Change Your Image
nelly3
Reviews
On the Shoulders of Giants (2012)
Too bad to like; too good to hate
I stumbled across this while streaming from Amazon. The story line is a pretty clear rip off of the old sci-fi classic Forbidden Planet. The crew of the Andromeda, equipped with a new Einstein-Rosenberg drive, travels to a distant world were they encounter the lone survivor of a previous space voyage, a mad scientist who conducts research on the technology of the planet's long dead previous occupants. If you're familiar with the aforementioned Forbidden Planet, you can already guess much of the plot. The mad scientist is obsessed by the advanced technology of the earlier alien civilization and succumbs to the vices that led to that civilization's demise. Seriously, some of the dialogue and scenes are virtually identical to the 1956 film (though the 1956 film was far superior in its graphics). Like the original, the mad scientist killed off the other survivors from his ship. There is a robot (though not nearly as charming as the older Robbie) and the female commander's name, Jane Altaire, is an obvious reference to Altaira from Forbidden Planet. In one scene that stood out, the crew is walking deep in the planet's artificial core and there are cheaply animated replicas of devices that are identical to those from the original 1956 film. Alas, looking out for those film references was one of the only genuine joys of watching this. Unlike its inspiration, however, On the Shoulders of Giants lacks much of the humor and excitement from the earlier film. How I longed for an Earl Holliman-esque character getting drunk with the robot. And where was the wonderful invisible "monster from the Id"? Of all the things to leave out! I suspect the odd characters who looked like cybermen from Dr. Who were supposed to fill that role, but they were a pathetic replacement. One thing, unfortunately, that On the Shoulders of Giants did attempt to "preserve" was an awkward reference to sexism. In the 1956 classic, the weirdly juvenile romance between the strong, manly captain (played by Leslie Nielson) and the very feminine Altaira (played by then 26-year-old Anne Francis) was campy but tolerable and even a little charming. Unless you're the most rigid of social justice warriors, one can forgive the portrayal of women in a film that is now over 60 years old. On the Shoulders of Giants, however, set up one of its crew member as some woman-hating throwback. Now the setting is supposed to be in the 24th century, and women are referred to several times as having prominent careers in space exploration. So the likelihood that misogynistic attitudes would be so prevalent and openly expressed to women commanders 300 or so years from now seems a bit preposterous. This seemed to be a rather gratuitous bit of virtue signaling on the part of the film. Based on the look of the film, my first guess while viewing was that, based on the costumes and graphics, it was some bit of cheap British sci-fi flotsam from around 1990. So I was genuinely shocked to learn that the film had been made nearly a quarter century later than I had suspected. The crew uniforms were baggy grey jumpsuits with completely functionless yellow triangles and patches velcroed on in various spots. The CGI made Tron look advanced in comparison, with the characters awkwardly moving about in a poorly synchronized green screen Chroma key world. My favorite bit was when they were working some presumed alien interface and the "language" consisted of characters from Microsoft's wingdings font. So what do we have so far: a movie that is a rather substandard rip off of an earlier classic sci-fi film and that uses graphics and effects that were amateurish even two decades prior to this film. Still I had to give it a 3 and was tempted to go as high as a 4. The one sustaining element was that the actors kept in character. Regardless of how cheap and fake everything was, they managed against all odds to maintain some level of conviction. Maybe it was the fact that they didn't look like the polished young and attractive 20-somethings what Hollywood usually uses in such roles, but the actors somehow made me believe them and tolerate the abysmal graphics and clunky story line enough to watch the film to completion.
Pacific Rim (2013)
Delightfully pleased
The previews for this film, frankly, had pretty much turned me off. I expected more over the top CGI effects with dreary dialog and a forgettable cast. Thank goodness my AC went out and I chose to seek refuge at the air conditioned cinema. The film's pace was quick and the story line tantalizing enough to hook me. The CGI effects were, of course, there in robust abundance, but - and this was what won my heart - they didn't steal the show from the human drama in the film. The characters are likable and even inspirational. No, these are not vastly deep characters a la Ingmar Bergman; they're more like the characters one used to find in the westerns by directors like John Ford and Howard Hawks. The heroes are archetypes, and the film takes on the qualities of a modern age myth. And to top it off, the film is a lot of fun, too. My hat's off to Guillermo del Toro.
John Carter (2012)
Exciting, engaging and endearing
I went to the film expecting to be disappointed. I knew nothing about the Burroughs story (except that the Frazetta artwork was much appreciated as an adolescent male), and the film trailers gave me the impression that it would be a couple of hours of glitzy special effects but with little substance to the story. Fortunately, a boring Sunday was motivation enough to go and end up being quite pleased by a story that was exciting, engaging and even at times endearing. For the first time in a good while, I left the theater wanting more (and the story line certainly leaves itself open for a sequel). The film has a good look and feel (somewhere I read where a reviewer aptly described it as steam-punk meets Star Wars), and the performances had me believing in the plight of the characters. That it won me over in spite of my initial skepticism and that it made me crave more pushed my rating to a 9. Don't get me wrong, this is not high art. But at least, in my opinion, this met its mark better than other similar films such as Avatar. (I never quite forgave the Avatar hero for abandoning his first flying reptile).
Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares (2004)
Rinse and repeat
Just as Ramsay gives restaurateurs a makeover, so too someone needs to give this series a makeover. Don't get me wrong. It is engaging and entertaining, but often in the typical reality show/disaster beside the road kind of way. Every episode I've ever seen unfolds in precisely the same way: Ramsay arrives and everything is a disaster; he screams and yells at the unbelievably inept owners who reluctantly give in to Ramsay's suggestions (usually, someone storms off - more reason for the f-word); their first attempt is always a disaster; Ramsay redoes the menu and refurbishes the decor and pushes the idea of fresh, local produce and a simpler menu; the grand reopening is a resplendent success. I could look at the clock during the show and tell when the next "act" was going to occur. And there's the issue. The show is too predictable. In reality, every restaurant won't be a success (actually, about half of those places Ramsay visited are closed) and every owner can't possibly be as mind-numbingly imbecilic as they initially appear here. I also find it bizarre that Ramsay remakes the decor of every restaurant he visits: how much does that cost? One other typical Ramsay-esque touch is his pervasive use of profanity (he even has a series called "The F-Word"). At some point, that really seems juvenile and unprofessional. I know it is done for ratings. A grizzled Brit barking obscenities at clueless morons! What a concept for a reality show! But, again, it's endless and becomes monotonous. As said at the outset, the show does manage to engage one a little, but the hook isn't in very deep. I have no doubt that Ramsay is an accomplished chief, and his suggestions (nay, ultimatums) are sound.* But it get's hard to believe that the same magical Ramsay touch would always work so predictably and so perfectly in every restaurant.
*Ramsay's insistence on fresh, local produce was cited by some of the closed restaurants as one of the reasons for their demise. Fresh and local tends to cost more and spoil quicker. Most of the restaurants visited were already at the limits of their finances and this change put them further in the red.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)
Very good, but...
Like so many who've commented here, I, too, was surprised by how good this film was. I remember how brilliant the first Planet of the Apes was back in 1968, and how progressively dreadful were its sequels. And Burton's laughably poor 2001 remake seemed like a possible final nail in the coffin for the Apes genre. But Rise of the Planet of the Apes does rise to the occasion. The film is the prequel to the original Apes film, and while the director was not 100% true to the proposed history from the original Apes films, his version is much more believable and cohesive. While the film relies heavily on CGI, the story is not completely subverted by it. I admit that I found some of the more exaggerated computerized leaping about by the apes a bit over the top, but overall the film showed reasonable restraint. The story is the director's main focus. (And many kudos to John Lithgow who gave a superb albeit heartbreaking performance as an Alzheimer's sufferer). There is, however, something missing. In the 1968 original, there were two scenes that to this day still give me chills. The first was when an ape first appeared in the film (brilliantly punctuated by Jerry Goldsmith's music score), and the second scene was the famous, now iconographic ending. The original Planet of the Apes wasn't just another sci-fi movie; it was philosophical, satirical, thought provoking and effective in its use of cinematic language. Rise of the Planet of the Apes was a thoroughly entertaining 105 minutes, but there was nothing profound, and it would be nice to see something profound again.
Pan Wolodyjowski (1969)
Engaging and Exhilarating
Quite frankly, I was thoroughly captivated. This was made in 1969 and had there were those moments that seemed a bit dated, but nothing sufficient enough to dull the goings on in the film. I'll confess, I always find the love stories in the Trilogy to be a bit contrived (people do seem to fall in and out of love a tad too quickly), but here it was lively and fairly fun. There was considerable effort to make Wolodyjowski and Basia compatible in love and temperament. It was also fascinating to see a young Daniel Olbrychski in his heyday. The characters, major and minor, were all well developed, and the story invigorating. I wanted to fight some Ottoman Turks myself by the end.
Barbarossa (2009)
Had potential but missed the mark
It's a shame. The story has potential. Good ol' fashioned right vs wrong. The film looks pretty good: rousing battle scenes, nice costumes, and good looking actors (Rutger Hauer actually makes a striking Emperor Federick I Barbarossa), but the story meanders. I suspect a bit tighter direction could have saved this film. As is, I never developed any strong sympathies for any of the protagonists. In fact, one's sympathies run as much for Frederick as they do the Milanese supposedly fighting for freedom from the empire (repleat with a recurring Braveheart-esquire cry of 'freedom'). I didn't give it a lower rating because at least the film left me thinking about it enough to want to look it up and write a review (and that is significant). Seeing a film like this always makes one wish to see the results from a more seasoned director.
Planet of the Apes (2001)
Grimly disappointing
When Charlton Heston fell to the first planet of the apes, it offered something profound. It neatly and cleverly captured much of the social climate of the late 60s. Though not without its antecedents, it certainly has to stand as one of the more important social commentary films posing as sci-fi. Burton's remake, however, doesn't even seem to have a coherent story line. I first saw the Burton film upon its release and found it sorely lacking then. But I worried that my reaction might be too colored by my affection for the original. Remakes are frequently hated by fans of the original, and I didn't want to spout off with an unexamined emotional outburst. But I just sat through it again (this time on TV) and my loathing hasn't diminished. Wahlberg's performance still strikes me as wooden and lacking in purpose. From the very moment of his arrival to the ape world, his only objective is to escape from the planet. So why did he travel out to the planet in the first place? Heston's character of more than 30 years past at least went to explore (to see if there was anything better than man out there). Baker's ape makeup in the remake was good, but effects alone can't make a movie. The humans were no doubt the worst characters in the remake. Like Wahlberg they lacked any depth, and their passivity to ape domination produced more annoyance instead of sympathy. In the original the humans were primitive mutes whose mannerisms were bestial. They brought on pity one might feel for a hunted animal, which they were supposed to be. Another strikingly annoying element in the Burton film was the strange love triangle formed by Helena Bonham Carter as a chimp (albeit a very cute chimp), the collagen-lipped Estella Warren as a primitive human, and Wahlberg. I have no idea what Burton was going for there. While Burton's early films didn't wow me, they nonetheless didn't annoy me. My first impression was simply that he could churn out glitzy Hollywood pablum. Then he made Ed Wood and I suddenly wondered if I had overlooked a film genius. But the profound lack of substance in Apes convinces me that I was right the first time. (And Big Fish hasn't caused me to alter that view).