Prometheus (2012)

Image from IMP Awards

Prometheus (2012)

"We were wrong! We were so wrong!"

The above line, uttered by Noomi Rapace's character Dr. Elizabeth Shaw in Ridley Scott's return to science fiction in 30 years, pretty much sums up my assessment of the - perhaps unreasonable - expectations the film has engendered. The fact that Scott directed the classic and brilliant progenitor to this film, Alien, makes the disappointment that much more stinging.

Prometheus begins intriguingly enough with a brief prologue involving a mysterious, beefy humanoid alien. This leads in to a second prologue in which Dr. Shaw and her bland boyfriend Charlie (Logan Marshall-Green) discover ancient cave paintings that point to a star pattern, one that is contained in a series of disparate paintings from different time periods and cultures. The implication is that human development, perhaps even our origin itself, was alien in nature. This initial premise sets alarm bells off straight away as to the intellectual level the film is striving for, but it is easy enough to put aside as a flight of fancy if developed in an interesting way. Sadly, it isn't developed in an interesting way at all. In fact, I think it's fair to say that the film is completely glib in the way it handles its ideas.

After the prologues we are transported light years away and in to the primary narrative. The space ship Prometheus arrives at the planet pointed to in the paintings, the crew - including the two scientists, android David (Michael Fassbender), the ship's Captain Janek (Idris Elba), and company overseer Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron) - awake from stasis / hyper sleep and brief the remainder of the nondescript scientific grunts as to the purpose of their secret mission. Namely, that they are here to discover the origins of mankind and perhaps to quite literally meet our maker. The ship lands near an 'intelligently designed' structure on the planet, the crew hops out to explore its cavernous interior and discover... well, I won't go into details but in truth, not all that much of consequence apart from some dead aliens, holograms, and things that will be familiar to fans of the original film. From that point onwards the film shifts into horror/thriller mode, the half baked ideas are dropped, picked up again, and then dropped again as the story builds towards an explosive climax.

So what's wrong with the film? To get the obvious out of the way, I'm not complaining that the film isn't enough like 'Alien'. On the contrary, it actually borrows a little too much from that film in terms of story beats. It's also not a knee jerk reaction to expectations - I ended up seeing it twice, and my expectations were out the window during viewing number two.

The major problem is the fairly dire story and script; it should come as little surprise that 'Lost' writer Damon Lindelof was involved in writing it. The whole thing raises 'questions' and 'mysteries' that are somewhat interesting but aren't examined in any meaningful way, and by the end, hardly anything is resolved and we are given the set up for a sequel that teases potential answers. God and 'Darwinism' are name dropped in the most superficial way, with Shaw being a religious scientist who 'chooses to believe' things and regularly clutches her cross. The purpose of 'the engineers' of mankind is raised, but again only perfunctorily. Birth and the creation of life are brought up and lead in to a tangential subplot that feels horribly contrived. The rape subtext from the original film is made silly and overt. And as far as plotting goes, lots of stuff happens that makes very little sense.

The film is in an awful hurry to get from one scene to the next, never allowing one to build up to anything of substance, never allowing any tension or awe to take hold; a serious misstep in a story about first contact with alien life forms who also happen to be our creators. The whole affair is strangely inert and devoid of feeling. The dire dialogue doesn't help at all, populated as it is with repetitive Hollywood blockbuster cliches. Characters behave in idiotic and impulsive ways, incongruosly so for a team of 'expert' scientists. The narrative stop starts, shifts gears, and erupts into violence on occassion but all of it feels disjointed and the characters themselves don't seem too involved in what's going on around them. Most of the supporting cast are forgettable, which compounds the film's problems. To top it all off, the musical score is loud, overbearring, and repetitive.

That's the bad, but there is a lot good in the film as well. First of all, visually it's simply stunning. The effects, sets, costumes, and design work, some of which have their origins in the seventies, are stunningly realized. Scott's camera work is smooth and coherent and his shots are epic, and he does create atmospheric sequences. It genuinely looks and feels like what we are watching could be real. Rapace, though a far cry from Sigourney Weaver's Riply, makes for a decent lead, wonky fake English accent and all. Idris Elba is reliably cool despite having very little to work with. Charlize Theron is excellent as the icy Vickers, ironically one of the few characters who seems like a human being.

And then there's David, the android, played to perfection by Michael Fassbender. David's presence is by far and away the most interesting part of the film. It's the one relatively subtle and intelligent thematic element, paralleling as it does the broader questions about the creation of life and the relationship between creator and creation. Fassbender gets decent words and he makes the most of it, playing David with an undercurrent of sardonic menace, moving with graceful and mechanical precison, and exhibiting a sometimes childlike sense of curiuosity. His motives are never really clear - again, lousy plotting - but he's never anything less than compelling.

Prometheus is ultimately it's a science fiction film whose intellectual pretensions extend well beyond their grasp. It devolves into a horror thriller but is never truly scary, horrifying, or thrilling. It's fairly entertaining and looks good, and is mostly salvaged by one brilliant character and performance. Worth seeing for genre fans and fans of the Alien series. The ill advised final scene, which is truly groan inducing and exists solely as fan service, is a fitting note on which to end what is a poorly conceived film. In an era where almost anything that can be imagined can be realized on screen believably, the fact that this was the end result is nothing short of disappointing.

The Hunger Games (2012)

Image from IMP Awards

The Hunger Games (2012)

Films that are better than the book are, apparently, an almost mythical breed - a supposed truism that I take objection to, and one that the film adaptation of the first of Suzanne Collins' 'Hunger Games' trilogy goes some way towards disproving. I picked up the book with a little reluctance, worried that it would be another shallow Twilight-esque phenomenon; I was pleasantly surprised to discover that it was a genuinely interesting and compelling science fiction story, as is the film.

It's the future, and the United States is no more. What's left is a nation state composed of a totalitarian Capitol and 12 subservient 'Districts', each at a varying level of economic prosperity. Katniss Everdeen, played by the terrific Jennifer Lawrence, is a teenage girl in the poverty ridden district 12 who illegally hunts game to provide for her mother and younger sister. From the outset we see that she is resourceful and possesses a steely eyed determination, attributes Lawrence captures perfectly without appearing cold or aloof. The story's complex protagonist and her portrayal are without question the film's biggest strength (so much so that the NY Times did an interesting piece on her here).

Day to day survival in District 12, depicted as a stark and hopeless commune by director Gary Ross in the film's early scenes, isn't the only problem its denizens face. Every year, as punishment for a failed uprising against the Capitol, each District must offer a randomly picked teenage boy and girl as 'tributes' to take part in the 'Hunger Games', a televised rules free battle to the death within a large controlled environment where only one can emerge victorious (this gladiatorial spectacle is one of several allusions to ancient Rome). When her sister is picked, Katniss volunteers to take her place and is whisked off to the opulent Capitol together with fellow tribute Peeta Mellark (a bland but adequate Josh Hutcherson) to prepare for the games... and certain death.

The first half of the film is the lead up to the games themselves and takes place primarily in the Capitol, which is depicted as garish, gaudy, and full of excess. The designs are outlandish and the lifestyle is luxurious, the complete opposite of the suppressed Districts - an unsubtle but nonetheless effective depiction of a society of extreme inequality. Our primary representative of the Capitol is Effie Trinket, played to perfection by Elizabeth Banks, the shrill and shallow escort for District 12's tributes. Effie is part of the tributes' support team, which also includes their stylist Cinna - a solid Lenny Kravitz - and their trainer Haymitch, a former Games survivor from District 12, brought wonderfully to life by Woody Harrelson as a gruff and comical but ultimately caring ruffian.

Collins' novel and her screen adaptation don't stop at being an allegory for the injustices of inequality, they also lampoon a culture of excess and superficiality, and this is highlighted perfectly in the way the Games are treated as a reality TV show. The tributes have to take part in a training regimen and impress potential sponsors who may provide them with resources during the games. Part of the likelihood of sponsorship rests on how popular the tribute is, where popularity is gained by being fashionable, extravagant, likable and willing to tell personal stories to endear themselves to viewers. Katniss is forced to compromise who she is to entertain the masses for the sake of her family and her District as well as her life, a recurring theme that is handled with admirable subtlety by director, write, and actor.

When the Games proper begin the film dips slightly as the second half, taking place as it does almost entirely in nondescript woods, can't quite match the variety and depth of the first. It's a battle for survival, mildly reminiscent of Battle Royale (which I reviewed here a few years ago!) but lacking that films nuanced portrayal of minor supporting characters.

Gary Ross's elegant and restrained style gives way to a little too much shaky camera work and quick cut editing, presumably necessitated by the requirement to minimise the child against child violence displayed on screen. When it works it's effective, such as the opening of the Games where a bloodbath occurs as the tributes fight for resources. Ross constructs scenes that take their time and are fleshed out, with actors given the opportunity to convey thoughts and emotions without dialogue. This is a real film and not a cheap cash in, although its 'relatively small for a blockbuster' budget does show in the so-so special effects.

The Games are a case of surviving against the elements as much as they are about combat and strategy - a real game of cat and mouse in the woods, as it were, where finding food, water, and shelter are as important as surviving encounters with other tributes. This segment of the film is exciting and brutal, well paced while still leaving time for character moments and plot twists along the way.

The screenplay diverges from the book at points but only slightly, excising unnecessary prolonged sequences during the Games that frankly would have been uncinematic. It also - thankfully - tones down the faux/real romance between Katniss and Peeta and the potential love triangle involving her hunting partner back home, Gale (a bland Liam Hemsworth). The character interplay between the two District 12 tributes is subtler and less cringe inducing than in the book.

Despite minor deviations, and the screenplay is incredibly true to the source material, even when it sometimes amalgamates different moments and transposes others. There are some additions to the book as well, ones that serve to elevate the material to the realm of socially relevant sci-fi. These include goings on behind the scenes involving the menacing President (Donald Sutherland) and the naive showman running the games, Seneca (Wes Bentley) as well as certain events in other districts that are triggered by Katniss' defiance in the arena.

While the film doesn't end with a sense of finality - unsurprising since there are two more books in the trilogy - it is still fairly self contained and satisfactory. I'm not sure how this story continues and am a tad trepidatious as the first act has a lot to live up to. As it stands, however, 'The Hunger Games' is intelligent and exciting science fiction that marries ideas, action, spectacle, and human drama together to create a rewarding cinematic experience, one that is anchored by a star making central performance.

Splice (2009)

Image from Imp Awards


Splice (2009)

Looks like the IMDB collective isn't overly fond of this one!

Splice is a sci-fi horror film about a couple of genetic engineers (Adrien Brody and Sarah Polly) who, as they tend to do in movies, take things a bit too far and secretly create a creature (played by Delphine Chanéac) that's part human and part... other things. It starts growing up rapidly and the two are forced to take care of it, adopting the role of surrogate parents. As with most infants, the creature - named Dren (nerd backwards) - yearns to escape its confinement and experience the world, which leads to some undesirable consequences.

It's a far more cerebral film than it initially appears to be, and despite the cliched 'scientists making creature in lab' premise writer/director Vincenzo Natali seems to have something more to say. Although the ubiquitous meddling with nature theme is initially front and centre the parenting, childhood, and sexuality metaphors become more dominant as the film goes on, making it more than just a creature feature. Having said that it is still a dark and moody film with very well done designs and effects that help create some icky/freaky/gory scenes. Brody and Polly are decent in this but the standout by far is Delphine Chanéac as Dren who with the aid of great makeup and CGI really does come across as an advanced but mentally immature life form.

The film is not without flaws. Many of the 'twists' in the story are telegraphed in advance and don't have nearly as much shock value as they could. Genre cliches are embraced and well executed but some of the more shocking scenes seem arbitrary. It's not overly long at 100 or so minutes but drags a bit and felt longer. Also - and I may just be really jaded - none of the scare scenes come close to being scary.

Flaws notwithstanding, it's a pretty good film that should appeal to genre fans, but not so much to the casual viewer expecting a typical horror film. It's more ambitious than that but doesn't do quite enough for me to call it a great film, just a very good one.

Source Code (2011)

(Image from Imp Awards)

Source Code

Continuing the sci-fi theme, Source Code is another film that managed to surprisingly exceed expectations. The trailer did little to inspire confidence despite the film being from Duncan Jones, the director of the superb 'Moon'; and, despite what it's title appears to promise, it has nothing to do with computer programming.

The plot reads like something from a Twilight Zone episode. Soldier Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) finds himself in a bit of a predicament - thanks to a rather implausible combination of quantum mechanics and the last memories of a dead man, he is repeatedly sent back in time (in a sense) to inhabit the body of said dead man in the last eight minutes of his life. Said life ended when the train the man was on exploded in a terrorist attack, and the unwitting Stevens' mission is to try and determine the identity of the bomber from among the passengers in the carriage, including his fellow passenger Christina (Michelle Monaghan). Each time through Stevens gets to relive the same eight minutes to try and gather info before the train explodes and he's returned to his own body in the present, where he is grilled by members of the 'Source Code' project (played by Vera Farmiga and Jeffrey Wright) before being sent back again.

This sounds like a very grim version of Groundhog Day sans Bill Murray, but fortunately the film wastes little time trying to surprise its jaded 21st century audience with the mechanics of its concept as if it were a novel one. On the contrary it jumps right in with an initially incredulous Stevens trying to work out the identity of the bomber, sometimes in surprisingly humourous ways. Gyllenhaal plays earnest and desperate very effectively, with a little tortured soul vibe thrown in for good measure, and he and the reliably vivacious Monaghan play off each other nicely. The train is populated by a varied group of characters who are - fortunately - interesting without reaching Hollywood levels of quirkiness.

Another compelling aspect of the film is the downtime between iterations when Stevens deals with the Source Code team and his own personal baggage. It's made apparent from the outset that they are hiding something while putting pressure on him to determine who the bomber is before he gets a chance to strike again. This aspect of the story also works surprisingly well despite seeming trite at first glance, and it's helped along by Farmiga's performance as the stern yet compassionate liaison and Wright's borderline comical Dr Rutledge, the project's founder.

There may be some weak elements, including a villain who achieves snicker inducing levels of cliched and an ending that may disappoint some (I found it satisfactory and earned), but despite that and the seemingly shaky premise Jones and his cast and crew have crafted an entertaining and intriguing sci-fi mystery thriller that doesn't shy away from toying with grand themes like free will vs destiny (though, unlike with Adjustment Bureau, in a more pseudo-scientific way) and individual liberty. The characters are also more than just mere hackneyed plot devices, which adds considerable depth to the film.

While it is ultimately a padded out short story that still only barely crosses the 90 minute mark, what it does it does very well. Smarter and better made than most mainstream sci-fi efforts and still accessible to the average (non-retarded) film fan, it's worth your while and would make a great double bill with the Adjustment Bureau (I didn't watch them as a double bill but did see them consecutively).

The Adjustment Bureau (2011)

(Image from IMP Awards)


The Adjustment Bureau
Romance and sci-fi are not genres that sit well together very often, so chalk this one up as one of those rare exceptions. Based on a Phillip K Dick short story, it tells the story of a an impulsive politician, David Norris (Matt Damon), who on the eve of losing a Senatorial election meets a woman, Elise (Emily Blunt), in the men's (!) while rehearsing his concession speech. The two hit it off immediately and the inspired Norris subsequently knocks his speech out of the park.

Turns out this wasn't all random chance. A secret organisation of what appear to be angels are actually pulling the strings and directing the fate of mankind, including Norris's. His meeting with Elise was orchestrated. Unfortunately this 'Adjutsment Bureau' aren't perfect and a second unplanned encounter between the two puts their grand plans for Norris in jeopardy as the pair threaten to fall in love and alter their destinies.

The film is part romance and part sci-fi thriller, and while it never gets your pulse pounding it does tell its story very well. Much has been said by critics about how well Damon and Blunt play off each other, and it's true, they do - this seems to be half the battle in any kind of on screen love story, and in this the two make a believable pairing - helped along by some decent writing - which makes their dilemmas and choices feel earned instead of contrived. Damon's the star and his affable demeanor helps sell the premise together with the very capable supporting cast of agents/angels played by Anthony Mackie, the ever icy Terence Stamp and scene stealer John Slattery.

In an era of bigger is better blockbusters, Adjustment Bureau is defiantly low key. It never gets bogged down in its grand themes of fate vs free will (though it does raise the issues) and instead focuses on the characters. Nor does it try to be large scale in terms of action or effects, though there are very effective action sequences and some wonderfully understated effects. The mechanics of the Bureau are only explained as far as is necessary for the plot, and to be honest I never felt the need for any further explanation.

This isn't going to go down as a classic, but it achieves what it sets out to do very well. It's entertaining and charming and funny, and despite there never being a genuine sense of danger in the story it manages to remain consistently engaging and even somewhat thought provoking at times. I enjoyed it and it's definitely worth a watch, even for those without an inclination towards science fiction.

Get away from her you BITCH!*

Ever since reading this chap's spot-on review of Aliens, I had the movie stuck in my head - it was demanding to be watched! And so, watch it I did, and I was once again struck by how involving the film was despite the fact that it held no surprises for me. One of the best sci-fi action films ever made, and one everyone should watch (after watching part 1, that is). No full review here, because I just don't have the time to do it justice... Just watch the damned thing already!

*If you've seen the movie, you know what this line is all about!

Planet Terror (2007)

(Image from IMP Awards)


Planet Terror (2007)

'Planet Terror' is director Robert Rodriguez's half of the 'Grindhouse' double bill, with the other half, 'Death Proof', being directed by Quentin Tarantino.

'Grindhouse' is meant to be a homage to the type of films shown as grindhouse features. From Wikipedia:

The film's name originates from the American term for theaters that played "all the exploitation genres: kung fu, horror, Giallo, sexploitation, the "good old boy" redneck car-chase movies, blaxploitation, spaghetti Westerns—all those risible genres that were released in the 70s." According to Rodriguez, "The posters were much better than the movies, but we're actually making something that lives up to the posters."

This film is certainly not as low budget as those it seeks to pay tribute to, but it's made to look like a trashy exploitation flick complete with dodgy effects and poor quality, degraded 'film' reels. The story is about a chemical weapon being unleashed on a small town that turns people into zombies. A small group of people band together to try and survive, while an elite military unit gets up to no good behind the scenes.

Rodriguez is right in that his film really does live up to the posters! I haven't actually watched any real grindhouse flicks, but I'm fairly certain that they are a lot crappier than the faux crappiness on display here. The film is outrageous - gory, over the top, and very funny, and the wacky atmosphere and artificially cheap looking visuals add to the film's entertainment value. It's a tad too long (though, I did watch the extended standalone version of the film), but still makes for a thrilling ride.

And although it's all meant to look cheap, the effects and production values are surprisingly impressive in their own kitschy way. There are some fun performances in there as well, especially from Naveen Andrews (Sayid from Lost!), Rose McGowan, and Michael (where has he been?) Biehn.

I'm not sure if I can really recommend 'Planet Terror' to a casual movie fan, as it's definitely out there and a little bit absurd. But if you can embrace its intentional cheapness, there's a lot of fun to be had.

28 Days Later (2002)

(Image from IMP Awards)


28 Days Later (2002)

Danny Boyle and Alex Garland's once unconventional take on the zombie genre was at the time of release fresh and invigorating - speedy zombies! Watching it again years later, however, it's clear that this one is not just a one trick pony - it's a little bit special and will endure for years to come.

Following a brief and rather shaky prologue the film proper begins mysteriously enough, with a man named Jim (Cillian Murphy) waking up in an abandoned hospital. He walks out and discovers a deserted London, a scenario that is revealed in hauntingly dramatic fashion. Most of the populace has fled, and he soon discovers why; the remainder have become the 'infected' - people who are essentially zombies - and have overrun Britain. After surviving his first harrowing encounter with the infected, Jim ends up with fellow survivors Selena (Naomie Harris), Frank (Brendan Gleeson), and Frank's daughter Hannah (Megan Burns). Hearing transmissions from the military telling them that there is a safe haven in Manchester, they set out across the desolate landscape in Frank's car, braving the possibility of being attacked by the infected.

A simple yet interesting premise, and one that is extremely well executed. After the iffy prologue the subsequent first two acts of the film are superb. The sense of desolation is palpable and the isolation permeates nearly every scene. The scenario is made believable by being unremittingly bleak and hopeless. The zombies generate a genuine feeling of terror, and the film doesn't hold back when it comes to delivering shocks and gruesome gore either. The best part though is that despite the bleakness there are several moments that are poignant and joyful, such as the scene where our heroes raid a supermarket with the gleeful enthusiasm of participating in a shopping spree.

The characters are complex, fallible, and very vulnerable - basically, human. This impression is created in large part by the excellent performances from the four leads, who generate a convincing sense of camaraderie. The bemused and delicate looking Murphy makes for an atypical lead who guides us through the shock and horror of what has happened. The character also makes an incredible transformation towards the end, one that is actually quite over the top but which Murphy manages to pull off. Speaking of the end, the last act takes the film into interesting territory but I didn't find it to be as well executed as what came before. A whole new bunch of characters are introduced and the tone of the film becomes twisted and sinister, and also somewhat comical. The cast members who show up here, including Christopher Eccleston, are all very good in their roles, but it still feels a bit incongruous and jarring.

While the final act - which ironically is somehow more bizarre than the stuff with the zombies - is a slight let down in terms of execution, it doesn't drag the film down too much, and it does provide a compelling commentary on the fragility of society and the simplicity with which people can descend into barbarism. The psychological aspects of the film ring true, and are also a part of what make this better than your average zombie flick.

Boyle is a filmmaker who doesn't seem to be limited by genre, and '28 Days Later' demonstrates his versatility by being effective as both a character piece and an edgy post apocalyptic horror film. There's a haunting beauty in the hellish nightmare world he creates, and despite the annoying digital video look in the early scenes the film delivers some captivating visuals. Those early shots of a deserted London are iconic. The horror elements are also well done, with tense and suspenseful scenes leading in to explosive moments of action. And yes, even the incongruous comedy elements are quite funny! The zombies themselves aren't all that impressive visually but they make up for it with their wild and unsettling behaviour, charging at people with manic rage and impressive speed.

I can't finish this review without mentioning the very cool and distinctive soundtrack, which complements the film well.

Overall, it's a very good film that lets itself down towards the end but still makes a strong, lasting overall impression by being absorbing and thought provoking, and by featuring characters worth giving a damn about. Quite, quite unlike its risible sequel.

The X-Files - Fight the Future (1998)

(Image from Wikipedia)


The X-Files - Fight the Future (1998)

I'm the key figure in an ongoing government charade, the plot to conceal the truth about the existence of extraterrestrials. It's a global conspiracy, actually, with key players in the highest levels of power, that reaches down into the lives of every man, woman, and child on this planet, so, of course, no one believes me. I'm an annoyance to my superiors, a joke to my peers. They call me Spooky. Spooky Mulder, whose sister was abducted by aliens when he was just a kid and who now chases after little green men with a badge and a gun, shouting to the heavens or to anyone who will listen that the fix is in, that the sky is falling and when it hits it's gonna be the shit-storm of all time. - Fox Mulder

Ah, Fox Mulder - if ever there was a geek character who made the big time on television, it's him (though, I guess Dale Cooper comes pretty close!). And then there's his "skeptical beyond belief and in the face of overwhelming evidence" partner Scully. What a team they were, in a show that brought sci-fi and the supernatural to the mainstream without compromising good, intelligent writing and edgy thrills. The movie version of 'The X-Files' came out between the show's fifth and sixth seasons and was a pretty high profile release (despite it's modest box office), and watching it again after all these years it strikes me as a very strong extension of the show that remains faithful while being reasonably accessible to people going in cold.

The byzantine plot involves a conspiracy by Federal Agency FEMA (yeah right, after Katrina I doubt these guys could conspire to pull off a surprise birthday party) to hide the existence of extra terrestrials, whom they have been working with for decades towards sinister ends. When an alien virus hidden on earth for millennia gets out and results in a massive cover up, FBI Agents Fox Mulder (David Duchovy) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) get on the case and start digging. Mulder is aided by a possibly deluded conspiracy theorist named Alvin Kurtzweil (Martin Landau) as he searches for answers. Time is not on our heroes' side as an FBI Committee investigates the two of them, which prompts Scully to consider resigning; things don't get any better when their lives are placed in jeopardy as they start to get some answers. Along for the ride in this cinematic outing are a host of regulars from the show, such as the Lone Gunmen, Director Skinner (Mitch Pileggi), and of course everyone's favourite villain, the Cigarette Smoking Man (William B. Davis).

The film really does feel like a lengthy episode of the show, only with a bigger playing field. It's actually a pretty good balancing act in terms of style, never feeling too big or grand until the massive finale, which truth be told doesn't work all that well. For the most part it sticks to the dark alleys, autopsy rooms, secret meetings between old men, exploration of strange locations, and banter between Mulder and Scully, and the storytelling is fairly gripping when it does. It's hard to say if a non fan will find any of this engaging, but the script goes some way towards making the plot as standalone as possible. The relationships between characters and their history, however, are obviously not reintroduced and may be confusing to newbies, but I think the gaps can be filled in reasonably well by the astute viewer. The dialogue style is as strong as on the show, with no pandering, and the plot twists and turns without slowing down and without any dumbing down either. The story picks up on elements from the series but fortunately doesn't rely on them, and I think overall the story is momentous enough to justify a cinematic outing; there are some impressively big moments in here, like the building explosion at the start, the cornfield chase, and some of the alien stuff towards the end.

The production values are raised above those of the show, as are the set pieces, but the performances are perfectly in tune with what was established in the series. Duchovny and Anderson wear Mulder and Scully like second skins, and they play the material to perfection. As do all of the regular supporting actors, even if their presence is perfunctory and adds very little to the story besides being fan service. Martin Landau was inspired casting as the odd, paranoid, but trustworthy man in the know, and his scenes with Duchovny are great. William B. Davis as the Smoking Man is, well, his usual nonchalant self - I was never that big a fan of the character, but he plays the role well.

As a film on its own, it's not mind blowing, but for fans it's as good a TV to big screen transfer as could have been hoped for. It works reasonably well on its own but is best viewed as something complementary to the series. The denoument is perhaps frustrating in that it presents limited closure, instead serving as a launching point for the sixth series, and it's also somewhat jarringly grand in scale for the X-Files; I can let that slide because it's not bad per se and because everything leading upto the finale is pretty good. Overall the film is worth watching for X-Files fans, especially those in anticipation of the forthcoming sequel, 'I Want to Believe'.

Class of 1999 (1990)

(Image from IMDB)


Class of 1999 (1990)

This is almost a weird spiritual cousin to Battle Royale, which it predates by a decade. The story: in the near future of 1999, society is facing a crisis as schools throughout the US suffer at the hands of youth gangs and violence, with entire regions of cities being cut off and abandoned as lawless zones. The solution to this educational crisis is, of course, blindingly obvious - introduce robot teachers to inject a little discipline into those young punks! Three cyborg teachers - played by Patrick Kilpatrick, John P. Ryan, and Pam Grier - are introduced in a trial run by the creepy Dr. Bob Forrest (Stacy Keach) at the school of Doctor Miles Longford (Malcolm McDowell). Meanwhile a senior gang member, Cody Culp (Bradley Gregg) gets out of prison and heads back to school determined to keep his head down and to stay out of gang business. Unfortunately, the robot teachers are a little too enthusiastic about their work, and when they start killing students Cody teams up with the principal's daughter Christie (Traci Lind) to try and expose them and bring them down.

It's as ridiculous as it sounds, and low budget to boot. This is not a good film by any definition of the word that I can come up with. It's sloppily written - cheesy, poorly plotted, and cliched with fairly inane dialogue. It looks cheap as hell and has some pretty sloppy effects and action sequences. The acting is fairly dire. And yet, there's something about the weird gestalt of the film that makes the whole thing quite entertaining. The robotic antics are fun, and they behave with a comical sinisterness that'll have you rolling your eyes and laughing out loud. Actually, there's a weird sense of earnestness to the film from the entire cast, particularly the people playing the young gangsters. Bradley Gregg doesn't really act well, but he's still clearly the star and manages to command attention whenever he's around, and all of the young actors around him seem to believe they're actually gangsters, in much the same way little kids 'believe' that they are actually superheroes or wizards or Sheena Queen of the Jungle when playing. *SPOILERS AHEAD* It all culminates in a bizarre battle in the school halls between flamethrower wielding robots and gangsters on motorbikes that perfectly encapsulates the cheese factor of the film in the space of 15 minutes.

So yeah, 'Class of 1999' is trash, but fun trash. Not really recommended, except for those who are just plain curious or who, like me, enjoy cheesy but entertaining sci-fi.

The Mist (Director's Black and White Edition) (2007)

(Image from IMP Awards)


The Mist (Director's Black and White Edition) (2007)

The best Stephen King adapter around, Frank Darabont (he of 'The Shawshank Redemption' and 'The Green Mile' fame), brought yet another of King's tales to the big screen last year. Though 'The Mist' came and went with little fanfare, Darabont delivered with aplomb for the third successive time by turning King's writing into an excellent film.

It's quite a simple set up - in a small town in Maine, a strange mist appears after a storm, and within it exist strange and dangerous creatures who enjoy munching on man flesh. The film focuses on a group of people who barricade themselves in a supermarket and fight to keep the monsters out. Among the survivors are level headed artist David Drayton (Thomas Jane) and his young son Billy (Nathan Gamble), Judge Brent Norton (Andre Braugher), schoolteacher Amanda Dumfries (Laurie Holden), nutty religious fanatic Mrs. Carmody (Marcia Gay Harden), and simpleton supermarket employee Jim (William Sadler), amongst many others. Their situation starts off quite shakily with the different personalities having trouble getting along and working together. As their situation becomes bleaker, two groups form, one trying to find rational solutions to their dilemma, and the other, larger group giving into despair and following the religious ramblings of Mrs. Carmody, whose power and influence rises with shocking speed.

I'm not sure how accurate the screenplay is to the novella, but the story develops very nicely indeed, wasting no time setting up all the pieces on the board but also never rushing to throw cheap thrills at the audience just for the sake of it. The monster elements are introduced in memorable ways and build up to some terrific and horrifying sequences throughout the film. And the ending is a real whopper, a punch to the gut that leaves you reeling. The characters are well fleshed out given the context and type of film; most are quite believable but a few are a tad exaggerated and some behaviour is a little contrived in order to drive the plot, but these problems are minor and easily overlooked. The dialogue is quite good if a little too didactic and clunky at times. Overall though, Darabont's screenplay is very good and is characterized by interesting thematic material.

As a simple horror film, 'The Mist' works very well. But it has a bit more going on besides monsters. Or rather, it depicts more than one kind of monster, with the second kind being the one trapped inside the supermarket. Society viewed in a microcosm is always an excellent narrative device if done right, and here it works brilliantly. In the early stages the story plays on class divides and personality clashes, but things take an interesting turn after some time passes and hope of rescue begins to fade. People begin to give in to their hopelessness and turn to the blathering Mrs. Carmody, whose readings from the Bible seem to give them something to hold on to at the expense of reason. Her rise in stature fuels her confidence, resulting in the situation becoming more extreme as she exploits people's fear to turn them to her side and to turn her side against the few - including David Drayton and Amanda Dumfries - who refuse to defer to her. Admittedly the story requires the presence of the extreme character of Mrs. Carmody to hasten events, but that's storytelling for you, and despite being contrived the rapid disintegration of civilized behaviour is still frighteningly believable! If the world seemed to be coming to an end, it isn't that far fetched to assume that people's violent, primal instincts would take over. This cynicism permeates the entire film, with even the 'good' people being painted in shades of grey.

Darabont injects into the film an atmosphere of genuine dread and fear, fear derived both from the mist and from the delicate situation inside the supermarket. The film is relentlessly bleak and has a really wicked capriciousness, dispatching people without restraint. The tension and dread are palpable, and the black and white photography seems ideal for the film's tone and a perfect accompaniment to its misty visuals, and it also helps sell the admittedly sub par effects (which looked far worse in the colour trailers I've seen). The film is sparse when it comes to music, relying more on sound effects and only occasionally switching to a moody score and some mournful vocals. While Darabont proves more than a little adept at the monster horror stuff, his track record in creating compelling films about people is maintained here. The film is great as a drama, with terrific performances all round and moments of genuine terror created by both the beasts and the humans! And before you think it's all doom and gloom, there are some moments of humour here and there that relieve the pressure.

Thomas Jane, a very good actor and one I've always liked (see Stander), has probably never been better than he is here as a decent, intelligent everyman thrust into horrible circumstances and forced to rise to the occasion. And no, that isn't nearly as cheesy as it sounds as he runs the emotional gamut while trying to help everyone and take care of his son. Marcia Gay Harden is the perfect counterpoint to Jane as the frightening Mrs. Carmody - she's over the top and hysterical, but epitomizes the type of fanatic who uses pseudo logic, unwavering conviction, and nonsensical morality to persuade the gullible and the desperate. Laurie Holden is fairly good as the good natured schoolteacher, while William Sadler and Toby Jones are excellent as supermarket employees who wind up on opposite sides of the divide. Last but not least, Andre Braugher is terrific and very funny (in a tragic way) as the pompous, arrogant judge Brent Norton.

At the end of the day, 'The Mist' is a breath of fresh air - a horror film for adults featuring adults, one with thematic depth and something to say that still manages to cram in more suspense, drama, and really horrific moments than most of the genre pretenders out there that settle for gore and loud sounds. The best horror films are ultimately about people, and this is something Darabont gets absolutely right (as does King). The concept may sound uninspired, but the film shakes off the notion that it's just another cliched horror film very early on. I loved it, and can't recommend it highly enough!

Iron Man (2008)

(Image from IMP Awards)


Iron Man (2008)

The superhero genre has become a part of the menu of cinema, with at least a couple of funny pages based movies having come out every year since X-Men scored a slam dunk back in 2000 (speaking of which, I really need to revisit those X-Men films). I have to confess to having felt just a little bit blase about the endless stream of superhero comic book adaptations, including those still on the horizon. How many more origin stories could we stomach? Well, having now seen Jon Favreau's Iron Man, I say plenty more! I hate to toot my own horn (yeah right), but I had a good feeling about this way back in April last year when I reviewed Favreau's Zathura:

The film confirms that Favreau is a very talented filmmaker who can handle effects heavy films with ease without sacrificing story and character, which bodes well for Iron Man.

This feeling was confirmed by the trailer, of which I said:

Robert Downey Jr. seems like genius casting as a cocky, self-centred multi-millionaire arms dealer. I'm glad this isn't going for an overly dark or dour approach and has some humour thrown in. It may be another origin story, but this origin actually seems a little more interesting than most. The glimpses of Iron Man in action, although it was mostly of the first bulky suit that he creates, looks spectacular! And the actual costume... wow, it looks stunning!

Just call me the prognosticator! Enough copy pasting, onwards with the review!

Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is a genius engineer and billionaire who runs Stark Industries, the world's leading arms supplier. Stark is brilliant and he knows it, and he walks around with an arrogant swagger and an air of amused indifference towards the world. His indifference extends to what his weapons are used for as well, until he is captured by a rebel group during a weapons demonstration in Afghanistan and forced to assemble a missile for them. A chest injury during his capture forces Stark to build an electromagnetic device based on his own revolutionary 'arc reactor' technology to keep himself alive. Together with another prisoner, Dr. Yinsen (Shaun Toub), Stark spends his months of incarceration secretly building a suit of armour - instead of the missile - to be powered by his reactor, while being lectured by Yinsen about the evil deeds his company's weapons have been used for. He uses the suit of armour to bust his way out the cave prison and destroy the terrorists' weapons stockpile (all manufactured by Stark Industries), but Yinsen is killed in the process.

Shaken by his brush with death and the realization of the actual impact his company has on the world, Stark returns to the US a changed man and immediately vows to stop making weapons, a move frowned upon by his mentor and partner Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges) and his military friend Jim Rhodes (Terence Howard). He immediately sets to work refining his armored suit to create something revolutionary. When he becomes increasingly frustrated with the lack of impact he has via Stark Industries, he decides to take the fight to the bad guys using his new sleek, super powered armoured suit... and Iron Man is born!

The plot isn't going to set the world on fire, but there are some elements here that set 'Iron Man' apart from the typical superhero origin story. For one thing, the main character is far removed from the usual burdened, angst ridden sad sack type. Throughout the movie, even after his rough experience, Tony Stark is a carefree individual with a magnetic personality. Another departure is the lack of a major villain stealing the limelight - there is one but he really only pops up at the end. The focus is almost solely on Stark from start to finish, and in many ways the conflict is driven mostly by Stark trying to atone for what he himself has helped inflict upon mankind. The superhero mechanics of Iron Man are also fairly unique, with the protagonist having only one real power - his intelligence - that he uses to engineer himself into a superhero, a superhero who is incredibly cool in a flashy sports car kind of way! The screenplay is pretty good, with Stark being well fleshed out and equipped with plenty of great lines and humour. Even the relatively underdeveloped villain's incorporation into the story feels organic and works well. The commentary on weapons and war seems a bit muddled, with the US military coming out looking squeaky clean, but I'll let that pass as the underlying message about the impact of arms suppliers is still valid and topical.

John Favreau's filmography demonstrates a proclivity for character driven fare that isn't overly serious, and this is something he brings along to Iron Man - a sense of fun and storytelling that focuses largely on character. The best stuff in this movie isn't the material involving Iron Man battling, it's the stuff with Tony Stark and the journey he goes through, and his interactions with people around him. The stuff with Stark designing and experimenting with his suits are also fantastic standout moments. This is not to say that the Iron Man scenes aren't great either, because they are, and Favreau's tendency to eschew CGI in favour of models and real, physical elements brings a sense of tangibility to many scenes (though I must confess the line is starting to blur - CGI is really getting there!). The final battle is quite well done even if it does feel a little small scale for a fight between men in super powered armoured suits. But hey, that's what sequels are for - to up the ante! The production values are stellar, with excellent special effects throughout and gadgets and technology that are truly droolworthy without looking too far fetched.

Which brings me to the key piece in the puzzle - in much the same way that Tony Stark is the heart and soul of Iron Man, Robert Downey Jr. is the heart and soul of this movie, and I can't imagine too many other actors pulling this off with such aplomb. It should come as no surprise though, as Downey's always been great (see 'Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang' for recent proof), and his charisma and brilliant comic timing make the character of Stark eminently watchable. If you consider for a moment the fact that despite the character being a spoilt asshole on paper he still comes across as human and sympathetic on screen throughout, you'll realize what Downey brings to the role. The rest of the cast are also pretty great. Jeff Bridges is cold and bald and more than a little sinister; Gwyneth Paltrow as Stark's assistant Pepper Potts (!) is surprisingly endearing; and of course there's Terence Howard, who's great but underutilized for an actor with enough presence to star in his own superhero film (and who may yet at least play one, if the comic book's story is anything to go by). There are also memorable turns by Shaun Toub as Dr. Yinsen (love the crazed shooting in the caves!) and Faran Tahir as the leader of the Afghan rebels.

'Iron Man' is an excellent film, and particularly exceptional as a superhero origin story. I think it has reinvigorated the genre to some extent by avoiding those now all too familiar trappings while still staying true to the overall formula of the classic superhero yarn. It's fun, funny, and offers enough action and excitement to make the two hours fly by while offering a wee bit of commentary about the business of war and personal responsibility. The sequel is already in the pipeline, and with Downey Jr. and the rest of the crew on board it's not unreasonable, based on how terrific 'Iron Man' part one is, to expect something good a couple of years from now!

I Am Legend (2007)

(Image from IMP Awards)


I Am Legend (2007)

As an adaptation of Richard Matheson's classic novel 'I Am Legend' is woeful. As a sci fi film in it's own right, it's fairly decent. As an indicator that Will Smith is the biggest movie star in the world (TM), it's pretty definitive.

Robert Neville (Smith) is seemingly the last man on earth, the survivor of a deadly man made plague that has wiped out most of humanity and turned what remains into vampire-like creatures. Neville - who is immune to the virus - and his dog Sam live alone in the now deserted New York City where he spends his days roaming the streets hunting deer (animals are back with a vengeance!), collecting supplies, waiting hopefully for other survivors, or trying to find a cure. For not only is Neville immune to the disease, he's also a military scientist with a lab in the basement of his home where he conducts research. Neville's home is fortified and he has to take every precaution against the mindless bloodthirsty vampires who come out at night. Intercut with the primary storyline are flashbacks depicting Neville trying to get his family to safety against the backdrop of the disease spreading and causing panic.

The film starts off quite well when it establishes the scenario and introduces us to Neville and his routine. This is hardly surprising because the idea comes directly from Matheson's book. Beyond the premise, however, the film deviates wildly and is much poorer for it. The book was thought provoking and explored the psychology of Neville's situation and had something to say about society and the fragility and transience of life on Earth. The film does not have much to say apart from making some kind of comment on meddling with nature, an invention not present in the book in which the disease's origins were unknown. The creatures are also significantly different and far less interesting, and much of the detail of Neville's routine and his research into the disease are reduced to a few uninspired scenes. The twist that comes at the end of the book is also completely missing, and the very meaning of the title 'I Am Legend' is subverted.

Setting the book aside for a moment, the premise of the story is so strong that despite being dumbed down the film is not half bad. It's not an action fest - in fact, in comparison to most blockbusters it's downright solemn and contemplative, though there are some routine horror and action scenes in there. The imagery of an abandoned New York is haunting and director Francis Lawrence makes quite an impact with these scenes, making them massive in scope but eerily quiet and depressing. The film is well constructed and is atmospheric and scary and exciting in all the right ways, with the only major flaw being the dodgy effects used to create animals and the vampires themselves; a huge blunder that robs the creatures of any menace and makes them uninspired CGI baddies (except for one scene inside a dark building that is fantastic).

The biggest weakness is the screenplay that always seems to start building on a good idea before veering off into more mundane, superficial territory. How is the isolation affecting Neville? He talks to mannequins and his dog, something that that feels far too cute instead of being heartbreakingly tragic - why bother revealing his torment any further? Are the vampires intelligent? They seem smart at times, but let's not explore that idea or think too hard about it - much easier to just have them run around like crazy animals! The way the story develops in the final act is also very disappointing and unimaginative, with the resolution leaving me with a feeling of complete indifference. They should have just stuck to the book, which introduced a fascinating element that turned the story on its head!

As you can imagine, Smith is the film's centre and he is ultimately the key element that makes it so darn watchable despite its flaws. A large portion of the film simply depicts Neville going about his business, with the dog used as a good excuse to get him talking once in a while (the dog is a neat idea, probably adapted from the fairly moving dog story from the book). Smith is effortlessly charismatic and has always been an easy actor to root for, and here he makes Neville believable and sympathetic and perfectly conveys the sense of loneliness and despair necessary for the story, something the script didn't really bring to the table all that well. I can't think of too many other movie stars who could play this role in as accessible and believable a manner as Smith. And the dog's pretty good too! It's a shame about the vampires though; they are just plain execrable.

'I Am Legend' is a reasonably entertaining film, quite good for a blockbuster and one that feels fresh for the most part. It's well made and I suppose worth watching if you haven't read the book. If you have, well, I can't imagine not being at least a little disappointed at the wasted opportunity. Anyone who watches this and thinks it's a decent film owes it to themselves to read the book, which is far superior and which I can't recommend strongly enough.

Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles (2008)

(Image from IMP Awards)

Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles (2008)

The 'Terminator' franchise ploughs ahead, seemingly as unstoppable as its titular robotic killers themselves. With a proposed trilogy of new movies on the horizon, one could argue that it's stronger than ever, and the renewal of this series for a second season suggests it has the cachet to endure on the small screen as well.

'Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles' (quite a mouthful, and it makes for an amusing 'previously on') focuses on 15 year old John Connor (Thomas Dekker) and his mother Sarah (Lena Headey), and begins in 1997, some years after the events of T2. We find them living in a small town hiding from the authorities, with Sarah in a serious relationship with a paramedic named Charley (Dean Winters). Afraid of being discovered and deeming it necessary to move on, they leave in secret, reluctantly abandoning their small town lives. Shortly thereafter they learn that the nuclear holocaust called Judgement Day still happens; the destruction of Cyberdyne Systems only delayed the apocalyptic event till 2011. A 'female' Terminator model named Cameron (Summer Glau) locates and protects the Connors from a Terminator called 'Cromartie' (Owain Yeoman / Garret Dillahunt) sent to 1997 to kill John, and she ends up transporting them to the presumed safety of the year 2007 using a time machine hidden in a bank vault, put there by people from the future in the past (!).

The three of them base themselves in Los Angeles and resolve to try and prevent Skynet from coming into being. Meanwhile the Charley of 2007 is now in LA and he becomes aware of their presence, and an FBI agent named James Ellison (Richard T. Jones) who was tracking Sarah Connor in 97 gets wind of mysterious incidents that he believes are somehow related to her. These incidents involve the presence of other Terminators in 2007 performing various missions for Skynet unrelated to the Connors, including killing resistance members sent back by John to assassinate key people involved in the creation of Skynet. To add to the Connors' list of problems, 'Cromartie' manages to follow them to the future and continues his mission to hunt down and kill John.

And that's just the first few episodes of this cut down, nine episode first season! Following the story requires some knowledge of the movies, but let's face it, most people who start watching this series probably have a decent idea what it's about. The show's storylines develop in both interesting and frustrating ways. First, the good. Cromartie's relentless pursuit is exciting and sits comfortably with the established Terminator mythos, and the idea of having several Terminators wandering around is used well and sparingly, though it does create yet more head scratching temporal paradoxes where Skynet influences its own creation; I figure that once you have one paradox, anything goes, and it allows the writers to get away with all kinds of tricks without having to provide explanations. For instance, every change in the timeline ought to change the future in some way - clearly this can happen since Judgement Day was delayed by the events of T2 - which raises interesting questions about how resilient the future can be to these changes. Every thing they muck about with could change the future dramatically. What if a change prevents John from sending Kyle back? What if they push Judgement Day back by decades - will Connor really still be the leader of the resistance as a very old man? But I digress; our heroes' mission to try and prevent Skynet from coming into existence is still a compelling one that runs the length of the season.

Now, the not so great - the school scenes. That's right, John Connor, future saviour of mankind who spent his pre teens in South American jungles with guerillas, goes to high school and deals with some weird Veronica Mars type high school drama, and these sequences are simply forgettable. Also not so great is pariah FBI Agent James Ellison's pursuit of Sarah Connor. He's always playing catchup to the audience, slowly and interminably coming around to the truth, and annoyingly sprouting biblical phrases at every turn while adding little to the overall story. Granted, he may yet play a large role (the final episode hints at this quite dramatically), but the writers have dragged his story out and it doesn't help that he isn't all that interesting to boot.

In fact, the writing is the main aspect of the show that needs talking about - they show a tremendous faithfulness to details from the earlier movies, but also contradict things. John Connor, who was such a tough and driven 10 year old, is now a mopey teen who doesn't seem to have the same moral compass that was such a defining characteristic in T2; in fact, he's a bit of a wimp in this, literally asking his mother to take care of things for him. And what in the movies started out as a seemingly desperate last ditch effort on the part of Skynet to save itself by sending killing machines into the past has now morphed into something labyrinthine, with time travellers aplenty all over the place and the resistance possessing its own selection of Terminators, which is at odds with the impression created in the movies ("Nobody goes home. Nobody else comes through. It's just him - and me" - presumably events we've seen in the first two films still played out in this manner; that, or all of the earlier movies have been rendered null and void in this new timeline).

I've gotten carried away however, and am admittedly being too harsh in judging this show by comparing it to the movies and not accepting it as its own thing. In my defense, however, it is a part of that series and therefore cannot avoid comparison. As its own entity, for the most part the series excels. The writing isn't the greatest - some of Sarah Connor's voiceovers are grating (and the opening narration is appalling), the school stuff is terrible, and the story structure seems unfocused, and oh yeah there's an episode featuring a married terminator that strains credulity - but overall the dialogue and characters are quite good and many of the themes of the story like fate vs. free will, the needs of the many over the lives of a few, and the ramifications of artificial life are addressed quite well. While obviously on a lower budget than the movies, the show looks pretty good in terms of production design and special effects, and the action scenes are surprisingly effective. Another standout element is the music, which features remixed themes from the movies as well as some excellent original ones - music for TV shows like this rarely makes an impression, but I was pleasantly surprised here.

Then there's the performances (this review will end soon - honest!). Lena Headey is excellent in the starring role, and although the character isn't as physically imposing or as wonderfully unhinged as Linda Hamilton's interpretation was in T2 (killer robots would drive anyone a little loopy), she's still as tough as nails. She also has some 'mom' type stuff that is a bit off; the need to make the show more mainstream friendly by setting it up as a pseudo conventional 'fractured family tale' is annoying but understandable. Thomas Dekker is alright in his role as John, though most of my problems with the character stem from the writing. Summer Glau is sometimes fantastic as the Terminator (or is it terminatrix?) Cameron - and kind of creepy - but also awful on occasion. Physically I don't get the casting since she's obviously not liquid metal like the T-1000 and yet her tiny metal frame (!) seems to be capable of taking on Terminators twice her size. Dean Winters as Charley and Richard T. Jones as James Ellison both do a reasonable job in their respective roles. Garret Dillahunt, whom I mentioned in my review of Deadwood's second season, is great as the Terminator Cromartie, though I think his presence is ultimately a real waste of talent.

Alright, time to conclude with my overall thoughts. As part of the Terminator franchise, 'The Sarah Connor Chronicles' is decent. As a standalone show, it's quite good. It shows a lot of potential and certainly showed signs of getting better as time went on even during its shortened run. There are some elements that, frankly, just need to be excised, but most of the storylines are either interesting or getting interesting. The overall quality of the show is high, but the writing needs some work. All in all, quite good but could (and should) be better. I look forward to finding out if the second season manages to raise the bar and deliver something truly great.

A Fall of Moondust (1961) by Arthur C. Clarke

(Image from Wikipedia)


A Fall of Moondust (1961) by Arthur C. Clarke

Arthur C. Clarke, one of the grand masters of science fiction, passed away recently but he left behind a legacy that comprises a significant number of works. I've read a fair number of them but it's been a while, so I intend to revisit his most significant efforts sometime soon. 'A Fall of Moondust' is actually one that I'd never read before. It's basically a disaster story set on the moon involving a tourist 'boat' that travels on a 'sea' of sand; a lunar quake causes the boat to be buried under the sand with only days of life support left. The plot revolves around the rescue efforts by the engineers on the moon and the efforts of the trapped passengers to try and stay alive and keep their hopes up.

Clarke was never one for writing great characters, and this book is particularly weak when it comes to the human side of things, with sketchy and cliched characterization and mechanical behaviour. But reading Clarke for the characters is like reading Mills & Boon for the technology - it's misguided in the extreme. What he was a master of was creating interesting and believable future scenarios grounded in (extrapolated) science, scenarios full of keenly observed details regarding both technology and its impact on society. He also typically managed to create a narrative within the scenario that featured science (mainly physics) in a big way.

This book is no different - at every turn Clarke throws out little nuggets of physics and technology and brief asides on what this future world and society is like and why it is that way. Sometimes though it can all sound a little too didactic, almost like he wrote the book more to convey his ideas and conjured up a loose narrative out of necessity, but more often than not the two aspects complement each other nicely. As the search and rescue operation gets underway, we are treated to discourse on space travel, communication, the moon and lunar life, the problems of reduced gravity, the media, and so on. For me and other geeks like me the subject matter is utterly intriguing.

While I complained about the characters, their behaviour from a story point of view is actually quite convincing - it's the way they're written, the dialogue and the clunkiness of their personality that is weak - which makes for an interesting human aspect as the passengers, a quite motley crew, try to while away the time without losing control of the situation. There's a terrific sense of pacing in the book, it really is well structured and very cinematic with bouts of excitement and despair being introduced at regular intervals, and the whole story culminating in a thrilling race against time.

In the end there's nothing particularly brilliant about the book, but as a 'what if' scenario it is fascinating. Clarke's style is basic but the strength of the ideas and his descriptiveness are enough to make this a real page turner, and the flaws fall by the wayside as you are hurtled towards the conclusion. Perhaps not the best of his works, but a good read nonetheless.

The Science of Lost

"It kind of boggles our minds, actually," Cuse says. "We never imagined that people would get wrapped up in the intricacies of it to the degree that they have. We really just set out to make a show that we thought was kind of cool and entertaining."

Popular Mechanics has an interesting article (though a tad superficial) about the scientific inspiration behind 'Lost', one of the best shows on TV right now (I keep swapping my favourite crown between this and BSG). Lost has always been a fantastic mixture of character drama, mystery, action, philosophy, and science, but this fourth season has really ramped up the sci-fi aspects of the show. I think it's turning some people off - mainly, the people who watched the show oblivious to the fact that it was sci-fi - but I'm loving it.

As a puzzle show Lost has been a terrific tease, throwing hints here and there and giving fans plenty to ponder. I don't know if the writers will be able to tie things together neatly by the end of the sixth and final season. I hope they will. I'm certain every single detail will not be explained - in fact, I welcome the possibility that when it ends it'll leave some puzzles open to interpretation. Even if they fail in making the conclusion satisfying, it's been one hell of a rewarding ride so far, and I can't wait to see the remaining episodes

Battle Royale (2000)

(Image from Wikipedia)


Battle Royale (2000)

In the near future, Japan faces a social crisis with mass unemployment and uncontrollable student hooliganism. The solution? The Battle Royale act, which basically makes an example of unruly school children by throwing a class onto an island for three days, with each student armed with a weapon of some sort and a basic survival kit. The rules are simple - at the end of the three days only one person can remain alive and standing; if there's more than one, they all die. Their locations are tracked at all times, and leaving the island is impossible. Additionally, to make things interesting, every few hours parts of the island are added to an ever growing list of 'danger zones' that cannot be entered, effectively herding the survivors closer and closer together.

The movie depicts the game being played out by one particular class that comprises the usual assortment of typical teens replete with friendships, rivalries, and cliques. There are also intermittent flashbacks that delve into the history of some of the characters that are fairly important in explaining their behaviour on the island. As the game begins the students break off into factions and, with survival at stake, find that killing each other comes fairly naturally. The focus is mainly on four characters - Kitano (Takeshi Kitano), the class teacher who hates his students after he was stabbed by one of them, nice guy Shuya (Tatsuya Fujiwara) and his girlfriend Noriko (Aki Maeda), and Shogo (Taro Yamamoto), a survivor from a former game. There are of course many other varied characters as well, many of whom meet gruesome ends.

'Battle Royale' is, as you can imagine, a fairly unique film - it's like a satire of reality television taken to the extreme, with a helping of social commentary on the fragility of human relationships and our capacity for violence. Although, mostly it's an entertaining free-for-all full of mayhem. It's hard to say if the behaviour of the characters is realistic; when your life is on the line and there's only one way out, who can say how far one will go? Perhaps I too would run at my colleagues with a crazed expression swinging whatever weapon I had (wait, I'd definitely do that). The film handles this question head on by having different people take different approaches - some are outright killers, others huddle together in fear; some try to unite everyone, while others stick close only to those they care about; and some take themselves out of the equation voluntarily - but almost every character inevitably ends up knee deep in violence due to the unavoidable suspicion, misunderstanding, and fear that accompanies their situation.

The performances of the kids are quite good, but this isn't really an actor friendly drama - much of it is focused on carnage, and there is plenty of that to go around as they start to off each other in fairly imaginative ways. It's violent and completely un-PC (school kids and violence? check!), which is part of what makes it so much fun. The other factor that makes it a fine piece of entertainment is that it's quite gripping; as the three day deadline approaches the body count piles up, with familiar characters being dispatched regularly and often quite abruptly and unceremoniously. There's a large cast, but each of them is distinctive enough to make him or her recognisable and the story comprehensible - though you probably won't remember most of their names. Since most of the film involves kids running around amidst foliage there isn't much to say about production values, but the film is quite slickly put together and often quite over the top.

This is one of those films that you feel kind of ambivalent about enjoying, since at its heart it's pure grand guignol. But it's a well made and entertaining one that has a little bit of substance in there amidst the chaos. I enjoyed 'Battle Royale' as much as I expected I would, and I suspect that most people will be able to predict their enjoyment of the film based on the premise alone.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

(Image from IMP Awards)


Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

In a word, disappointing. In another, mediocre. Following in the footsteps of James Cameron's classic 1984 thriller and 1991 action spectacular comes Jonathan Mostow's rather pedestrian third entry in the franchise (and I dread to see what 'McG' will do with the upcoming films). Even though 'Judgement Day' was itself something of a retread, it managed to up the ante and introduced new elements to the basic story framework of the original - two terminators, one ultra advanced assassin and one 'Arnie' model protector, the addition of John Connor himself as a kid, and the concept of taking charge and changing the future instead being resigned to fate. The film also had some good elements of emotion laden drama despite being a little heavy handed. This third entry is basically the exact same formula as part 2, and adds virtually nothing new up until its (admittedly terrific) left field ending.

A new terminator, the feminine TX (Kristana Loken), is sent back to kill future leader of the human resistance John Connor (Nick Stahl) and his lieutenants, including a young woman named Kate Brewster (Claire Danes). The resistance again sends a T-800 (Arnold Schwarzenegger) to serve as a protector for John. Sarah Connor is dead, so John and Kate take it upon themselves to once again attempt to change the future - though they succeeded in stopping Cyberdyne Systems in part 2, John figures it just wasn't enough to prevent the supercomputer Skynet from coming into existence and gaining sentience. So in the midst of running away from the TX, they devise a plan to destroy Skynet before it takes control of the US Military's computer systems and causes nuclear armageddon.

Right from the start, the film is markedly inferior. There's no suspense, everything happens in a purely perfunctory manner like they were ticking off items in a checklist. Monologue opening, check. T-800 arrival and acquisition of clothes from seedy joint, check. TX arrival and acquisition of a vehicle, check. These scenes feel like cheap echoes of the previous films, and while it's true that T2 could be accused of the same thing, T2 was also markedly differently from its predecessor in terms of how those scenes were handled. T3 feels like T2 lite. Watching this, I never felt like the characters' lives were at stake, much less the future of mankind!

The inferiority permeates every aspect of the film. Mostow isn't alone in bearing the blame as the screenwriters contributed some of the film's flaws. Clearly realizing they couldn't really outdo what had come before, they decided to infuse ill advised humour into scene after scene, and much of it falls flat. The characters never really come alive - Connor is brooding sidekick to the T-800 for the most part, and Brewster is mostly just hysterical, and both seem to be merely serving the plot. Mostow's sense of pacing and scene construction are competent but workmanlike, be it the character driven moments or the action scenes. The latter are definitely big, but they often feel lifeless and fall back on CGI on too many occasions. I can't think of a single standout moment in this film, while the first two had so many. The things that are most memorable are the bits that made me groan, like the Elton John glasses and 'talk to the hand' scenes, jokes that really should have been dropped at some stage during the production.

Which isn't to say that everything sucks. On the contrary, the film is on the whole fairly decent and is better than the average sci-fi action flick. The design work, which follows from Stan Winston's originals, is still excellent, for one - those early prototype robots in action are very cool. The basic concept of killer robots from the future wreaking violence and causing massive mayhem is still a fantastic one. And the story framework is solid, even if its execution is less than refined. And the ending... well, the first time I saw it I actually liked the film as a result of that ending, which is such an atypically sober surprise in a summer blockbuster and one that completely wipes away the sense of optimism the second film concluded with.

The performances, unfortunately, are almost uniformly forgettable. Schwarzanegger just coasts through with a distracting sense of self-awareness. He acted a bit goofy in T2, but that was part of the character arc - here, he's just goofy from the outset. Even when he's not approaching parody, he's still not as coolly mechanical or as physically imposing as before; the T-800 is merely a shadow of his former self. Kristanna Loken certainly tried as the TX and she's good on occasion, but following in the footsteps of Robert Patrick's phenomenal turn as the T-1000 is no easy task and the inevitable comparison leaves her wanting. The quirky mannerisms and poses seem forced, and the icy menace just isn't that frightening. You'd think playing cold, unfeeling machines would be easy, but based on the evidence it would appear not to be so.

The only good performance comes from Nick Stahl, who plays Connor as a weary outcast who still possesses a grim sense of determination, although it has to be said that neither the writing nor the performance indicate he has great leadership potential - which is weird when you consider that the 10 year old in T2 did demonstrate such potential! Claire Danes, a fairly good actress, is simply irritating as the initially hysterical and then somewhat bland Kate Brewster.

'Rise of the Machines' is a wholly unnecessary film, one whose most meaningful narrative element, its conclusion, could easily have served as some form of prologue to a film about the actual war against the machines (That film is coming soon, but is in the hands of McG, whose greatest claim to fame is directing the Charlie's Angels films). T3, even as a retread, falls well short in every respect. The score is another example of what's wrong with this film - it samples a few recognizable themes from Brad Fidel's distinctive and memorable work and evokes good will by doing so, but is ultimately by the numbers and never really comes alive. And really, the same could be said about the film as a whole.

Justice League Unlimited - Season 3 (2005-2006)

(Image from Wikipedia)


Justice League Unlimited - Season 3 (2005-2006)

I reviewed the first two seasons of this excellent animated superhero series last year, and this is really more of the same quality material, which is great. The broad story arc this season has Gorilla Grodd and Lex Luthor managing a new supervillain society to counter the Justice League, while Luthor tries to resurrect Brainiac and once again acquire God-like powers. There are some standalone episodes, but the majority of them deal with this storyline. Interestingly, the main superheroes seem to have an even smaller role this year with the majority of screentime being devoted to the 'B' and lower level characters, which is nice though I did miss the presence of the enigmatic Batman. The A players do show up for the big moments however, and the rarity of their appearances makes their brief screentime all the more dramatic.

Once again the show presents an action spectacular with terrific comic book visuals in motion - very very entertaining, even if the thematic substance the last two seasons went for is somewhat lacking. The major drawback in this season is a handful of weak episodes, including a truly dire female superhero cage-fighting one that surely represents the entire show's nadir. All in all though, it's good stuff and a natural continuation of the show from the last season. Shame that this was the final batch of episodes, but I guess all good things must come to an end.

The 4400 - Season 3 (2006)

(Image from Slice of Sci-Fi)


The 4400 - Season 3 (2006)

I reviewed the second season of 'The 4400' back in June last year, and all I can say about the third season is that nothing much has changed since then. Here's what I concluded last time:

While it doesn't hold up against the best sci-fi dramas on TV (Lost, Battlestar Galactica, and (so far) Heroes*), it fills a niche for more sedate and safe sci-fi; it is entertaining even if it isn't always that thought provoking. I'm anticipating watching the third season, which promises increased friction between the 4400, the government, and the general population, which could result in some of that edginess the subject matter is ripe for.

Production values, storytelling style, acting - none of that has changed this season, so basically what I said in my review of the last season still applies. Worth noting perhaps is that the '4400 of the week' aspect that I wrote about where single episodes focused solely on a particular 4400 is still there but is handled much better, with those stories being integrated into the big picture in a more satisfying and substantial way. As for the season's overall storyline, it develops in the way I had hoped it would. The 4400s and the government are clearly at war, with a terrorist group formed by 4400s carrying out assassinations and making threats to a fearful populace. People are divided about what to do, and the government prepares itself for a conflict by running secret projects to help combat the 4400 'threat'. The 4400 are also divided, with many being afraid of the government after inhumane and illegal treatment; some feel pushed enough to side with the terrorists.

It's great stuff that is clearly an allegory for contemporary terrorism, the prevailing culture of fear, abuse of governmental power, and curtailment of civil rights, but as before the show doesn't take it far enough. This should be heavy subject matter, but after watching shows like 'Battlestar Galactica' and 'Lost' where the situations are pushed to extremes and characters are forced to make hard choices, 'The 4400' doesn't compare favourably. It always seems to have a convenient out that prevents it from ever really challenging its audience; whenever things start to look interesting, the writers always retreat back to safer territory.

An unexpected and irritating element this season is the spontaneous growing up of the Isabelle (Megalyn Echikunwoke) character and the death of her mother (apparently because the actress who played Lilly Tyler (Laura Allen) quit). One problem is how trite this 'fish out of water character trying to understand humanity' storyline is. Another is how tame her story arc ends up being - seriously, a large part of it involves forcing one of the other characters to marry her! The fact that Megalyn Echikunwoke just isn't that good at portraying what is meant to be an awe inspiring, powerful being, doesn't help the show too much either. The majority of the cast are fairly decent in their roles but no one really shines, with the exception being Billy Campbell as the enigmatic Jordan Collier, whose return is dramatic and really adds some much needed oomph to the show in the season's last few episodes.

The third season of the '4400' ends, once again, at a very interesting place. The stories being told are great, but the storytelling lacks the kind of bite that the subject matter really needs. It's sci-fi comfort food that dips its toes in the deep end of the edginess pool but never takes the plunge. And yet I still find the show strangely compelling even though I don't feel that deeply invested in it or its characters. The show only lasted one more season before being cancelled and I think the storylines are left unresolved, but I'll be sure to check it out just to see what happens next. And because it is fairly entertaining.

*and how that show disappointed by taking an interesting concept and ruining it with illogical nonsense and terrible revelations that culminated in a horrendously bad last few episodes.