Science Fiction Movies: Reviews & Discussions

SEPTEMBER 22, 2013 04:07 AM

ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK (1981)

In 1988, crime reaches 100% in the United States. By 1997, Manhattan has been turned into a maximum security prison for the entire country with the Statue of Liberty serving as a military headquarter. When Air Force One crashes in Manhattan and the President is kidnapped, Snake Plissken is sent in to rescue him.

Director John Carpenter is a master at taking independently made B-movies and giving them a Hollywood make-over. He takes this great premise, with an unfortunate shoe-string budget, and turns it into a legitimate `80s blockbuster. It should also be noted that James Cameron was the cinematographer for the special effects team. Both of them accomplished a lot with very little. And they're supported with a memorable supporting cast which includes Lee Van Cleef, Ernest Borgnine, Donald Pleasence, Isaac Hayes, Harry Dean Stanton, and the infamously large-breasted Adrienne Barbeau. They are all a lot of fun to watch and give the film a lot of charm.

However, as much as I enjoy the premise, the supporting players, and the technical achievements, there a few things that bother me. For example, Kurt Russell's performance is very inconsistent. Sometimes he's doing a very cliche' Clint Eastwood impersonation and other times he's just Kurt Russell. There's even a few scenes where you can see Lee Van Cleef staring at him and thinking, "this Disney kid is over his head." Another thing that's weak is the script. Carpenter co-wrote it with Nick Castle, who played the original Michael Myers, and they didn't take full advantage of the concept. The plot is very straight-forward and the villains are generally nonthreatening. Escape from New York is basically style-over-substance. It's a very cool movie but it's a cult success, and not a classic, for good reasons.

ESCAPE FROM L.A. (1996)

Back in 1996, when I saw the trailer for this movie, there was a scene with Kurt Russell playing basketball and I remember thinking to myself, "this will either be horrible or awesome." Well... CALL ME CRAZY... but it's the latter. Most people dislike Escape from L.A. for two reasons. One, it's a rehash. And two, it has a $50 million budget, so it lacks the "indie spirit" of the original. But none of that matters to me because the script is strong and uses the premise to it's fullest potential.

This time, the story begins in 2000. The President predicts that the very immoral Los Angeles will be punished by God. And well, he was right. A massive earthquake occurs and turns Los Angeles into an island. Now everyone worships the President, who is played fantastically by Cliff Robertson, and he becomes a dictator. His first order is to make the United States a moral country. There's no drinking, smoking, red meat eating, or sex without marriage allowed. In addition to the serious stuff. So then, Los Angeles Island is turned into a prison for the immoral. Fast-forward to 2013, yes, 2013 and the President's daughter meets an immoral Los Angeles prisoner through the Internet and falls in love with him. He convinces her to steal a black box containing a device that can destroy electricity, like on NBC's Revolution, and take it to him. When the President finds out, he blackmails Snake Plissken to retrieve it.

With a $50 million budget, John Carpenter and his art department are able to create a post-apocalyptic Los Angeles that's realistic looking. He also has the ability to create some very outlandish action sequences. Some of it is cheesy, like Snake Plissken surfing and gliding through the air, but other times it's fun like when the characters use holograms to mess with each other. And perhaps the most important benefit of the budget is the hiring of Shirley Walker (Batman: The Animated Series) to compose orchestral music instead of the synthesized sound that Carpenter was famous for in the `70s and `80s. However, that's all icing on the cake. As I said earlier, it's the script that makes the film work. This time it's co-written by Debra Hill and Kurt Russell. Once again, there's a great premise. It's similar to the original, but different enough and meaty enough to standout. The characters are all great. Especially Steve Buscemi as Eddie. Like Toshiro Mifune in Yojimbo and Clint Eastwood in Fistful of Dollars, he's the guy playing all sides against each other. It's fun to watch and gives the story more weight. Plus, Kurt Russell is great as Snake Plissken. For once, he's consistent and very badass. He's also more conflicted this time. Not only does he have to retrieve the black box and defeat the bad guys, but he has to return to a U.S. government that's out-of-control. And the way he resolves everything at the end is very awesome. Sure, some people may roll their eyes and call it anti-technology or pessimistic, but it works as an action movie.

NOVEMBER 5, 2013 01:45 AM



In Strange Days, there's a device that records footage using the human eye as the camera. And then that footage is sold to people so they can experience certain fantasies from someone else's point-of-view by connecting that device to their brain. This device can also be used to re-live special moments in your own life. So it's definitely a very fascinating piece of technology. But... there's always going to be people that abuse of great things and use it for evil.

That's where Ralph Fiennes' character comes in. He's a very charming, down-to-Earth, and happy-go-lucky guy that sells these - fantasies - in the black market. And one night, he receives a package that includes footage of one of his female colleagues being raped and murdered. And being exposed to that puts him right in the middle of a huge murder mystery that uses the backdrop of a Los Angeles that's falling apart on December 31, 1999.

Strange Days is, arguably, Kathryn Bigelow's greatest directorial achievement. And that's saying a lot considering that she won an historical Oscar for The Hurt Locker and did an amazing job on Zero Dark Thirty. Now the reason why Strange Days stands-out so much is because Bigelow immerses the audience in this world with spectacular point-of-view shots. You almost feel like one of those people with that device connected to the brain. And when she isn't dabbling in the science-fiction aspects of the story, she's getting great performances out of every single actor and making the audience emotionally connected to the film. Credit also has to be given to James Cameron who wrote a very compelling and intriguing script. Without the backbone of his contributions, Bigelow wouldn't have had anything to play with. So, check out Strange Days if you ever get the opportunity. It's definitely one of the best science-fiction movies of the 1990's.

AUGUST 9, 2014 03:03 AM




Disclaimer:
This is a review of the theatrical version
and not the acclaimed special edition.

Terminator. Aliens. True Lies. Titanic. Avatar. James Cameron has directed some of the most beloved, and successful, movies in the history of Hollywood. Then there's The Abyss. If it weren't for Piranha 2, it would be the black sheep of Cameron's directorial career. The film has been over-shadowed by behind-the-scenes horror stories which include crew members being burned by chlorine and actors so furious they punched holes in the wall. Even Cameron agrees that it's the worst experience of his career. And then when released in the summer of 1989, the movie was no match for Batman, Indiana Jones and Mel Gibson. By all accounts, The Abyss was a disappointment and its only moment of glory was winning the Academy Award for Best Special Effects.

Objectively speaking, however, The Abyss is an interesting film and a standout of 1980's cinema. The problem, like in most of Cameron's work, is the screenplay. He combines two different premises and turn them into an odd couple. The first plot is an American submarine that sinks in the Caribbean and its nuclear weapons are at risk of being stolen by the Soviets. And the second plot is the discovery of aliens living in deep sea. If you haven't seen the movie, let me explain it a little better. The first half is a thriller with Michael Biehn as the bad guy and the second half is a Steven Spielberg film. Each half works exceptionally well but when combined it creates a very strange movie.

Holding these two halves together and giving the film an emotional arc is the responsibility of Ed Harris and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio. They play an estranged couple who are forced to work together and then reconnect over the course of the story.* And they're the ones who make the film work. Their performances are riveting and you go along with anything Cameron throws at the audience because of them. I think it's a disgrace that Harris and Mastrantonio were not nominated for Academy Awards. Forget the groundbreaking visual effects by ILM. This is a human story with real people and they're the reason you should watch The Abyss.

B+ says Doomsday


*Their characters are based on James Cameron and his then-wife, Gale Anne Hurd, who's the producer of all his 1980's output. But instead of real life imitating art, Cameron divorced Hurd and hooked up with Kathryn Bigelow.

JUNE 16, 2014 04:43 PM





What do you get when you combine Star Wars, Star Trek and Akira Kurosawa's The Seven Samurais? The Battle Beyond The Stars! It is a Roger Corman production with art direction, miniature effects and 2nd unit photography by a 25-year-old James Cameron (Avatar). So right off the bat, you're getting a cheesy story with corny acting but surprisingly good special effects that rival any Hollywood production.







The movie is about a peaceful planet that gets invaded by a ruthless conqueror (played by iconic B-movie actor John Saxon). The people from this planet don't know how to defend themselves, so they send John Boy from The Waltons to go find help. And during his journey he encounters a diverse group of people and creatures who agree to help him out even though John Boy has nothing valuable to offer in return. So when he returns, the planet finally has a chance to fight back because "goodness" is on their side.







Overall, Battle Beyond The Stars is very flawed but also incredibly charming. This isn't a straight-forward Star Wars wannabe. You can tell the people involved were having a lot of fun and they put good effort into creating a cult classic. So check it out, you might enjoy it if you're not too snobby and nitpick-y.



B says Doomsday

MARCH 21, 2012

IN TIME

NOTE: I made the mistake of recommending this movie to JBond and he has hated me ever since. He banned me from The Film Club. True story.

The plot is simple. Science has made it possible for people to stop physically aging at 25. But since people have to die to make room for others, the government figured out a way to make it possible. Instead of using money to buy and pay stuff, you use time. For example, let's say you used to make $500 a week. Now, you get a week of life for 5 days worth of work. Let's say you used to spend $30 a week on gas. Now, it's 30 hours of your life. So as you can imagine, the rich can live comfortably and the poor are living day-to-day. Some poor people even end up dying in the middle of the streets because they "ran out of time." So the main character, played by Justin Timberlake, becomes a Robin Hood type figure and starts stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Amanda Seyfriend plays a Maid Marian type character. And Cillian Murphy is like the Sheriff of Nottingham. As you can tell, the film is a metaphor for the current social class war between the 99% and 1%. And that's why it works. The best sci-fistories are a reflection of the time period in which they were made. So the movie is relevant and very relatable.

It's March 1st and we're getting closer to Marty McFly visiting us. But there's already a famous time traveler that visited us...


TIMECOP (1994)



Timecop is the third Peter Hyams movie in this thread. It stars Jean-Claude Van Damme as a cop from 2004 whose job it is to police time travel. And when he learns that a Presidential candidate is traveling back to 1994 to steal money, not only does he have to stop this politician, but he's also given the opportunity to prevent the murder of his wife and unborn child. Timecop is a film that gets mocked sometimes. JBond gave it the Ed Wood prize in his Nova Awards and Cracked made fun of it in one of their lists. But it's also celebrated among fans of the action genre and it's widely considered one of Van Damme's best. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. There is a lot of silliness in the time travel aspect of the story and hardcore science-fiction fans probably roll their eyes at a lot of the stuff that happens here. But it's also a well-executed action movie with an emotional story at its core. You'll like or dislike Timecop depending on what you focus on.

A-

*Taken from letterboxd:

2010

I've always wondered what this sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey would be like, a curiosity furthered by the fact that opinions on 2010 seem to be more lukewarm than anything. How does one even go about making a sequel to 2001? Not only is Kubrick's masterpiece one of the greatest films of all time, it's also a totally unique film experience that nothing else has ever been able to capture. Kubrick himself would likely not have been able to recreate that same experience, so writer/director Peter Hyams, adapting the novel written by 2001 co-creator Arthur C. Clarke, creates a more conventional narrative, for better or for worse.

The film takes place nine years after the first film at a time when tensions between Russia and the United States are quite high. In spite of this, a joint space mission is proposed where a Russian ship and crew bear three American astronauts on a journey to Jupiter in order to investigate what exactly happened to the Discovery ship and learn more about the strange monolith. It's a much more straight forward plot, with more clearly defined objectives, more standard characters, and the narrative on the whole is more conventionally developed. This is to be expected and the story still takes some interesting turns, particularly in the second half, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little bit disappointed. Yes, trying to imitate Kubrick's style would have been a mistake, but I still miss the poetic lyricism of 2001. Having that missing from this feels wrong, even if I understand why. This might have been more forgiveable had the story been really gripping from the start, but that isn't the case. While things do eventually start cooking, the first half of the film is essentially a less imaginative version of the journey to Jupiter from the first film. In that film, the voyage was made intriguing because of the drama with HAL and for the mystery that awaited the characters. 2010 offers nothing as dramatic as the HAL dynamic and much of the mystery is dissipated by the fact that, in spite of the ambiguities, we know what happened to Dave at the end of 2001. I was also let down by this film's vision of the future, which is just lacking. I understand that this is supposed to be a very believable and grounded future and the technology reflects that, but I mostly just see the 1980s.

Having said all that, the film does a lot right. The special effects for example, are very impressive. No, they are not able to match the visuals in 2001, but that film is one of the top three pillars of visual effects work which even modern movies are unable to reach. For what 2010 is, it has very good moments of space travel and zero gravity moments. The Discovery is also pretty well-realized and it was fun to see the ship, HAL, and Dave Bowman again. The new cast here is also pretty strong, featuring interesting turns from Roy Scheider, John Lithgow, Bob Balaban, and Helen Mirren. There's also some interesting ideas here, and every so often the film is able to capture a sense of mystery and wonder. I also love the opening, which recaps the first film while still creating a sense of uncertainty through simplicity.

One of the things that makes 2001: A Space Odyssey so compelling are the unanswered questions. Unfortunately, 2010 is much more spelled out, to the point that it tries to answer questions of the first film, such as an extended scene where Bob Balaban's character explains why HAL killed most of the crew. It's a completely unnecessary moment since it's mostly clear why HAL did what he did and it just rubs me the wrong way. However I was going to give this film a modest pass, in spite of this and other issues described above. For all it did that bothered me, there was certainly some strong filmmaking and interesting concepts, enough for me to say the film was good. And then the ending happened. It isn't a horrible ending, in fact some of the ideas are actually pretty neat, but the way it is presented feels so very wrong. First off, the ending is shown in the most conventional and boring way possible, without any sense of wonder or intrigue. However I think what bothers me the most is the complete and unchallenged optimism of the ending. I'm not saying I wanted a depressing conclusion, but when of the things that makes 2001's ending so compelling is the ambiguity. Is it supposed to represent an optimistic future of what humanity can become, or is it a more dark statement about our own lack of agency in the universe? Or is it something else entirely? I don't know, but there's a beauty in that mystery. 2010 lacks that entirely, to the point of Scheider's character narrating about how wonderful everything will be. This is not at all what I wanted from a sequel to 2001.

I gave this film the fairest shake I could, judging it on its own merits. There is a lot to admire after all. A strong cast, good ideas, great special effects, some tense moments, and an extremely gripping opening scene. It's certainly a well-crafted film, but to what end? It adds nothing to the legacy of 2001 and it's major story advancements are mostly disappointments. It does a lot very well, but at the end of the day 2010 feels fundamentally opposed to it's predecessor and that just doesn't sit right with me.

C

From what I read, it seems more like Kubrick just didn't care. And it feels fundamentally opposed when the first film is about the ambiguities of the universe and the sequel is about how great and amazing the future will be.

Jibbs , is it still on Netflix? I've seen it from time to time, but kinda ignored it.

Yes, some people do.

Since Jibbs liked it, I probably will too.