November 4, 2008 - 1:30 am - Posted by Administrator
Maria Lidon directs and co-stars in this Spanish science fiction film (in English) about an expedition to Mars which crash lands on the surface. Faced with certain death, the international crew of astronauts is forced to consider extreme measures.
The script for Stranded is actually quite good save for a few “scientific liberties” which detract from the realism. And the cast includes a few gems including Vincent Gallo[Buffalo ‘66, Goodfellas] as the pessimistic engineer, Maria De Madeiros[Babel, Pulp Fiction] as the determined medical officer, and Joaquim de Almeida[Clear and Present Danger, 24] as the level-headed Fidel Rodrigo. As accomplished actors, they all do a remarkable job with difficult space-oriented terminology. Stranded’s primary downfall is the badly dubbed voices of Director Lidon’s character Susana Sanchez and co-star Daniel Aser’s character Herbert Sagan. I don’t know if they dubbed their own performances or had other voice actors handle it, but they are terrible. The stilted scientific dialog doesn’t ease the task, and it shows. The late Johnny Ramone plays a small part as the co-pilot Lowell who stays behind on the mothership in orbit and actually gives a better performance than Lidon or Aser.
Now lest you think I’m being unduly harsh, I will say this low-budget space flick does a remarkably good job portraying realistic spaceflight scenarios on a severely limited budget. The indoor sets look like they came right off the international space station. The outdoor scenes look a lot like Mars, although the low resolution computer graphics begin to show when we’re subjected to views of the planet from orbit.
The pacing of Stranded can be a little slow at times, the story building from the crew’s initial resignation at their plight, through desperation to survive, and culminating with an amazing discovery on the red planet. It’s that amazing discovery that seems to be the entire purpose of the script, and it takes a while to get there. The time that could have been spent building character definition is ultimately wasted on sequences of petty arguments that prove inconsequential to the outcome.
Personally, I think young directors and writers would benefit the most from viewing Stranded. It’s a textbook low budget science fiction movie that can teach you a few tricks, and most certainly shows a few examples of what to avoid.
March 22, 2008 - 8:44 pm - Posted by Administrator
Any movie where New York City is one huge ghost town is alright with me. However, I Am Legend feels like a re-write too many on a concept that’s nearly overdone at present–the concept that thinking, feeling humans have disappeared and the world is populated by mindless, blood-thirsty beasts, devoid of emotion and feeling.
Will Smith stars as Robert Neville, the last known survivor of a plague that began as a viral cure for cancer. In 2009, the plague nearly wipes out the human race. Neville is left as the lone remaining human in New York City, the rest of the inhabitants having been transformed into ‘zompires’ by the virus. OK, they’re not really called ‘zompires’ but they might as well be. I Am Legend’s screenplay was co-written by co-producer Akiva Goldsman–producer of such winners as Deep Blue Sea, Starsky and Hutch, and Poseidon. Goldsman’s screenplay was in turn based on a screenplay by John William Corrington for 1971’s Omega Man starring Charleton Heston, which was in turn based on the novel by Richard Matheson. Why the studio would decide to bring a classic science fiction novel to the big screen by borrowing from a badly-done version of the story from the seventies is beyond me. Perhaps it’s Goldsman’s penchant for lame remakes. Note to Goldsman: you’re standing on the shoulders of giants and ruining what they’ve achieved.
Couple the remake-prone producer Goldsman with a director [Francis Lawrence] whose only credits are music videos, and you’ve invited disaster. I look forward to the day when movie studios understand that classic science fiction stories need to be produced and directed by auteurs with singular uncompromised vision, not thrown together from fragments of screenplays and helmed by whomever happens to be free to direct/produce at the moment that fits the studio’s schedule. It’s about more than money.
Robert Neville spends his days in New York City hunting for food and having conversation with his only friend… his dog. He maintains a sense of normalcy by watching DVDs–one at a time–which he faithfully retrieves from a video store each day, talking to the mannequins he’s arranged in the store as if they were real humans. He has recorded a message which is repeatedly broadcast on the radio–a plea for anyone who hears it to meet him on the pier at midday. His wait for a response stretches into it’s third year, and Neville keeps busy by continuing his work as a biologist in his basement lab, working on a cure for the virus which has turned nearly six billion people into “darkseekers”–blood thirsty mutants with compulsively violent urges. They are powerfully allergic to light and stay inside in the day, coming out at night to feed on blood.
The problem with movies like I Am Legend is, there is only one reasonable outcome… the lone survivor of the apocalypse will eventually discover he’s not alone. Knowing that in advance, it can get pretty frustrating waiting for the other humans to show up when the story moves at a snail’s pace like this one does.
There are lots of great special effects, and the city of New York makes a great character, even when it’s empty, but the story just didn’t hook me. The computer-animated nature of the “darkseekers” gives a sense of artificiality to villains who would have been far scarier had they been more human. Neville’s flashbacks to his prior life are annoying as well. The whole movie I kept thinking they would have been better-served to have just told the flashback part of the story first, then progress to the post-apocalypse part of the story in linear fashion instead of flashing back and forth the whole time.
In the end, making this bad adaptation of Richard Matheson’s story only ensured one thing–that this story will eventually be adapted again. Let’s hope they get it right next time.
February 24, 2008 - 4:32 pm - Posted by Administrator
Children of Men is a rare example of a science fiction concept that’s so intriguing and unique, I decided I had to see it just because it was different. It’s 2027 and the scourge of mankind is none of the usual suspects… not cancer, not HIV, but unexplained infertility. It’s been 19 years since a human was born on planet Earth.
As with most of the science fiction films of the George W. Bush era, the post-apocalyptic storyline neccessitates the incorporation of concepts from the headlines, including homeland security, the erosion of civil liberties, and citizen internment. Many scenes were reminiscent of the imprisonment of the Jews as widely depicted in the war films of the last several decades. Children of Men is a virtual study of our society’s deepest darkest fears at a time when western ideas are reviled, technology is suspect, and religious fundamentalism is at an all time high.
Theo Faron [Clive Owen] works for the Government and his ex-wife Julian [Julianne Moore] is a member of a radical anti-government insurgency. Together they find themselves transporting a young British girl with one remarkable attribute–she’s pregnant. And hence my dislike for the movie. Like most of the grey science fiction concepts of late, nothing much happens other than “let’s go here, now we have to run away“. Repeat twelve times.
Director Alfonso Cuaron [Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban] did a great job of building the universe and filling the back story through the incorporation of background elements like billboards, media reports, and even graffiti. Britain is the last bastion of civilization (and only modestly civilized at that) and the government has implemented mandatory fertility testing. Non-compliance is a crime. Citizens are urged to report suspicious activity. Believing infertility is a punishment from God, religious groups urge repentance. All are introduced in the background.
Unfortunately, all that heavy symbolism (and the stunning sobriety of Clive Owen as hero Theo Faron) didn’t do much for my viewing experience. I must be the rare exception to the rule, because nearly every science fiction fan I’ve talked to thought Children of Men was the second coming of cinema. I didn’t care for it.
Children of Men is bleak and beautiful, well-crafted and thought-provoking. That said, I still thought it was boring and below-average. That unique and intriguing concept I mentioned at the beginning is all this movie really has at the end. An interesting situation filled with cardboard characters.
February 17, 2008 - 7:33 pm - Posted by Administrator
Runaway is another of a litany of Michael Crichton concepts that were done about twenty years too early.
Tom Selleck stars as a police officer–an expert in robotics–in a near-future where Amercian life is saturated with domestic robots. Although they perform all the menial tasks that nobody wants to do, they occasionally go haywire and require intervention from Sgt. Jack Ramsay [Selleck]. When Ramsay discovers robots which appear to have been programmed to kill, he goes on a search for Dr. Charles Luther [Gene Simmons], a madman in possession of computerized mini-shells the size of a bullet that function like a guided-missile. Kirstie Alley appears in a supporting role as a pawn in Luther’s evil plan.
Runaway falls short in so many areas… I remember seeing it as a kid and being plugged into the movie until about twenty minutes in. I was transfixed by the images of a near-future where everybody has their own robot. But once the story begins to pursue Luther and his ‘heat-seeking’ bullets, I somehow lost interest. Re-watching as a grown man, I still feel the same way. The story is told in a super-realistic method which is a movie-making technique I’ve always loved. Unfortunately, Runaway was made in 1984 in a pre-cell phone, pre-internet time, so watching today… the movie doesn’t stand up. From Ramsay’s laser weapon in the beginning of the movie, to the refrigerator-sized computers, everything that’s meant to look futuristic now looks dated.
The special effects crew on Runaway used existing technology (presumably for budgetary reasons) to depict the robotic action and the shortcomings are obvious. The arachnid-style six-legged robot minions that so many are familiar with from this movie are literally dropped onto some of the actors to nearly laughable effect. Although they look cool, the robots can’t really do anything else and their most dramatic tactic–attacking in swarms–is brought into the movie too late. The soundtrack couldn’t be more stereotypical eighties either–cheesy synth.
For all it’s defects, the concept for Runaway–a cop who has to fight rebellious robots–is one that could be re-done well.
January 9, 2008 - 10:20 pm - Posted by Administrator
OK, so I’m gonna admit right up front, I had about five beers and a couple of margaritas in me, and it was about one thirty in the morning before I finally sat down to watch Final one night. I think I DVR’ed it from the Independent Film Channel if I remember right. It’s possible that I don’t because of the beers and margaritas, but if you’ve been reading much of this blog, you probably already know I’m full of shit, so no point pretending I’m informed now. Occasionally I take notes while I’m watching movies so I can refer to them later when I blog it. Here’s what I wrote for Final:
I don’t know if I can buy Denis Leary in this type of role.
This is a science fiction movie without special effects!
After that my writing trails off on the page and ends in a stain that can only be the drool from where I fell asleep at about three am.
Here’s the deal. Final is one of those concepts that was borne out of a love for science fiction, minus the money to do it properly. Final is as low-budget as they come. Denis Leary is Bill, a man who wakes up in something that’s not quite a prison, but a little more than a hospital. We do not know exactly what Bill’s malady is, but we are treated to flashbacks from his life where he appears to be going through a very tough time. He’s the outcast of his family, he’s broken up with his fiancee, his father has died, and eventually he flashes back to his own apparent attempted suicide.
His therapist Ann (Hope Davis) is in charge of deciding whether he’s “recovering” or not. She begins work figuring out why he has delusions of being cryogenically frozen for four hundred years, and why he believes he will soon be executed. Just as you’re about to go, “OK, what the fuck??” and hit the stop button on the DVR, the story unfurls itself all at once and you find out that Bill hasn’t been frozen for four hundred years, but he is going to die soon.
The pacing in Final is terrible. Nothing seems to happen for the first half of the movie, then they reveal, like, ten plot points all at once, then there’s a long slow slide to the end. It’s like Denis Leary said “I’ve been frozen for four hundred years” and the doctors said “No you haven’t. Seriously.” Then as the movie viewer, you go “OK, whew. Cuz that would have been weird.” Then the Doctors say, “Instead you’ve been in a coma, your mom died, your girlfriend abandoned you to a science experiment and got remarried, we froze you, there was a terrible epidemic that ravaged the world, now we woke you up, but we have to kill you so we can save the world with your tissue cells because you were frozen before the pandemic burned into the human genome.” And all of that is revealed in less than five minutes. Nothing else happens. And the entire movie (except the brief flashbacks) happens in the hospital. Jim Gaffigan plays a hospital orderlie who hardly ever speaks.
December 13, 2007 - 8:06 pm - Posted by Administrator
Soylent Green stars Charlton Heston in another of his 1970’s sci-fi roles. Many people are familiar with this movie via the well-known parody done by Phil Hartman on Saturday Night Live, and Soylent Green is frequently the butt of many jokes by those who would label it low-budget sci-fi schlock.
OK, so maybe it is low-budget sci-fi schlock, but worthy of a look nonetheless. The world of Soylent Green is New York in 2022. The world is hopelessly overpopulated, supplies are short, and food is rationed. Fresh food is nearly non-existent, and millions survive on processed government surplus foods known as “Soylent”. Soylent Green is the newest variety and hyped as the answer to mankind’s hunger.
Much like one of Heston’s other starring sci-fi vehicles, Planet of the Apes, Soylent Green has a surprise ending (which will be spoiled for you if you’ve seen the aforementioned skit from SNL with Phil Hartman, so if you haven’t seen it, try to avoid it until you watch Soylent Green).
Being a sci-fi movie of the seventies, Soylent Green suffers from the same malady as many other flicks of the era - nothing much happens. But the movie is worth a view if for no other reason than to familiarize yourself with one of the most persistent science fiction themes - that of overpopulation and the Earth’s surrender of every natural resource to a ravenous human race.
Any movie where New York City is one huge ghost town is alright with me. However, 
Children of Men
Runaway
Soylent Green
