Mike Myers (who is currently going through Eddie Murphy syndrome - massive talent that seems to have vanished somewhere in Hollywood) indulges himself but it just about works. The sheer originality of the first film is lost here because of the recycling - but, ironically, this tends to make many of the sequences much funnier as a result. Indeed it's all too evident in that the weakest parts of the film are the new characters - Mini-Me is just about tolerable, but Fat Bastard simply doesn't work - whereas the best bits - like the Jerry Springer sequences - are magnificent precisely because of the trouble taken to build on the characters we already knew. And some of the ideas are inspired - like casting Rob Lowe as Number 2,, figuring out how to use Liz Hurley, and the Time Machine gags - and that more than makes up for the misfires - most of the rest of the Moonbase stuff for instance. More than a decade later, it's still funny. But I doubt it will bear another viewing for me - at least not for another decade, anyway.
Reviews
4 Reviews
I, Robot
(2004)
Better than I remembered
19 March 2011
Intelligent Science Fiction seems to be an oxymoron in Hollywood (unless perhaps you are Christopher Nolan, and even there I am not convinced.) But this action blockbuster at least tries to bring some smarts to the genre even if it fails to progress much beyond cliché in the general characterisation. It's also a shame that Asimov's Robot stories haven't been mined more thoroughly either before or since (unlike PK Dick who seems to be eternal flavour of the month.) Indeed the central conceit of this particular screenplay should really have been in a sequel (or even later) since it relies on the audience properly understanding the implications of the Three Laws so that the logical conclusion which is drawn in the film has more of an impact in terms of what it really means. But Will Smith is as watchable as ever, and the effects still stand up pretty well today (7 years on) with the mass robot sequences working especially well. I was surprised how much I enjoyed it (even if the plot holes are all too apparent) and yes, I think it does qualify as Intelligent SF.
WarGames
(1983)
Still packs a punch
20 October 2009
Watching this movie 25 years on, it still works. Obviously the onward march of technology has rendered several of the central plot devices redundant (although, to be honest, most modern techno-thriller entries are far less plausible) but the sheer tension of the story grabs you almost from the off and never lets go - there aren't many genre movies that got an Oscar-nomination for screenplay, which amply demonstrates its quality.
And the last ten minutes or so are still jaw-dropping. That spectacular (if implausible) NORAD set is as astounding as ever, and the last line still deserves it's place in the pantheon.
Laugh at the antiquated tech by all means, but be impressed by the effort taken to make it feel believable (cf. the sequence where Broderick's character gets the password for the school computer.) Hacker movies have rarely come this close to being real - and, as someone who had been there and done that at about that time, it was scarily right.
In no way is this one of the greatest movies ever made. But there's no question that it achieves the rare quality of transcending it's genre.
And the last ten minutes or so are still jaw-dropping. That spectacular (if implausible) NORAD set is as astounding as ever, and the last line still deserves it's place in the pantheon.
Laugh at the antiquated tech by all means, but be impressed by the effort taken to make it feel believable (cf. the sequence where Broderick's character gets the password for the school computer.) Hacker movies have rarely come this close to being real - and, as someone who had been there and done that at about that time, it was scarily right.
In no way is this one of the greatest movies ever made. But there's no question that it achieves the rare quality of transcending it's genre.
Contact
(1997)
You've got to have faith...
27 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I'm one of those people who finds it terribly difficult to compile a list of my Top Ten movies - it changes from week to week, depending upon my mood. I have had more success in compiling a list of Desert Island Movies, however: those films that I could bear to watch over-and-over if they were the only ones I had. 2 Bob Zemeckis films make that list (Back to the Future is the other one, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit? comes close.) Every time I rewatch it, I find new things to appreciate without losing any of the magic it contains. The opening sequence in particular is still one of the finest ever committed to film - I'm glad I saw it in the cinema but even on the small screen it loses little of its power.
As other reviewers have noted, "intelligent" SF is a rarity in films. And this is clearly very much a "science" fiction movie. What makes Contact so extraordinary is that it also respects religion without trivialising either component, and challenges the viewer all the way through to stay one step ahead whilst still surprising you at every turn; the false-ending after the first machine explodes has to be up there with the very best.
There are some holes to pick - ultimately, the big reveal at the end is less of a kicker than it should be (there would be other things to explain beyond just the static tape, and the whole hoax concept is just far too easy to rip to pieces), but that's not the point. What you get are a collection of marvellous performances, including Matthew McConaughy, who I usually can't abide, and a brilliantly creepy turn by Tom Skerritt, combined with silky smooth direction and a screenplay that expects you to follow what is going on - taking the ideas in Carl Sagan's original novel and extending them in ways that could only be done on screen. The biggest coup for me was making the climax of the film nothing to do with her "close encounter" at all, but the big showdown in Congress - a remarkable achievement but one that succeeds in bringing closure to the story in a way that Sagan's book never quite managed.
Literally the only thing that dates this film is the (somewhat clumsy) inclusion of stock footage of President Bill Clinton. Otherwise, I could see this film being released today without any trouble - and probably receiving much the same reception from many critics: too smart, too understated, too preachy. And, just like last time, they'd be wrong again.
As other reviewers have noted, "intelligent" SF is a rarity in films. And this is clearly very much a "science" fiction movie. What makes Contact so extraordinary is that it also respects religion without trivialising either component, and challenges the viewer all the way through to stay one step ahead whilst still surprising you at every turn; the false-ending after the first machine explodes has to be up there with the very best.
There are some holes to pick - ultimately, the big reveal at the end is less of a kicker than it should be (there would be other things to explain beyond just the static tape, and the whole hoax concept is just far too easy to rip to pieces), but that's not the point. What you get are a collection of marvellous performances, including Matthew McConaughy, who I usually can't abide, and a brilliantly creepy turn by Tom Skerritt, combined with silky smooth direction and a screenplay that expects you to follow what is going on - taking the ideas in Carl Sagan's original novel and extending them in ways that could only be done on screen. The biggest coup for me was making the climax of the film nothing to do with her "close encounter" at all, but the big showdown in Congress - a remarkable achievement but one that succeeds in bringing closure to the story in a way that Sagan's book never quite managed.
Literally the only thing that dates this film is the (somewhat clumsy) inclusion of stock footage of President Bill Clinton. Otherwise, I could see this film being released today without any trouble - and probably receiving much the same reception from many critics: too smart, too understated, too preachy. And, just like last time, they'd be wrong again.
Tell Your Friends