The Second Annual Nova Awards - 2014

Transcendence

Directed by: Wally Pfister

Written by: Jack Paglen

Starring: Johnny Depp, Rebecca Hall, Morgan Freeman, Paul Bettany

A pretty sub-average film, but where the movie really tanks is with its characters and their motives. Johnny Depp's character, Will Caster, is successfully uploaded into a computer database before he can die from a gunshot wound, but the reactions about this that start to come out of the supporting cast are like from people who've seen this episode of Twilight Zone before and know exactly what will happen. So much so, that they make rash and deadly decisions only because the script is moving in that direction. Sure, the dangers become quite real later on in the movie, but the decisions of the characters still manage to be overreactions. If you'd like an example, there's a scene where a woman is sent to go talk with Will. After a minute or so, someone far away who can't hear anything who's viewing it with binoculars says "this is taking too long, it's not working." That's when they started to fire Howizers...at the innocent woman and Will alike.

We're talking about a movie that named him "Will Caster," for God's sakes. Subtle.

**/****

Sci-fi Talk with Jibbs

Transcendence has some entertaining ideas but does a pretty poor job of executing them. There's the classic "Does technology do more good or bad for us?" but the "bad" side is argued by uninspired Luddite terrorists. There's interesting stuff about transporting consciousness into computers, but also big stuff about nanotechnology, breaking the "only one sub-genre of science fiction, please" rule of science fiction. This movie has the right ingredients, but doesn’t explore the ideas enough. It’s the Spider-Man 3 of science fiction. There’s nothing here you can’t find done better than in a couple of Stargate episodes.

GODZILLA

Directed by: Gareth Edwards

Written by: Max Borenstein

Story by: Dave Callaham

Starring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Elizabeth Olsen, Bryan Cranston, Ken Watanabe

The lack of Godzilla isn’t the problem with this movie. It helps that the Godzilla "villain" is actually a pretty cool creature. However, they really weren't thinking by having not one, but two instances where the joke is that we DON'T get to see the big fight between them. The first time it cuts away to the fight on a TV in the background, and the second time there are doors that close just before the real action begins. Other than this, the limited action is actually pretty good and I loved that Godzilla can breathe fire again. So now let’s talk about the rest of the poor film.

First off, the characters. Again, they really draw attention to this problem, this time by casting Bryan Cranston and then killing him off pretty quick. This is made even worse by having Kick-Ass replace him, a lead so dull you find yourself wishing that Elizabeth Olsen was out in the field. After these two, I have trouble even remembering any other characters. I think Ken Watanabe is in this movie. This movie suffers greatly from WMHS: White Male Hero Syndrome. This is where the lead is so plain and common to try to appeal to so many people watching ("Hey, I could be that guy!") that he has no personality, quirks, ideals or controversial opinions.

Godzilla had my utmost attention for about 15 minutes. There's a prologue in 1999 and the characters are still interesting, I'm intrigued on the outcomes, there's drama and some great action. Then the movie loses its way and never comes close to finding it again. People will tell you that the script and characters don't matter in movies like this, but the truth is they don't matter as much. (And if they really don't think screenplays and characters matter in ANY movie, then their opinion doesn't really mean much.) The problem is, this movie becomes very disjointed, like a Roland Emmerich film put into a blender. The characters are there: the scientists, the hero, the army man, and so on, but they don't belong in anything they do. I can't decide if "distractingly disjointed" or just "boring" best describes the first half of this movie.

This wouldn't be so bad if the script was better, but instead we have monsters that naturally send out EMPs so that technology can't defeat them. If that doesn't bother you, then I don't know what to say, because that's one of the worst plot devices I've ever heard. It's like an Anti-Deus Ex Machina. In fact, and I sound like a broken record now with many of my recent reviews, but technology is used just horribly in this. When it's NOT being wiped out by giant bugs, it's amazingly absent in being able to detect million ton creatures destroying cities and landscapes. Can't they keep track of these things with satellites? Can't they find the largest animals the world has ever seen at night with infrared? And on the subject of finding giant creatures, Godzilla should NOT be able to sneak up on you.

Despite the disaster of a script, I enjoyed the second half where most of the action happens. Novice director Gareth Edwards does a pretty good job of putting it all together. Certainly better than Pacific Rim which relies mostly on rain and every color of the rainbow. The ending was laughable stupid with the bomb that doesn’t kill people, and the ending where Godzilla is our "savior" is tacked on and completely implausible, but I finally stopped caring at that point.

**/****

Sci-Fi Talk with Jibbs

This leads me to what I think the main problem (and one of the many big problems with Godzilla '98) is with this Godzilla. People are making these movies like Jaws or Aliens, where creatures show up sporadically, it's suspenseful for a while, and then there's a final battle. But it can't be like that. Godzilla can not hide in buildings, behind trees, or anywhere on the planet for that matter. In my opinion, if you want to make a Godzilla movie, once he's out, all hell is breaking loose until he's dead. You can have slower periods in between, of course, just not when ungodly creatures are hiding nearby in fog. I want to see a Godzilla movie that's treated like a disaster movie.

The Giver

Directed by: Phillip Noyce

Written by: Michael Mitnick and Robert B. Weide. Based on a novel by Lois Lowry

Starring: Jeff Bridges, Meryl Streep, Brenton Thwaites

The Giver is about a dystopian future where everyone is oppressed and repressed and the main character is asked to bring balance to the world. Or, the plot of every damn young adult sci-fi film recently. It probably wasn't a good idea to watch this a mere few days after seeing Divergent which has an opening so similar, you have to ask yourself what the hell is going on here?

The Giver started off rather well. The premise is stale and as the themes start to show, they reek of shallowness, but the direction is actually quite good in making it pretty watchable for at least awhile. (It was only afterwards did I learn that this is the director of Clear and Present Danger, allowing me to at least consider I know what I'm talking about from time to time.) The movie had more potential with Philip Noyce behind the camera, but the screenplay falls into complete disarray into the final acts. So much so, that by the end I have no idea what happened and can only assume they were going for an artsy fantasy ending that's supposed to give me the touchy-feelies hoping that I don't think logically for even a second.

This movie suggests at times that you don't need something deep to have a quality film. Most of it is really just the main character Jonas and the "giver of memories," Jeff Bridges, showing him how great life used to be, but I felt it pretty strongly. But the movie also proves you need to have a fricking point and conclusion.

**/****

Sci-fi Talk with Jibbs

Elders passing on secrets of society through literal memories is pretty darn cool. Obviously, they thought so too and felt that was enough to go on, intellectually. But as I’ve said before, this young adult crap where one is more important than the rest is very tiring. I'm not sure what I expected from a movie with Taylor Swift in it.

Under the Skin

Directed by: Jonathan Glazer

Written by: Walter Campbell & Jonathan Glazer. Based on the novel by Michel Faber

Starring: Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy McWilliams, Paul Brannigan

This film is about a female alien who visits Earth to prey on men, but if you're thinking "Species," you've got the wrong movie (kind of). This movie runs mostly on metaphor and character which is probably why I didn't think too highly of it, but I suppose I respect it on some level and those who are giving this high praise. The transformation this "woman" goes through from start to finish touches on some interesting things about femininity and also some common science fiction tropes, but in completely different fashion.

The problem with this film is that it's very boring. The whole thing is pretty much this one character and her journey. There are occasionally some brilliant cinematography choices, but they're rare, and while the ending is amazing and should make you think about it for a while, there isn't much to go on leading up to it.

**.5/****

Sci-Fi Talk with Jibbs

Although I just got done praising Gilliam for his absurdist science fiction style, for the most part, aimless movies such as these don’t do a whole lot for me. Same goes for The Man Who Fell to Earth and the like. This is far from a movie that leads to discussion on science fiction and is much more about style. I’d love to see a movie that’s heavy on moody style like this, but still has something for the thinky parts of the brain. More Blade Runner, less Picasso.

Divergent

Directed by: Neil Burger

Written by: Evan Daugherty & Vanessa Taylor. Based on the novel by Veronica Roth 

Starring: Shailene Woodley, Theo James, Ashley Judd, Jai Courtney

Divergent is about a woman who finds she doesn't fit into any of the 5 groups in a dystopian caste system in the future. What does it mean to be Divergent? Why is she in trouble for being this way? The film never really answers this (although it's probably saving this for future installments) and I think this hurts the film the most. I almost feel like it's keeping it vague so young people don't think too hard about their swallow feelings of emulation of someone who "doesn't play by the rules."
But it does have some good moments. Despite being painfully based on "Hunger Games meets Harry Potter", it was kind of fun to watch and got better as it went along. The characters sure aren't interesting, but the plot never got boring and I was interested to see the outcome.

**.5/****

Sci-Fi Talk with Jibbs

Oh my God, who cares?

Robocop

Directed by: José Padilha

Written by: Joshua Zetumer and Edward Neumeier & Michael Miner

Based on the 1987 film "Robocop" written by: Edward Neumeier & Michael Miner

Starring: Joel Kinnaman, Gary Oldman, Michael Keaton, Abbie Cornish

Robocop has some good elements to it. Most of all I was impressed with Alex Murphy's journey and transformation. People would have you believe the original was all about the idea of free will and robot vs. man, but they're remembering it wrong. It was mostly about squibs.

The writing of the new Robocop had some good things to say about free will, both in scenes involving Alex Murphy and also with actual discussions between characters of Omnicorp. The original had Murphy go from human, to uncaring robot, to maybe one who still had some humanity sort of. In this film we go from human, to cyborg, to a dead cold robot, and then resolving into something in between. Without going into too much detail, I really liked this part of the film and I would hope real fans of science fiction will, too. This film is smarter than it may appear. There's a great scene, (probably the only "great" scene) where they have to turn down Alex's humanity as if it was a dimmer switch so that he can function in front of the press. They do this, he walks right past his family, and then proceeds to arrest someone in the crowd because of his new surveillance powers. Right here we see the pros and cons of Robocop condensed into about 4 minutes. Btw, the powers that Robocop has by checking videos and applying it to his cop life, although not too original in science fiction, was pretty well done and one of the few highlights. In fact, all of his HUD vision was done pretty well without providing sensory overload which seems to be the new trend in the Blu-ray era of science fiction. He goes into CCTV cameras, finds people, and then gets results. This helps with the idea that having a Robocop would actually be pretty helpful in real life. But the problem with this movie isn't the writing, it's the direction.

Basically, the direction is crap and ruins what could have been a decent film instead of an average and mixed one. The camera angles are lazy and almost always in close-up, there is excessive shaky-cam, the action scenes are a blurry mess which takes cues from the Star Wars prequels and Michael Bay films, and then THERE'S SHAKY-CAM! I try not to complain about this as much these days because it's so prevalent, but I'm tempted to say this film is the worst offender I've ever seen. At least the worst since The Bourne Supremacy. Combine this with the aforementioned close-ups and this tendency the film had to move the camera to follow the action, like someone picking up a gun off a counter in one quick swipe, and you have yourself a headache of a film. This becomes very frustrating in the superior second half of the film because you can almost catch some glimpses of good action. Meanwhile, this is when the story is finally progressing well, so you're forced to do your best to enjoy what's going on through the movie screen, like trying to squint through a rain-covered windshield while driving. Because this movie does get better in the second half, but the hack direction and editing holds it back.

The characters aren't too bad. Joel Kinnaman as Alex Murphy does well enough as both halves of his character, but I'd say the highlight here was Gary Oldman as Dr. Dennett Norton. Does Oldman have a second career ahead of him as the good guy? Because he's been doing pretty well at it since Batman. And speaking of Batman, Michael Keaton does a decent job at playing the head of Omnicorp which could easily have been over-the-top.

**.5/****

Sci-Fi Talk with Jibbs

See above.

The Rod Serling Award

This is a new award I kind of threw in at the last second because I needed ten awards instead of nine. That’s not to say I think it’s a bad idea for an award, I just don’t think it’s the best year to introduce it. If you haven’t guessed already, the Rod Serling Award goes to the best twist or surprise ending. There are definitely two films I want to talk about, though. Naturally, if you haven’t seen these movies and are planning too, spoilers are coming.

The 1st runner up is...

And the award goes to...