind of town where they welcome deer season with a beer fest, and where the police have a hand grenade in their arms locker (taken from someone who was going to use it to do a little trout fishing). The lonely hearts hang together at the karaoke bar, and the high school is named after Earl Bassett, one of the heroes of Tremors. These folks are average in an aggressively average, inbred way.
There are few surprises as far as the plot. Strange meteorite lands in woods, little slug-like thing crawls out, local is infected and proceeds to lay the foundation for general world domination. In that sense, you’ve seen it all before. What makes it lovable and different is the way the characters take things in stride. The way the local's lovely wife (Elizabeth Banks) still looks at him fondly when he’s more squid than human. ("You’re just sick, is all, honey...)
Since they went for the R rating, we also have the kind of language that’s appropriate to the situations, instead of the usual PG-13 stuff. So when the sheriff is confronted with a particularly horrific moment, he can express himself with great honesty: "Now that is some fucked-up shit."
Showing posts with label Science Fiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science Fiction. Show all posts
23 May 2007
04 May 2007
Conquest of Space
Science Fiction fans take note. All others, well, read at your discretion.
As a kid, I didn't make it to the movies all that much, so I always looked forward to the science fiction offerings on TV. Many of the 1950s examples came from producer George Pal, perhaps best known for his adaptations of the H G Wells classics, "The War of the Worlds" in '53, and "The Time Machine" in '60. I also have fond memories of his "Destination Moon," from '50, perhaps the archetype of the goofy, adventurous space romp. It was touted as "Two Years In The Making!" and tried to be scientific, and for its day it did a pretty fair job.
In those days, all of these movies ran on TV several times a year. They were standard Saturday afternoon fair on Channel 5, and I watched them often. But there was one movie from this bunch that disappeared: "Conquest of Space," made in 1955. I saw it on TV when I was about 8 years old, but then it seemed to sort of, well, vanish.
"Conquest of Space," at least as well as I can remember, was a great movie for this genre. It was based on the space travel conceptualizing in a non-fiction book of the same name. This book featured illustrations by Chesley Bonestell, a respected space illustrator. Remember, this is way before Apollo, Mercury, even before Sputnik. We knew virtually nothing about space, or what spacecraft would look like, or how objects would behave in zero g. For these film makers, it was pure speculation, and I give them much credit. "Conquest of Space" was the first movie to feature a rotating, wheel-shaped space station, and a Mars rocket with separate fuel, descent, and ascent stages. Quite visionary for the mid-50s.
So... if it was such a good movie, why did it disappear from TV programming schedules around 1964? Well..... maybe it's because the general commanding the spaceship turns into a HOMICIDAL, RELIGION-OBSESSED, BIBLE-SPOUTING PSYCHO!!!
I mean, Holy Crap!
Last week, I saw that Netflix had added "Conquest of Space" to their collection. I was delighted, and popped it to the top of my queue. It is an excellent digital mastering job, extremely clean, with beautiful contrast and detail. I didn't remember much about the story... only that it involved a space station and a mission to Mars. I had absolutely no memory of the psychotic transformation that afflicts one of the central characters. He begins to feel that God doesn't want man to explore the planets, that a mission to Mars is the worst sort of blasphemy. He sabotages the mission, and even shoots his own son!
I mean, Damn! The scenes of his raving are intense, really dark, and make it clear why this movie faded out of the public eye. The greater question is how it was ever made in the first place. It is astonishing that a studio would have green-lighted such a script in the early '50s, especially considering that such films were aimed at a young audience.
As good classic science fiction and as a Hollywood curiosity, it's worth a look.
As a kid, I didn't make it to the movies all that much, so I always looked forward to the science fiction offerings on TV. Many of the 1950s examples came from producer George Pal, perhaps best known for his adaptations of the H G Wells classics, "The War of the Worlds" in '53, and "The Time Machine" in '60. I also have fond memories of his "Destination Moon," from '50, perhaps the archetype of the goofy, adventurous space romp. It was touted as "Two Years In The Making!" and tried to be scientific, and for its day it did a pretty fair job.
In those days, all of these movies ran on TV several times a year. They were standard Saturday afternoon fair on Channel 5, and I watched them often. But there was one movie from this bunch that disappeared: "Conquest of Space," made in 1955. I saw it on TV when I was about 8 years old, but then it seemed to sort of, well, vanish.
"Conquest of Space," at least as well as I can remember, was a great movie for this genre. It was based on the space travel conceptualizing in a non-fiction book of the same name. This book featured illustrations by Chesley Bonestell, a respected space illustrator. Remember, this is way before Apollo, Mercury, even before Sputnik. We knew virtually nothing about space, or what spacecraft would look like, or how objects would behave in zero g. For these film makers, it was pure speculation, and I give them much credit. "Conquest of Space" was the first movie to feature a rotating, wheel-shaped space station, and a Mars rocket with separate fuel, descent, and ascent stages. Quite visionary for the mid-50s.
So... if it was such a good movie, why did it disappear from TV programming schedules around 1964? Well..... maybe it's because the general commanding the spaceship turns into a HOMICIDAL, RELIGION-OBSESSED, BIBLE-SPOUTING PSYCHO!!!
I mean, Holy Crap!
Last week, I saw that Netflix had added "Conquest of Space" to their collection. I was delighted, and popped it to the top of my queue. It is an excellent digital mastering job, extremely clean, with beautiful contrast and detail. I didn't remember much about the story... only that it involved a space station and a mission to Mars. I had absolutely no memory of the psychotic transformation that afflicts one of the central characters. He begins to feel that God doesn't want man to explore the planets, that a mission to Mars is the worst sort of blasphemy. He sabotages the mission, and even shoots his own son!
I mean, Damn! The scenes of his raving are intense, really dark, and make it clear why this movie faded out of the public eye. The greater question is how it was ever made in the first place. It is astonishing that a studio would have green-lighted such a script in the early '50s, especially considering that such films were aimed at a young audience.
As good classic science fiction and as a Hollywood curiosity, it's worth a look.
12 February 2007
Altered States
How long since you've seen "Altered States?" If it's been over ten years, time to see it again.
I bought this DVD maybe 5 ago, during a sort of spasm of video acquisition that hit me right after I bought my first player. But I didn't actually watch it until Friday. My, but this is a good movie. "Bladerunner" usually gets the nod as the best sci-fi picture of the last 25 years, maybe ever... and I'd support that. But "Altered States" comes in a close second, for my money, anyway.
Such an interesting pairing: script by Paddy Chayefsky (aka Sidney Aaron), who brought us such sharp dramas as Marty, Network, and The Hospital. Combine with director Ken Russell, better known for surreal, skin-revealing romps like Tommy, Valentino, and Whore. But what a lovely thing these two men created between them. (I heard a story that Chayefsky hated the film when he first saw it, because he felt the actors' machine-gun delivery kept people from understanding the dialogue. Chayefsky wouldn't even put his name on the film, and instead was credited as Sidney Aaron. Interesting that this DVD has both names in the credits.)
For star William Hurt, this has to be a personal best. His portrayal of a driven, somewhat insane medical researcher is brilliant, maybe the best performance in science fiction, ever. Comparable work from Blair Brown, Bob Balaban, and Charles Haid. (It's worth seeing this movie just for Charles Haid's portrayal of medical colleague Mason Parrish.)
The special effects need special mention. This is 1980, remember. Not just pre-digital. Pre a lot of stuff we now take for granted. Russell did something very smart here: he hired Bran Ferren, who was an effects designer for theater, not film. Brilliant! This guy was able to create things that actually happened in front of the camera, often creating immediate, seamless shots that required little or no post production work. This gives the movie a wonderfully honest, genuine quality.
One final note. The musical score was created by classical composer John Corigliano. Awesome music. What a difference it makes when you bring in a pro with experience and talent like this.
In discussing this movie with people over the years, I've realized it's pretty polarizing. I've heard some folks say they absolutely hated it, either because it's too sentimental, or too sappy, or too bleak. Well, okay. It is all of those things. And it's a great movie. Worth a look, if you've not seen it in while. If you've never seen it, then you surely should check it out.
I bought this DVD maybe 5 ago, during a sort of spasm of video acquisition that hit me right after I bought my first player. But I didn't actually watch it until Friday. My, but this is a good movie. "Bladerunner" usually gets the nod as the best sci-fi picture of the last 25 years, maybe ever... and I'd support that. But "Altered States" comes in a close second, for my money, anyway.
Such an interesting pairing: script by Paddy Chayefsky (aka Sidney Aaron), who brought us such sharp dramas as Marty, Network, and The Hospital. Combine with director Ken Russell, better known for surreal, skin-revealing romps like Tommy, Valentino, and Whore. But what a lovely thing these two men created between them. (I heard a story that Chayefsky hated the film when he first saw it, because he felt the actors' machine-gun delivery kept people from understanding the dialogue. Chayefsky wouldn't even put his name on the film, and instead was credited as Sidney Aaron. Interesting that this DVD has both names in the credits.)
For star William Hurt, this has to be a personal best. His portrayal of a driven, somewhat insane medical researcher is brilliant, maybe the best performance in science fiction, ever. Comparable work from Blair Brown, Bob Balaban, and Charles Haid. (It's worth seeing this movie just for Charles Haid's portrayal of medical colleague Mason Parrish.)
The special effects need special mention. This is 1980, remember. Not just pre-digital. Pre a lot of stuff we now take for granted. Russell did something very smart here: he hired Bran Ferren, who was an effects designer for theater, not film. Brilliant! This guy was able to create things that actually happened in front of the camera, often creating immediate, seamless shots that required little or no post production work. This gives the movie a wonderfully honest, genuine quality.
One final note. The musical score was created by classical composer John Corigliano. Awesome music. What a difference it makes when you bring in a pro with experience and talent like this.
In discussing this movie with people over the years, I've realized it's pretty polarizing. I've heard some folks say they absolutely hated it, either because it's too sentimental, or too sappy, or too bleak. Well, okay. It is all of those things. And it's a great movie. Worth a look, if you've not seen it in while. If you've never seen it, then you surely should check it out.
06 June 2005
STAR WARS: EPISODE III - REVENGE OF THE SITH
A fun sump. Humorless and tiresome. Nearly snapped a tooth gritting my teeth when I heard the word 'mitachlorians' in the dialog. Samuel L. Jackson is not allowed to turn his head left or right, or nod up or down. Sucked all the life out of him. Would have snorted at the ideas and dialog if I had not been so exhausted watching it.
Big. Really big. Therefore, a terribly deep hole to fall into.
Heard a robot cough. Thought that was nice, until I realized he was a cyborg. Then I went back to waiting for the end.
Joins the two Matrix sequels at the bottom of the barrel that is UNDER the barrel that you usually look into the bottom of looking for bad things. Marginally better than PHANTOM MENACE and the other one, but still less entertaining than Modern Farmer or infomercials.
Big. Really big. Therefore, a terribly deep hole to fall into.
Heard a robot cough. Thought that was nice, until I realized he was a cyborg. Then I went back to waiting for the end.
Joins the two Matrix sequels at the bottom of the barrel that is UNDER the barrel that you usually look into the bottom of looking for bad things. Marginally better than PHANTOM MENACE and the other one, but still less entertaining than Modern Farmer or infomercials.
31 March 2005
KRONOS
This isn't an alternative version of the film Ken just reviewed, it's an old science fiction number from my yoot. It's neither a good film, nor is it bad enough to be good in the wrong way. It's just sort of well-intentioned and cheerful (filmed in Regalscope!), with an innocent, Big Science faith that man will trimuph over Things From Out There That Have Come to Destroy Us. Directed by Kurt Newman (who would do THE FLY a year later), it was released in 1957.
I remembered the basic plot, and also that the giant, energy-sucking robot first arrived in Mexico. That had me wondering if there was some Cronos-Kronos connection. There isn't, but I still love a lot of things about films like this.
I like the big, old control panels with the oversized switches and knobs; you can hardly tell the props from the stock footage, because the real stuff looked home-made, too. I like the scientists in their coveralls with Labcentral written in script across the back. I like the computer named SUSIE (which naturally stands for Synchro Unifying Sonometric Integrating Equitensor). And I like George O’Hanlon, SUSIE’s handler, who would later give voice to the animated George Jetson.
I also like the faintly surreal mix of newspaper headlines that punctuate the plot. They come spinning out of the background with banners that scream "GIANT ON RAMPAGE!!" or "NO POSSIBLE DEFENSE!!" The other heads say "Mayor Outlines New Project" or "Limited Farm Bill Favored." Life goes on, I guess.
And it gives one pause to see those B-52s taking off, knowing that we're still using them in Iraq today. I guess you can't keep a good airframe down.
It's what my old colleague Sal Impalli would call a good shoe-polishing movie. Sal liked to polish shoes, and that's what he did on Sunday nights. His own, his wife's, the kid's. He liked a good shoe-polishing movie in the background.
I remembered the basic plot, and also that the giant, energy-sucking robot first arrived in Mexico. That had me wondering if there was some Cronos-Kronos connection. There isn't, but I still love a lot of things about films like this.
I like the big, old control panels with the oversized switches and knobs; you can hardly tell the props from the stock footage, because the real stuff looked home-made, too. I like the scientists in their coveralls with Labcentral written in script across the back. I like the computer named SUSIE (which naturally stands for Synchro Unifying Sonometric Integrating Equitensor). And I like George O’Hanlon, SUSIE’s handler, who would later give voice to the animated George Jetson.
I also like the faintly surreal mix of newspaper headlines that punctuate the plot. They come spinning out of the background with banners that scream "GIANT ON RAMPAGE!!" or "NO POSSIBLE DEFENSE!!" The other heads say "Mayor Outlines New Project" or "Limited Farm Bill Favored." Life goes on, I guess.
And it gives one pause to see those B-52s taking off, knowing that we're still using them in Iraq today. I guess you can't keep a good airframe down.
It's what my old colleague Sal Impalli would call a good shoe-polishing movie. Sal liked to polish shoes, and that's what he did on Sunday nights. His own, his wife's, the kid's. He liked a good shoe-polishing movie in the background.
14 February 2005
THE THING
Thanks, Chris.
Chris loaned me this DVD, and shared his favorite part with me... the first seven-or-so minutes. It is a great example of exposition. Something strange is going on. You see it very clearly. And you have no idea how to interpret it. It perfectly produces the encounter-with-the-unknown feeling necessary to make the story work.
Kudos also to the performance by the dog. Understated, precise, and otherworldly.
Apart from a couple of nice plot points... particularly the hot-wire-blood test scene... and the general air of intrigue, distrust, and manly-problem-solving throughout the movie, nothing is so fine as the opening minutes. But it is very watchable and entertaining all the way through.
I'm told by my pals that the computer game based on the movie is notable for two features: 1. a grotesque and embarrassing [and funny, if you are a Bad Person like me] presentation of Black English in one of the characters, and a genuine sense of paranoia and reckless violence, since you never know which of your companions is going to start twitching and and start sprouting spider legs and eyestalks.
Chris loaned me this DVD, and shared his favorite part with me... the first seven-or-so minutes. It is a great example of exposition. Something strange is going on. You see it very clearly. And you have no idea how to interpret it. It perfectly produces the encounter-with-the-unknown feeling necessary to make the story work.
Kudos also to the performance by the dog. Understated, precise, and otherworldly.
Apart from a couple of nice plot points... particularly the hot-wire-blood test scene... and the general air of intrigue, distrust, and manly-problem-solving throughout the movie, nothing is so fine as the opening minutes. But it is very watchable and entertaining all the way through.
I'm told by my pals that the computer game based on the movie is notable for two features: 1. a grotesque and embarrassing [and funny, if you are a Bad Person like me] presentation of Black English in one of the characters, and a genuine sense of paranoia and reckless violence, since you never know which of your companions is going to start twitching and and start sprouting spider legs and eyestalks.
08 February 2005
I, ROBOT
Recommended, if you like to see a lot of scrabbling, ant-like robots swinging from the rafters.
Most of my Quality viewing these days comes to me via Netflix. However, when I'm between shipments, or in the mood for something lite, I still resort to the video store. (They won't be with us much longer, I suppose. Like the slot-car parlors of my youth...)
I, ROBOT delivered exactly what I expected, so I have no complaints. It was "inspired" by Isaac Azimov's story of the same name, and it gives a lot of attention to his three laws of robotics (while crediting them to one of the film's characters). We see these laws as text in the opening credits, and are told about them in detail and get to read the slogan "3 Laws Safe" emblazoned on the trucks of US Robotics. If you've seen the trailer, though, you'd not be surprised to find these laws being violated. Why else would they need Will Smith?
Smith is the very model of a certain kind of smart-ass movie cop, who insults other cops, his boss and the CEO of US Robotics ("Wow, the richest man in the world. I've seen you on TV!") without serious consequences. The story is not particularly surprising, but it moves along at a brisk clip, and has at least one action sequence that was worth watching twice: Smith in his Audi, pursued through a tunnel by two gigantic automated vehicles, each one carrying hordes of robots.
I liked the irony of Smith as the robot-hating bigot, and I liked Alan Tudyk (who played Wash in the Firefly TV series) as the voice of a thoughtful robot named Sonny.
So it met my expectations throughout, and exceeded them once or twice. It's interesting that the same story also inspired an episode of the original Outer Limits. There, it was a courtroom drama, considering whether a robot could be charged with murder. That's the fundamental premise here as well, but in the film, the question is explored without benefit of judge and jury.
Most of my Quality viewing these days comes to me via Netflix. However, when I'm between shipments, or in the mood for something lite, I still resort to the video store. (They won't be with us much longer, I suppose. Like the slot-car parlors of my youth...)
I, ROBOT delivered exactly what I expected, so I have no complaints. It was "inspired" by Isaac Azimov's story of the same name, and it gives a lot of attention to his three laws of robotics (while crediting them to one of the film's characters). We see these laws as text in the opening credits, and are told about them in detail and get to read the slogan "3 Laws Safe" emblazoned on the trucks of US Robotics. If you've seen the trailer, though, you'd not be surprised to find these laws being violated. Why else would they need Will Smith?
Smith is the very model of a certain kind of smart-ass movie cop, who insults other cops, his boss and the CEO of US Robotics ("Wow, the richest man in the world. I've seen you on TV!") without serious consequences. The story is not particularly surprising, but it moves along at a brisk clip, and has at least one action sequence that was worth watching twice: Smith in his Audi, pursued through a tunnel by two gigantic automated vehicles, each one carrying hordes of robots.
I liked the irony of Smith as the robot-hating bigot, and I liked Alan Tudyk (who played Wash in the Firefly TV series) as the voice of a thoughtful robot named Sonny.
So it met my expectations throughout, and exceeded them once or twice. It's interesting that the same story also inspired an episode of the original Outer Limits. There, it was a courtroom drama, considering whether a robot could be charged with murder. That's the fundamental premise here as well, but in the film, the question is explored without benefit of judge and jury.
31 January 2005
SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW
SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW
** 1/3 - Mostly, but not completely, Lame
I must begin with a disclaimer: I did not watch the entire movie. I fell asleep the first time through. When I asked Matt, who had stayed awake for the duration, if I should bother watching the rest, he said no... but I was curious enough about the film to give it another shot.
The second time through I stayed awake, but missed about 20 minutes, partly because I went to get something to eat and didn't bother to pause, and also because the disc skipped quite a bit.
The film is an impressive technological achievement: everything on screen (except the actors - well, most of them) is a digital effect. That combined with 0the retro-future, mostly b&w noirish look makes for a visually attractive film.
But as we've heard dear old Robert McKee say... if people come away from your film talking about the cinematography, score or costumes... you have failed as a writer.
Is it too much to ask to have a concept film be more than just concept? In this case... yes. The story has something to do with a robot invasion and the efforts of some stock characters, zealously played by Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Giovanni Ribisi and Angelina Jolie, to thwart said sinister robots... but really, neither the story nor the characters merit much more analysis than to say... yawn. There isn't a single twist or spark of originality to any of them.
So I would not recommend watching this film in its entirety, but it could be worth it to watch a few minutes just to appreciate the look of the CG world. Maybe turn the sound down and choose your own score instead.
** 1/3 - Mostly, but not completely, Lame
I must begin with a disclaimer: I did not watch the entire movie. I fell asleep the first time through. When I asked Matt, who had stayed awake for the duration, if I should bother watching the rest, he said no... but I was curious enough about the film to give it another shot.
The second time through I stayed awake, but missed about 20 minutes, partly because I went to get something to eat and didn't bother to pause, and also because the disc skipped quite a bit.
The film is an impressive technological achievement: everything on screen (except the actors - well, most of them) is a digital effect. That combined with 0the retro-future, mostly b&w noirish look makes for a visually attractive film.
But as we've heard dear old Robert McKee say... if people come away from your film talking about the cinematography, score or costumes... you have failed as a writer.
Is it too much to ask to have a concept film be more than just concept? In this case... yes. The story has something to do with a robot invasion and the efforts of some stock characters, zealously played by Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Giovanni Ribisi and Angelina Jolie, to thwart said sinister robots... but really, neither the story nor the characters merit much more analysis than to say... yawn. There isn't a single twist or spark of originality to any of them.
So I would not recommend watching this film in its entirety, but it could be worth it to watch a few minutes just to appreciate the look of the CG world. Maybe turn the sound down and choose your own score instead.
19 January 2005
THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT
This is a 2004 thriller written and directed by the team of Eric Bress and J. Mackye Gruber, and I liked it quite a bit.
Our protaganist is a successful college student (Ashton Kutcher) who's had an unusually traumatic life. I mean, like a LOT of bad stuff happened to him. So as a child, he developed a tendency to experience blackouts under stress. One blackout led him to a helpful pyschologist who suggested he keep a journal of his life, and he's done so ever since. He's made it to college and he's OK. He meets a woman (Amy Smart) he knew as a girl, and she's very much NOT OK.
Kutcher discovers he can travel in time by concentrating on his journals, casting his adult self into his childhood body. So he decides to go back, find the moment when poor Amy's life went sour, and fix it. But as the title implies, it's perhaps not possible to fix one thing without breaking something else. Therein lies the story, and by the end, the final fix really had me by the short hairs, even though there was a sort of inevitability to it.
When a film grabs me in some way, I often pay a visit to Rotten Tomatoes to see what the critics thought, and every now and then I find I'm very much out of the mainstream. That happened here -- most of the pros trashed this one.
But I think it's worth a look. I've never seen Ashton Kutcher in anything else, so I don't have an issue with him. And yes, it's violent, but not in an up close and personal way. And I suppose its story is also implausible. But hey, we're talking time travel, here! It maintains its inner logic just fine, and I think talking about whether time travel is possible is sort of missing the point.
At least one of the big boys agreed with me, and if you like you can read Michael O'Sullivan's review in the Washington Post.
Our protaganist is a successful college student (Ashton Kutcher) who's had an unusually traumatic life. I mean, like a LOT of bad stuff happened to him. So as a child, he developed a tendency to experience blackouts under stress. One blackout led him to a helpful pyschologist who suggested he keep a journal of his life, and he's done so ever since. He's made it to college and he's OK. He meets a woman (Amy Smart) he knew as a girl, and she's very much NOT OK.
Kutcher discovers he can travel in time by concentrating on his journals, casting his adult self into his childhood body. So he decides to go back, find the moment when poor Amy's life went sour, and fix it. But as the title implies, it's perhaps not possible to fix one thing without breaking something else. Therein lies the story, and by the end, the final fix really had me by the short hairs, even though there was a sort of inevitability to it.
When a film grabs me in some way, I often pay a visit to Rotten Tomatoes to see what the critics thought, and every now and then I find I'm very much out of the mainstream. That happened here -- most of the pros trashed this one.
But I think it's worth a look. I've never seen Ashton Kutcher in anything else, so I don't have an issue with him. And yes, it's violent, but not in an up close and personal way. And I suppose its story is also implausible. But hey, we're talking time travel, here! It maintains its inner logic just fine, and I think talking about whether time travel is possible is sort of missing the point.
At least one of the big boys agreed with me, and if you like you can read Michael O'Sullivan's review in the Washington Post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)