I was skeptical at first, because I didn't understand the format. I was glad when it evolved into something more varied. I have to say that I adore Russel Brand for his wit and intelligence. I love how he brings in people with hateful views and then has a discussion with them to try to mellow our their hatred, but also doesn't shy for calling them on where their reasoning is idiotic, and in an eloquent and glib way that isn't actually disrespectful. The fact that he brings homeless people into his show is very touching to me. I always think about how cool it must be for the guy to be on TV. It doesn't solve their problems, it's just a cool experience that the world has probably largely denied them. And it makes you realize that such people exist - not only the ex-homeless, but the currently homeless, with an unpleasant predicament, and they are people like you and me. Most of all, this show is funny and made me laugh so hard that I cried on a few occasions. I really hope that it stays on air.
Reviews
24 Reviews
Abraxas
(2010)
Comedy and philosophy
13 April 2011
This movie has to be read between the lines. A very kind-hearted comedy about an outsider looking for a way in, it's a story of a Buddhist monk, ex-rocker, pushed into the order by his family, who wanted to disassociate him from his destructive and embarrassing antics on the stage. Now, held together by the peace of the shrine and pills, he suffers a crisis of self and decides that he needs to play live one more time. His family and the people around him are all trying to go through the same process in different ways - should one be pushed into a social self (perhaps more important in Japanese culture than in most Western societies), or allowed self-expression at all costs? By exploring the wacky characters around Zonen, the movie takes us through a comedic story, all the while hinting at deeper questions of trying to find enlightenment. The music and camera work are fluid. I was very happy watching and re-watching it, and truly recommend it.
Tales from Earthsea
(2006)
Disappointing schematic jumble
24 October 2010
I am a fan of both Ursula K. Le Guin's books, and Studio Ghibli's animation. I've read all of the Earthsea books, and I've seen most of Miyazaki's work, some of the movies dozens of times. I was putting off watching this adaptation, having read Le Guin's review of it, but I finally saw it and I am sorely disappointed. First of all, why are all the characters white? In the books, the peoples of most of the islands are dark-skinned (light brown to pretty dark), with the exception of the inhabitants of the Kargad lands, who are white. Notably, Tenar comes from Kargad and her white skin is the main reason why she is distrusted by the people in the village she lives in - in this adaptation, everybody is white, and so the women's dislike of Tenar was completely unmotivated, so they made her into a witch. The adaptation mixes together three different books, and rewrites all of the characters so that they are not complete and are unmotivated. If this was an adaptation of Lord of the Rings, it would be about the journey of a village of Hobbit-Elves in a fleet of ships to fight Sauron and his army of intelligent spiders. It is impossible for me to realize how anyone would be able to follow this movie without having read the books, and I myself was only able to figure out what I am supposed to think about why the characters in the movie did what they did because I recalled the original character and mentally "added" the aspects that the creators of the adaptation simplified, changed and botched. The characters are unrealistic and announce their lines with little motivation (as in you don't know why they're saying something and what it's supposed to mean), and not only they, but most of the elements of the plot and the world are unmotivated, like the people who made the movie introduced them but then forgot that they were supposed to make sense. One example is the very first scene of the movie, with two dragons fighting. Why are all those people so surprised when they see the dragons and when they fight? The books weave the world of Earthsea into one internally coherent and motivated whole, but in this movie all we get are like section titles on the index page. The main plot theme of the movie, of the wizards losing their powers, as well as the other main themes of dragons, the Equilibrium, the abuse and disregard of women from certain characters, Jungian shadows, and the story of Therru, are completely unexplained and just presented in a way that makes them pretty pictures but not a masterful story like in the Earthsea books. Even the typically gorgeous animation and artistic quality are in my view one of the worst in Ghibli's roster (apart from the beautiful backgrounds). The only thing that stands out is the Japanese voice-acting, which is top-notch, with Yuuko Tanaka's Cob the most masterful performance (although I had to get used to a female voice on that character), and Aoi Teshima's Therru also standing out. The score is also pleasant to the ear, as always in a Ghibli production. All in all, it's a hunge, washed-down, simplistic disappointment. Please do not ever watch it if you have not read the first four Earthsea books, even if you're not planning to read them - you may wind up with the whole set after a plane crash on a desert island one day, and then what you see in your mind will be sullied by having watched this adaptation.
Arjuna
(2001)
Environmentalist misinformation in a beautiful package
23 March 2009
First of all, I would like to urge everybody who has seen this series to research and confirm and / or dis-confirm ALL the information that this anime gave you for yourself. Use Wikipedia, and Google, and ask questions in discussion boards. A lot of the "scientific" information in this anime is merely opinion, and should be treated as questions, and parts of the plot, rather than any kind of scientific fact.
I really liked the visual style of this anime. Unlike most of the reviewers, I liked it throughout the series. There is a very interesting mix of hand-drawn animation, computer graphics, collage and live-action video. Although the animation could be better, the characters are drawn and designed in an appealing way, most of the time (especially the supernatural incarnations), and the backgrounds are very beautifully detailed. The aspect of this anime that I personally found the most beautiful was the music - I didn't even know it was composed by Yoko Kanno until I watched the whole series and looked it up, but I love her soundtracks and this one is very special, and one to remember. There are a lot of vocal tracks, and almost no lyrics, and the styles are nicely varied throughout.
What I personally didn't like about this anime, thought, is that it's religious propaganda in 13 colorful episodes. The plot development is centered around the growth of the environmental awareness of the main protagonist. Every episode introduces a new aspect of how people are destroying their world, according to the makers of this show. I am afraid that many viewers might take a lot of the information in this anime as fact, or close to fact, instead of fantasy. It works well as fantasy - there is a simplistic concept of evil, which is made flesh and presented as the antagonist of the show, a material slug-like monster referred to as "Raaja" (Japanese has no grammatical plural, so the Raja might as well be one single entity). Pollution is Raaja. Misunderstanding, argument, and the misleading openness of verbal communication is Raaja. Non-individuality is Raaja, the meat industry is Raaja, and abortion is Raaja. Juna, the protagonist of the show, has to learn how to confront the Raaja and thus save humanity, before it is too late. The problem with this show is that it offers many descriptions of pseudo-facts about the world, like: if you're really sick, you should ingest a drink made from dried human umbilical cord, which will instantly replenish your depleted store of benign bacteria and cure you; almost all diseases require no medication; bugs only eat specific parts of plants, in order to preserve the general equilibrium of the ecosystem; having sex while pregnant amounts to raping the baby (yes, there is actually something akin to a baby-rape scene in the show); pesticides are gases used in military warfare - and so forth. At times, this made me want to choke the show.
You can't choke a show, and you can't treat such information literally - assuming that the anime is not a latent introduction to Scientology, with which it seems to share a very basic metaphysical message, it is possible to assume that the authors wanted to place such outrageous hyperboles, gross oversimplifications, and plain personal opinions, into the show, in order to make the audience care about their decisions and the environment a lot more, because it's for an outrageous, impossible, yet striking image or fact to guide one's actions, than level-headed scientific information. But I just could not stand the way most of that could have been conceived as real-world fact. It really hurt the show, in my opinion, because instead of being a fantasy anime with environmental themes, it turned into propaganda in nice images.
One of the reviewers mentioned Ghibli's "Princess Mononoke", one of my favorite movies of all time. That is also a fantasy anime, with a strong environmental theme, but it manages to keep that theme in the bounds of fantasy, and works great like that, in my opinion (even imparting one with interesting insight into the potential plight of the environment). Earth Girl Arjuna is really disappointing in that respect. I have been a vegetarian (and on/off vegan) for the last 10 years, and I recycle, and save electricity and water, and I think that anime is plain misinformed. A number of changes could have turned it into a fantasy anime with an environmental theme, but here the focus is so much on propaganda and extreme simplification that I lost my suspension of disbelief. Instead of raising questions and awareness, it raises concern and, at worst, a religious-like belief. I can understand what the idea was, but as a thinking person I feel offended. A nice package, though.
I really liked the visual style of this anime. Unlike most of the reviewers, I liked it throughout the series. There is a very interesting mix of hand-drawn animation, computer graphics, collage and live-action video. Although the animation could be better, the characters are drawn and designed in an appealing way, most of the time (especially the supernatural incarnations), and the backgrounds are very beautifully detailed. The aspect of this anime that I personally found the most beautiful was the music - I didn't even know it was composed by Yoko Kanno until I watched the whole series and looked it up, but I love her soundtracks and this one is very special, and one to remember. There are a lot of vocal tracks, and almost no lyrics, and the styles are nicely varied throughout.
What I personally didn't like about this anime, thought, is that it's religious propaganda in 13 colorful episodes. The plot development is centered around the growth of the environmental awareness of the main protagonist. Every episode introduces a new aspect of how people are destroying their world, according to the makers of this show. I am afraid that many viewers might take a lot of the information in this anime as fact, or close to fact, instead of fantasy. It works well as fantasy - there is a simplistic concept of evil, which is made flesh and presented as the antagonist of the show, a material slug-like monster referred to as "Raaja" (Japanese has no grammatical plural, so the Raja might as well be one single entity). Pollution is Raaja. Misunderstanding, argument, and the misleading openness of verbal communication is Raaja. Non-individuality is Raaja, the meat industry is Raaja, and abortion is Raaja. Juna, the protagonist of the show, has to learn how to confront the Raaja and thus save humanity, before it is too late. The problem with this show is that it offers many descriptions of pseudo-facts about the world, like: if you're really sick, you should ingest a drink made from dried human umbilical cord, which will instantly replenish your depleted store of benign bacteria and cure you; almost all diseases require no medication; bugs only eat specific parts of plants, in order to preserve the general equilibrium of the ecosystem; having sex while pregnant amounts to raping the baby (yes, there is actually something akin to a baby-rape scene in the show); pesticides are gases used in military warfare - and so forth. At times, this made me want to choke the show.
You can't choke a show, and you can't treat such information literally - assuming that the anime is not a latent introduction to Scientology, with which it seems to share a very basic metaphysical message, it is possible to assume that the authors wanted to place such outrageous hyperboles, gross oversimplifications, and plain personal opinions, into the show, in order to make the audience care about their decisions and the environment a lot more, because it's for an outrageous, impossible, yet striking image or fact to guide one's actions, than level-headed scientific information. But I just could not stand the way most of that could have been conceived as real-world fact. It really hurt the show, in my opinion, because instead of being a fantasy anime with environmental themes, it turned into propaganda in nice images.
One of the reviewers mentioned Ghibli's "Princess Mononoke", one of my favorite movies of all time. That is also a fantasy anime, with a strong environmental theme, but it manages to keep that theme in the bounds of fantasy, and works great like that, in my opinion (even imparting one with interesting insight into the potential plight of the environment). Earth Girl Arjuna is really disappointing in that respect. I have been a vegetarian (and on/off vegan) for the last 10 years, and I recycle, and save electricity and water, and I think that anime is plain misinformed. A number of changes could have turned it into a fantasy anime with an environmental theme, but here the focus is so much on propaganda and extreme simplification that I lost my suspension of disbelief. Instead of raising questions and awareness, it raises concern and, at worst, a religious-like belief. I can understand what the idea was, but as a thinking person I feel offended. A nice package, though.
exploring the meaning of emotion
26 May 2008
Although emotions are everywhere, in all of us, they are at the same time nowhere to be found, since everything you can put a finger on and call an emotion will be different for any other person experiencing the same state. And yet, the names of emotions seem to be self-explanatory and self-evident. Star Trek stories are never realistic, in the sense that they unroll in a world of big ideas, delivered theatrically and without the bounds of present reality. Star Trek can ask big questions and although the answers are not always thorough, I have found that of all the popular television, Star Trek is the only show where these "big questions" are centered upon so much at all.
One of the ways Star Trek does this is by having an alien race to stand for a metaphor or a symbol of one single human trait, flaw or a characteristic. The Volcans embody the rational part of us. Very often, this is portrayed as a flaw, the Volcans being arrogant and silly with their over-reliance on logic. This episode is special in that it portrays the Volcans' reliance on the suppression of all emotion and on logic as a vulnerability or disability. It also shows an interesting aspect of emotional exchanges in real human societies, that is, that emotions can be used in barter. If a person is drawn to a particular state, but depends on others to allow her to experience it, that person is susceptible to being used by people who see that they can use her need for a particular emotion to control her. This way, the emotion (be it fear, anger, lust, or security) becomes a sort of substance, like a drug, and the person who is drawn to it and must take it from others can be seen as an addict. This episode portrays this dynamic very well, along with the shame that a person who normally relies on her reason and composure to guide her in life feels when they own up to their addiction and / or find themselves incapable of resisting the need for a fix any more.
Unfortunately, this episode is not perfect, in my opinion, and this is mostly due to how Enrique Murciano plays his Volcan character Tolaris. I simply can't see how his portrayal can be read as a coherent character. My reaction to the character can be caused by an emotional response, however - I find the character disturbing. However, in general, almost every line he speaks has the same intonation pattern. He also somehow has a smile on his face most of the time. Something in this character just didn't totally "click" for me, especially that he was one of the leads. These emotional Volcans had great potential, and I feel that the episode did not explore the potential of those characters deep enough. Anyhow, this episode is certainly worth watching, one of the top episodes of the series, in my opinion. All the regulars do a great job, as usual, with Scott Bacula once again proving he is perfect as this kind of captain. Of course, Jolene Blalock's T'Pol is impeccable, as always. Really recommend this.
One of the ways Star Trek does this is by having an alien race to stand for a metaphor or a symbol of one single human trait, flaw or a characteristic. The Volcans embody the rational part of us. Very often, this is portrayed as a flaw, the Volcans being arrogant and silly with their over-reliance on logic. This episode is special in that it portrays the Volcans' reliance on the suppression of all emotion and on logic as a vulnerability or disability. It also shows an interesting aspect of emotional exchanges in real human societies, that is, that emotions can be used in barter. If a person is drawn to a particular state, but depends on others to allow her to experience it, that person is susceptible to being used by people who see that they can use her need for a particular emotion to control her. This way, the emotion (be it fear, anger, lust, or security) becomes a sort of substance, like a drug, and the person who is drawn to it and must take it from others can be seen as an addict. This episode portrays this dynamic very well, along with the shame that a person who normally relies on her reason and composure to guide her in life feels when they own up to their addiction and / or find themselves incapable of resisting the need for a fix any more.
Unfortunately, this episode is not perfect, in my opinion, and this is mostly due to how Enrique Murciano plays his Volcan character Tolaris. I simply can't see how his portrayal can be read as a coherent character. My reaction to the character can be caused by an emotional response, however - I find the character disturbing. However, in general, almost every line he speaks has the same intonation pattern. He also somehow has a smile on his face most of the time. Something in this character just didn't totally "click" for me, especially that he was one of the leads. These emotional Volcans had great potential, and I feel that the episode did not explore the potential of those characters deep enough. Anyhow, this episode is certainly worth watching, one of the top episodes of the series, in my opinion. All the regulars do a great job, as usual, with Scott Bacula once again proving he is perfect as this kind of captain. Of course, Jolene Blalock's T'Pol is impeccable, as always. Really recommend this.
The Man from Earth
(2007)
a deep story and a taste of what good SF can be like
12 December 2007
I was delighted to watch this movie. I have always been a fan of science fiction literature, as well as sci fi cinema. Sadly, sci fi cinema usually presents us with VERY simplistic stories, and if we are lucky, some good entertainment. Very rarely are we treated to anything spiritually enriching. This movie has a lot of what good literary science fiction has to offer - a story with a simple science-fiction gimmick with good potential, developed in such a way that without any CGI and car chases, we get to experience something exciting and certainly worth our time. Like I said, the basic idea, of a character having lived through thousands of years, is not that original, but as both an avid sci fi cinema and story fan I can tell you that I can't think of a single story or movie which developed the idea so intelligently and coherently.
This movie gives us insightful perspectives on knowledge, memory and identity, and the impact of one's actions on the perceptions of others, and how those perceptions can be forged into reality, either through time (history) or categorization (as sane, insane, credible etc). Although the movie is mostly dialog, and at the beginning I was preparing myself to be bored by the format, what is being said is so interesting that it will certainly hold your attention, especially that we get to see strong performances from the main characters/talkers (all are good enough). Also, the movie is not too long, and has very nice pacing for what it is (not an action movie).
Strong science fiction stories found their way onto the screen before, but they were usually simplified or censored (think Twilight Zone) or watered down to fit into a simpler, action-oriented frame (like most adaptations of Philip K. Dick and Isaac Asimov), and there have been many examples of original screen science fiction, but the story in this movie is the work of someone with a great deal of insight on what people are, it is spiritually enriching without being moralizing at all, and is portrayed in a very nice peaceful movie too. So give yourself a treat and buy the DVD - I hear this is independent cinema, so they will need all the support you can give. Skip a box-office hit and use the ticket money to give yourself the pleasure of seeing something truly original. I really recommend this.
This movie gives us insightful perspectives on knowledge, memory and identity, and the impact of one's actions on the perceptions of others, and how those perceptions can be forged into reality, either through time (history) or categorization (as sane, insane, credible etc). Although the movie is mostly dialog, and at the beginning I was preparing myself to be bored by the format, what is being said is so interesting that it will certainly hold your attention, especially that we get to see strong performances from the main characters/talkers (all are good enough). Also, the movie is not too long, and has very nice pacing for what it is (not an action movie).
Strong science fiction stories found their way onto the screen before, but they were usually simplified or censored (think Twilight Zone) or watered down to fit into a simpler, action-oriented frame (like most adaptations of Philip K. Dick and Isaac Asimov), and there have been many examples of original screen science fiction, but the story in this movie is the work of someone with a great deal of insight on what people are, it is spiritually enriching without being moralizing at all, and is portrayed in a very nice peaceful movie too. So give yourself a treat and buy the DVD - I hear this is independent cinema, so they will need all the support you can give. Skip a box-office hit and use the ticket money to give yourself the pleasure of seeing something truly original. I really recommend this.
Prey
(1998)
a very silly show
9 December 2007
I can't believe how silly this show is. Don't get me wrong, I am a sci fi fan, and I am not one of those nerds who will dismiss a show just because it is scientifically inaccurate. Also, I am a fan of the superhuman theme in science fiction. So I approached this show expecting to be delighted, and instead, it made me cringe at every mention of science it presented, since all the omni-present science in it was not only bogus, but also insanely ignorant.
The main characters of this show are brilliant scientists, there is lab work being done in every single episode and the science is always crucial to the plot. This is the case in many sci fi shows, some of which disregard scientific fact completely (like Lexx or most of Star Trek), but at least they do not pretend to be scientifically accurate. But in Prey, the creators based a lot of the plot on scientific discovery, like the central gimmick of a new species of human having recently evolved. Now I only know highschool-level biology - vaguely - but still, I wonder if most scientists would really agree that it is conceivable that a new species would evolve in the course of 40-odd years due to global warming. Also, if the new species is a species of human, are humans a new species of monkey? The basic premise is also that the new species of human (sic) is bent on eliminating the old species of human (us), just like the homo sapiens eliminated the homo neandertalis - which is just another glaring misconception of evolution as we know it - including the fact that, by the same token, humans should be driven by one single motivation - exterminate all the monkeys. Are we? I know I'm not.
Apart from the tons of silly technobabble that anyone who has read a 5-page article about genetics in a children's encyclopedia would be able to discredit, there is also a lot of bad things going on with the characters. Both humans and super-humans are very inconsistent, and not convincing. The female lead is always trailing and aiding some guy, being helped and/or rescued by some guy, or being assaulted by some guy, and she is always back on her feet and smiling within 3 seconds of having been rescued. The superhumans seem just not super enough, and often turn out to be very bad planners or simply sociopathic. By the end of the first (and only) season, you sort of wish that all of the cast be replaced, or all of the main characters be rewritten (the supporting actors and background characters are a lot less annoying and have more integrity, which, along with the presence of my favorite superhuman theme, is the reason why I gave this show such a high rating).
If this show had taken itself less seriously and tried to provide more entertainment and less pseudoscience, and if the characters had been more consistent, it might have been a better watch - as it is, although there are worse shows out there, I think I see why it was canceled (although in reality it was probably caused by something totally unrelated to the show itself). It's sad that such a nice idea was carried out so badly.
The main characters of this show are brilliant scientists, there is lab work being done in every single episode and the science is always crucial to the plot. This is the case in many sci fi shows, some of which disregard scientific fact completely (like Lexx or most of Star Trek), but at least they do not pretend to be scientifically accurate. But in Prey, the creators based a lot of the plot on scientific discovery, like the central gimmick of a new species of human having recently evolved. Now I only know highschool-level biology - vaguely - but still, I wonder if most scientists would really agree that it is conceivable that a new species would evolve in the course of 40-odd years due to global warming. Also, if the new species is a species of human, are humans a new species of monkey? The basic premise is also that the new species of human (sic) is bent on eliminating the old species of human (us), just like the homo sapiens eliminated the homo neandertalis - which is just another glaring misconception of evolution as we know it - including the fact that, by the same token, humans should be driven by one single motivation - exterminate all the monkeys. Are we? I know I'm not.
Apart from the tons of silly technobabble that anyone who has read a 5-page article about genetics in a children's encyclopedia would be able to discredit, there is also a lot of bad things going on with the characters. Both humans and super-humans are very inconsistent, and not convincing. The female lead is always trailing and aiding some guy, being helped and/or rescued by some guy, or being assaulted by some guy, and she is always back on her feet and smiling within 3 seconds of having been rescued. The superhumans seem just not super enough, and often turn out to be very bad planners or simply sociopathic. By the end of the first (and only) season, you sort of wish that all of the cast be replaced, or all of the main characters be rewritten (the supporting actors and background characters are a lot less annoying and have more integrity, which, along with the presence of my favorite superhuman theme, is the reason why I gave this show such a high rating).
If this show had taken itself less seriously and tried to provide more entertainment and less pseudoscience, and if the characters had been more consistent, it might have been a better watch - as it is, although there are worse shows out there, I think I see why it was canceled (although in reality it was probably caused by something totally unrelated to the show itself). It's sad that such a nice idea was carried out so badly.
The Last Mimzy
(2007)
a good SF film for kids (fun to watch for adults, too)
1 November 2007
This is a very good film. I did not want to watch The Last Mimzy, because I thought it would just be a silly kids' movie. Movies for kids these days are very often very boring and unimaginative, and they both insult the kids' intelligence and teach them nothing new. Also, although it might be harmful for the child's imagination, most kids will enjoy simple movies anyway, but most adults will find them too silly. The Last Mimzy stands out as a kids' film, as it's interesting, imaginative and non-patronizing, for a kids' film, and it can surely be enjoyed by adults as well, especially those who like (literary) science fiction (the movie is an adaptation of a story by Henry Kuttner and C.L. Moore).
There are very many good things about this movie, but a word of caution is due at first: although this movie CAN be fun for adults to watch (like many other films that kids can enjoy too, like the animated My Neighbor Totoro), it is NOT a mature film with children and fairly-tale themes in it (like, for instance, Pan's Labyrinth). It is a good kids movie, and should be considered and judged as such.
The CGI effects and the sci-fi-esqe gimmicks are all very cool, and all the performances in the movie are exceptional, with the female lead deserving a special mention. Somewhere half-way through the movie I noticed the seamless performance by Rhiannon Leigh Wryn - having not been aware of it before for the simple reason that it is so good that you are just watching a kid responding naturally to the situation she's in (and then you realize she's actually acting and delivering lines).
I would have given this move a much higher rating if not for the looser writing and editing in the last 10-20 minutes. It seems like suddenly someone realized they had to make the movie end and they only had 20 minutes to fit the rest of the movie in, instead of 2 hours, so what we see of the plot is really jumpy, and it somehow affects (or is affected by) the editing too. However, even when the quality of the movie goes down for the last 20 minutes, it is merely as bad, plot and editing-wise, as Artificial Intelligence: AI, and a lot of people think AI was a good movie - which means that 4/5 of The Last Mimzy is A LOT better. My dissatisfaction with some of the plot-holes at the very end diminished somehow when I realized that this was not supposed to be a hard SF movie, but a kids' film, so a lot of what happens does not have to be explicitly justified, and can be considered metaphor or something seen from a kid's point of view.
Anyhow, I seriously recommend this movie for people who like good sci-fi movies, as well as for people who have kids and would like to watch a movie together. One interesting point about this movie is that it portrays a positive view of intellectual giftedness, neither showing it as something akin to magical powers, nor as a disability, so gifted children could relate to those themes in the movie well (although they might benefit from the emphasis on a sci-fi explanation of some of the plot in a follow-up discussion of the movie).
There are very many good things about this movie, but a word of caution is due at first: although this movie CAN be fun for adults to watch (like many other films that kids can enjoy too, like the animated My Neighbor Totoro), it is NOT a mature film with children and fairly-tale themes in it (like, for instance, Pan's Labyrinth). It is a good kids movie, and should be considered and judged as such.
The CGI effects and the sci-fi-esqe gimmicks are all very cool, and all the performances in the movie are exceptional, with the female lead deserving a special mention. Somewhere half-way through the movie I noticed the seamless performance by Rhiannon Leigh Wryn - having not been aware of it before for the simple reason that it is so good that you are just watching a kid responding naturally to the situation she's in (and then you realize she's actually acting and delivering lines).
I would have given this move a much higher rating if not for the looser writing and editing in the last 10-20 minutes. It seems like suddenly someone realized they had to make the movie end and they only had 20 minutes to fit the rest of the movie in, instead of 2 hours, so what we see of the plot is really jumpy, and it somehow affects (or is affected by) the editing too. However, even when the quality of the movie goes down for the last 20 minutes, it is merely as bad, plot and editing-wise, as Artificial Intelligence: AI, and a lot of people think AI was a good movie - which means that 4/5 of The Last Mimzy is A LOT better. My dissatisfaction with some of the plot-holes at the very end diminished somehow when I realized that this was not supposed to be a hard SF movie, but a kids' film, so a lot of what happens does not have to be explicitly justified, and can be considered metaphor or something seen from a kid's point of view.
Anyhow, I seriously recommend this movie for people who like good sci-fi movies, as well as for people who have kids and would like to watch a movie together. One interesting point about this movie is that it portrays a positive view of intellectual giftedness, neither showing it as something akin to magical powers, nor as a disability, so gifted children could relate to those themes in the movie well (although they might benefit from the emphasis on a sci-fi explanation of some of the plot in a follow-up discussion of the movie).
Planetes
(2003–2004)
a must-see for fans of good science fiction
25 October 2007
I am truly amazed how great this show turns out to be from a science-fiction fan's point of view, and I do not mean the kind of movie science fiction which relies on CGI as its main asset and suffers from poor unrealistic plot. I mean the kind of literary science fiction that gets awarded with a Hugo award.
Perhaps one should forget that this is an anime, for the simple reason that the stereotype of anime is something like a TV show for kids where a bunch of clichéd, depth-less characters battle supernatural enemies with their superpowers. If that is what anime means for you, think of Planetes as an animated series made in Japan. Removed around eighty years from the times it was made in, it presents quite a believable picture of what space exploration might be like at the end of the 21st century, with a load of detail comparable only to the movie adaptation of 2001: A Space Odyssey. This is one of the strongest points of the show - the richness of little details, like how rooms have to be adapted to zero G, makes the sci fi elements more believable.
The strongest point, however, would be how great science fiction this is. One definition of science fiction would be that a science fiction story depicts the way more-or-less imaginary technology (or the fruit of some science not directly related to technology, like chemistry) impacts human lives. Apart from the development of the regular characters of the show, every episode contains a story in that vein, with a great deal of insight and care for consistency. It is harder to show something gripping in science fiction with more-or-less realistic technology than in a flashy movie where the technology used is nothing short of magical, yet Planetes achieves that in every episode. Also, since the future gadgetry depicted is so often directly connected with the plot, and at the same time, so believable, Planetes could also be categorized as a cyberpunk show set in Earth's orbit, and I mean cyberpunk like in the later William Gibson stories, not like in, say, Cyber City Oedo 808. As I said, you won't see any technological magic, not even at the "AI virus gaining consciousness" level.
I'm sorry I can't recommend this further without any spoilers, but if you have ever enjoyed good SF literature, be sure to check out this show (at least the first 5 episodes, to see what it's like after we've gotten to know the main characters), and you won't be disappointed.
Perhaps one should forget that this is an anime, for the simple reason that the stereotype of anime is something like a TV show for kids where a bunch of clichéd, depth-less characters battle supernatural enemies with their superpowers. If that is what anime means for you, think of Planetes as an animated series made in Japan. Removed around eighty years from the times it was made in, it presents quite a believable picture of what space exploration might be like at the end of the 21st century, with a load of detail comparable only to the movie adaptation of 2001: A Space Odyssey. This is one of the strongest points of the show - the richness of little details, like how rooms have to be adapted to zero G, makes the sci fi elements more believable.
The strongest point, however, would be how great science fiction this is. One definition of science fiction would be that a science fiction story depicts the way more-or-less imaginary technology (or the fruit of some science not directly related to technology, like chemistry) impacts human lives. Apart from the development of the regular characters of the show, every episode contains a story in that vein, with a great deal of insight and care for consistency. It is harder to show something gripping in science fiction with more-or-less realistic technology than in a flashy movie where the technology used is nothing short of magical, yet Planetes achieves that in every episode. Also, since the future gadgetry depicted is so often directly connected with the plot, and at the same time, so believable, Planetes could also be categorized as a cyberpunk show set in Earth's orbit, and I mean cyberpunk like in the later William Gibson stories, not like in, say, Cyber City Oedo 808. As I said, you won't see any technological magic, not even at the "AI virus gaining consciousness" level.
I'm sorry I can't recommend this further without any spoilers, but if you have ever enjoyed good SF literature, be sure to check out this show (at least the first 5 episodes, to see what it's like after we've gotten to know the main characters), and you won't be disappointed.
The Messengers
(2007)
blatantly clichéd and annoyingly boring
25 September 2007
This movie is so cliché-driven that watching it is basically more of a "spot the cliché" type of experience than really enjoying a horror flick. On the other hand, it's not bad enough to be a laughingstock, so essentially, this is one boooring movie.
I am sorry, but how many Amitiville-esquire spin-offs can the industry make? OK, well, let's see: a desolate house in the country? We know that the previous owners were disposed of? New family moving in? Doors won't open? The little kid sees more than the adults? The family is troubled to start with... in the most insanely insipid manner imaginable, with black-and-white blandness of character and empty lines. There is no character building whatsoever, just building up the TYPE each character is supposed to stand for: OK the well-meaning loser father, the subdued wife, the alienated daughter, and the 3-year-old. Can we get any more clichés, please? OK, here's some crows. CROWS! In a horror flick! What creative brilliance. Also, all the symbolism (e.g. the meaning of the crows, the meaning of the clock, the meaning of the final crisis and resolution) is ludicrously obvious.
Dylan McDermott seems like he wandered off from a Disney family morality play and wound up in a horror movie; Penelope Ann Miller's performance made me feel that it was either going to be revealed she had just become part of the family or is the father's new girlfriend who, for some reason, chose to move in with him into a haunted house on the prairie - there is absolutely no chemistry between her and her husband, which is rationalized later on but, in my opinion, her performance is just too perfect in that area. Kristen Stewart and John Corbett are OK, but this is certainly not a movie where they had any opportunity to shine. Note that Kristen Stewart was only 16-17 when the movie was shot, so that's pretty fine (unannoying) work from such a young actress. There are a few moments where the cinematography seems to be seriously wrong (especially in the scene where the father discovers some crows have been eating his sunflower seed and the next two minutes). The score becomes catchy in odd moments and is pretty much as formulaic as the plot overall.
Everything about this movie is completely formulaic. This is the type of film where in the first three minutes you can tell what the ending will be and then you can just switch your mind off and then you see that ending happen. If you are new to horror movies, just see the original Amityville Horror, The Others and The Signs. If you're just looking for something to eat pizza and get wasted over, this is a safe choice (this movie is mediocre, it is not extremely bad). If you're looking for a good scare, look somewhere else.
I am sorry, but how many Amitiville-esquire spin-offs can the industry make? OK, well, let's see: a desolate house in the country? We know that the previous owners were disposed of? New family moving in? Doors won't open? The little kid sees more than the adults? The family is troubled to start with... in the most insanely insipid manner imaginable, with black-and-white blandness of character and empty lines. There is no character building whatsoever, just building up the TYPE each character is supposed to stand for: OK the well-meaning loser father, the subdued wife, the alienated daughter, and the 3-year-old. Can we get any more clichés, please? OK, here's some crows. CROWS! In a horror flick! What creative brilliance. Also, all the symbolism (e.g. the meaning of the crows, the meaning of the clock, the meaning of the final crisis and resolution) is ludicrously obvious.
Dylan McDermott seems like he wandered off from a Disney family morality play and wound up in a horror movie; Penelope Ann Miller's performance made me feel that it was either going to be revealed she had just become part of the family or is the father's new girlfriend who, for some reason, chose to move in with him into a haunted house on the prairie - there is absolutely no chemistry between her and her husband, which is rationalized later on but, in my opinion, her performance is just too perfect in that area. Kristen Stewart and John Corbett are OK, but this is certainly not a movie where they had any opportunity to shine. Note that Kristen Stewart was only 16-17 when the movie was shot, so that's pretty fine (unannoying) work from such a young actress. There are a few moments where the cinematography seems to be seriously wrong (especially in the scene where the father discovers some crows have been eating his sunflower seed and the next two minutes). The score becomes catchy in odd moments and is pretty much as formulaic as the plot overall.
Everything about this movie is completely formulaic. This is the type of film where in the first three minutes you can tell what the ending will be and then you can just switch your mind off and then you see that ending happen. If you are new to horror movies, just see the original Amityville Horror, The Others and The Signs. If you're just looking for something to eat pizza and get wasted over, this is a safe choice (this movie is mediocre, it is not extremely bad). If you're looking for a good scare, look somewhere else.
a brilliant episode
19 September 2007
This episode is absolutely brilliant. It delivers the perfect mix of serious sci-fi and tongue-in-cheek humor. I honestly can't understand why a show which presented us with such treasures was ditched after the first season, when total flops are being kept alive for no reason. The first three episodes are not marvelous, just OK, and then the series kicks off, with this episode being a prime example of its greatness. If you are a science fiction fan (and I mean good science fiction, the kind that you can read in "books", the kind that gets a Hugo award), you absolutely must check out this episode. "The Lone Gunman" has its lows, but it certainly is a venue where originality (as far as TV is concerned) abounds. This episode has so many cool moments that I want to re-watch it again right away. It is certainly as good as the best (non-mythology) X-Files episodes, only that, like in the X-Files episodes where the Lone Gunmen were part of the plot, there is a lot of irony and humor added to the story.
I can't really comment on the plot in detail, since it's one of these episodes where anything you say would be a spoiler, but just go and grab the DVD and check it out, and then become a fan of the whole short-lived show. Seriously, as a science fiction fan who has read a lot of good science fiction, and a lot of crappy science fiction too, I can tell you that gimmick-wise, this is better than, say, the stories in the Masters of Science fiction series, which is touted as masterful S-F. Generally, what makes science fiction good are cool ideas and gimmicks, provided that they are significant somehow in the context of the story or well, if they enhance our appreciation of the human condition, i.e. if those gimmicks are not solely there for their coolness. Another thing that makes science fiction good would be the quality of the presentation, literary or cinematic. This episode delivers in both these areas. A must-see.
I can't really comment on the plot in detail, since it's one of these episodes where anything you say would be a spoiler, but just go and grab the DVD and check it out, and then become a fan of the whole short-lived show. Seriously, as a science fiction fan who has read a lot of good science fiction, and a lot of crappy science fiction too, I can tell you that gimmick-wise, this is better than, say, the stories in the Masters of Science fiction series, which is touted as masterful S-F. Generally, what makes science fiction good are cool ideas and gimmicks, provided that they are significant somehow in the context of the story or well, if they enhance our appreciation of the human condition, i.e. if those gimmicks are not solely there for their coolness. Another thing that makes science fiction good would be the quality of the presentation, literary or cinematic. This episode delivers in both these areas. A must-see.
28 Weeks Later
(2007)
a good sequel of a decent horror movie
13 September 2007
European horror movies used to be theatrical, low-budget and suffering from it, and badly edited. Like its predecessor, 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later is nothing like that. I must say this is one of the best horror movies I have seen (and I have seen hundreds), for a number of reasons. Although the movie does juggle many clichés, it does so kind of skillfully, so that you can really expect to be surprised. Most importantly, however, the sequel is as good as the original, which is the greatest surprise of all in the horror genre.
The main gimmick here, like in the original, is a mix of the zombie theme and the killer virus theme. The zombies here are extremely hyped-up, not doped, and instead of being bent on eating the flesh of the living, they behave like rage-driven human beings stripped completely of their superego and ego, and left with the instinct to fight (and yes, as it's the result of a scientific experiment gone bad, the movie can be considered sci-fi). Perhaps due to the fact that this is an European movie, we get something markedly different from the Resident Evil franchise - here, in placed of Resident Evil's focus on showcasing pretty actresses and made-up high-tech, we are treated to a foreboding feeling of isolation and powerlessness in face of helplessness and doom. We get to see normal, everyday people and faces struggling to survive, when practically everyone around them can quickly become the embodiment of evil and destruction. 28 Weeks Later focuses a little more on some action elements than, say, on the question of how long people can uphold their morality and respect for their fellow woman in such peril, but still, this movie stands proudly as a horror flick. And, like I said, it is different - with its crisp visuals (unlike the music-video lushness of a lot of Hollywood film scare), haunting and memorable music and unaffected performances. There are some loopholes in the plot, of course (e.g. really not enough few safety precautions on the part of the military for such a dangerous epidemic potential), but the movie runs smoothly throughout, and even the child actors deliver.
There are better movies with a similar feel (such as Children of Men), but as a sequel to a decent horror movie, 28 Weeks Later certainly stands out. By the way, I think that watching 28 Weeks Later will be an especially scary experience for Londoners, as most of it is set in London. Londoners, beware.
The main gimmick here, like in the original, is a mix of the zombie theme and the killer virus theme. The zombies here are extremely hyped-up, not doped, and instead of being bent on eating the flesh of the living, they behave like rage-driven human beings stripped completely of their superego and ego, and left with the instinct to fight (and yes, as it's the result of a scientific experiment gone bad, the movie can be considered sci-fi). Perhaps due to the fact that this is an European movie, we get something markedly different from the Resident Evil franchise - here, in placed of Resident Evil's focus on showcasing pretty actresses and made-up high-tech, we are treated to a foreboding feeling of isolation and powerlessness in face of helplessness and doom. We get to see normal, everyday people and faces struggling to survive, when practically everyone around them can quickly become the embodiment of evil and destruction. 28 Weeks Later focuses a little more on some action elements than, say, on the question of how long people can uphold their morality and respect for their fellow woman in such peril, but still, this movie stands proudly as a horror flick. And, like I said, it is different - with its crisp visuals (unlike the music-video lushness of a lot of Hollywood film scare), haunting and memorable music and unaffected performances. There are some loopholes in the plot, of course (e.g. really not enough few safety precautions on the part of the military for such a dangerous epidemic potential), but the movie runs smoothly throughout, and even the child actors deliver.
There are better movies with a similar feel (such as Children of Men), but as a sequel to a decent horror movie, 28 Weeks Later certainly stands out. By the way, I think that watching 28 Weeks Later will be an especially scary experience for Londoners, as most of it is set in London. Londoners, beware.
Avalon
(2001)
hard but worth the effort
29 September 2006
Avalon can be seen as part of a trilogy, the first installment of which would be Ghost in the Shell, the last, Ghost in the Shell: Innocence. Avalon contains many direct references to Ghost in the Shell, and shares a lot of its motif of philosophical search for the self. They also share the cyberpunk imagery, and the fact that the main heroine is an impassive female warrior. I mention all this because I think it's inadvisable to watch Avalon if you haven't watched Ghost in the Shell (and pondered on it a bit). Avalon can be extremely heavy at times. This movie does not make you think; watching Avalon is like trying to decipher a zen poem, which I think can be done, but not through intellectual decoding.
In Avalon, a lone hunter in a virtual reality game shares her life with a basset dog, and all her activities seem to be centered around getting better in the illegal, dangerous game and getting food the dog with the money she earns there. The game is illegal because you can die playing it; "really" die in the concrete, bleak urban world that Ash, the main hero, lives every day. However, apart from the possibility of virtual death, the game offers a secret - the highest level, Avalon. The legendary Avalon is the "Isle of the Blessed", where King Arthur lies in eternal sleep. In the movie, it is a mystery, which haunts Ash ever since the deaths of her last player team.
The search for Avalon is depicted in the most beautiful cinematography. The plot is very symbolic and should be considered so; the search for the gate to Avalon can mean many things, and the nature of the quest changes as Ash is getting closer. However, like Ghost in the Shell: Innocence, the movie is heavy and long, and the characters engage in philosophical discussion every time they can. With all its beautiful cinematography, interesting acting (very automaton-like, but intentionally so), and a set of intriguing philosophical questions, this movie suffers from heavy-handed imagery and symbols, sometimes. Hard science fiction pushes the science as far as possible; Avalon is an example of hard cyberpunk, where the confines of the conceptual world dreamed up by the director are explored fully and unremittingly.
If you are ready to take a film not as only entertainment, but also a challenge to your thinking power, Avalon, like all Oshii's movies, is a thrill. However, beautiful, intellectually rewarding science fiction does not have to be longish and heavy, as Avalon is at times. Watch Ghost in the Shell before it, watch Ghost in the Shell: Innocence after it, and approach this movie at your most relaxed, for it to be a rewarding rewarding experience; it can wear you down, otherwise.
One more thing: if you're Polish, watch the Japanese dub with English subtitles. The Polish lines were translated literally from the Japanese, and they are very often almost gibberish (and the Japanese voice-acting is better, too). Also, do not let the fact that the movie's virtual world seems to be set in your local K-mart detract from your watching experience.
In Avalon, a lone hunter in a virtual reality game shares her life with a basset dog, and all her activities seem to be centered around getting better in the illegal, dangerous game and getting food the dog with the money she earns there. The game is illegal because you can die playing it; "really" die in the concrete, bleak urban world that Ash, the main hero, lives every day. However, apart from the possibility of virtual death, the game offers a secret - the highest level, Avalon. The legendary Avalon is the "Isle of the Blessed", where King Arthur lies in eternal sleep. In the movie, it is a mystery, which haunts Ash ever since the deaths of her last player team.
The search for Avalon is depicted in the most beautiful cinematography. The plot is very symbolic and should be considered so; the search for the gate to Avalon can mean many things, and the nature of the quest changes as Ash is getting closer. However, like Ghost in the Shell: Innocence, the movie is heavy and long, and the characters engage in philosophical discussion every time they can. With all its beautiful cinematography, interesting acting (very automaton-like, but intentionally so), and a set of intriguing philosophical questions, this movie suffers from heavy-handed imagery and symbols, sometimes. Hard science fiction pushes the science as far as possible; Avalon is an example of hard cyberpunk, where the confines of the conceptual world dreamed up by the director are explored fully and unremittingly.
If you are ready to take a film not as only entertainment, but also a challenge to your thinking power, Avalon, like all Oshii's movies, is a thrill. However, beautiful, intellectually rewarding science fiction does not have to be longish and heavy, as Avalon is at times. Watch Ghost in the Shell before it, watch Ghost in the Shell: Innocence after it, and approach this movie at your most relaxed, for it to be a rewarding rewarding experience; it can wear you down, otherwise.
One more thing: if you're Polish, watch the Japanese dub with English subtitles. The Polish lines were translated literally from the Japanese, and they are very often almost gibberish (and the Japanese voice-acting is better, too). Also, do not let the fact that the movie's virtual world seems to be set in your local K-mart detract from your watching experience.
Eureka
(2006–2012)
interesting, light-hearted but not silly sci-fi
23 September 2006
I've only watched ten episodes of this show, but I just wanted to comment on it, so that people who were considering tuning in, would tune in. Eureka came as a surprise. The first three episodes were not all too promising. What it reminded me of was the 1991 kids mystery series, "Eerie Indiana," only with science fiction in place of the mystery elements.
However, the next couple of episodes assured me that Eureka, though light-hearted and funny like the aforementioned kids show, is not a kids show at all, in the sense that it offers interesting plots, from a sci-fi fan's point of view. The show keeps up its high standards plot-wise - although it does shuffle sci-fi conventions, it does it in a very surprisingly creative way, so that the seasoned sci-fi fan can either expect the unexpected, or except a new insight into the expected. I was really surprised by this, as many current sci-fi shows either turn to the brain-washing dullness of fantasy shows in a sci-fi setting, or sift through conventions so old that they have now become clichés. You can (generally) expect to be offered something novel and worthwhile by Eureka in this respect, and the great special fx (cgi or otherwise) only add funnes to the experience.
However, by far the greatest aspect of this show is how the characters, the relationships between them, and the humor of it all are being handled. This is to say, this show, while intended to be light-hearted entertainment, does not pander to the cliché-driven audience who, the execs are afraid, would not be able to process anything close to interesting and realistic character development. In its quality, inventiveness, and humor, the show resembles the sci-fi channel teasers. And that's a a real compliment.
Last but not least, if you've ever felt like the crazy genius surrounded by masses of normals who would not understand, in Eureka you can experience what it would be like if you were finally...beamed home. A town full of geniuses is what I dig.
However, the next couple of episodes assured me that Eureka, though light-hearted and funny like the aforementioned kids show, is not a kids show at all, in the sense that it offers interesting plots, from a sci-fi fan's point of view. The show keeps up its high standards plot-wise - although it does shuffle sci-fi conventions, it does it in a very surprisingly creative way, so that the seasoned sci-fi fan can either expect the unexpected, or except a new insight into the expected. I was really surprised by this, as many current sci-fi shows either turn to the brain-washing dullness of fantasy shows in a sci-fi setting, or sift through conventions so old that they have now become clichés. You can (generally) expect to be offered something novel and worthwhile by Eureka in this respect, and the great special fx (cgi or otherwise) only add funnes to the experience.
However, by far the greatest aspect of this show is how the characters, the relationships between them, and the humor of it all are being handled. This is to say, this show, while intended to be light-hearted entertainment, does not pander to the cliché-driven audience who, the execs are afraid, would not be able to process anything close to interesting and realistic character development. In its quality, inventiveness, and humor, the show resembles the sci-fi channel teasers. And that's a a real compliment.
Last but not least, if you've ever felt like the crazy genius surrounded by masses of normals who would not understand, in Eureka you can experience what it would be like if you were finally...beamed home. A town full of geniuses is what I dig.
A Sound of Thunder
(2005)
classically bad
21 July 2006
This is one of the movies you just have to see for how bad it is. It is incredibly bad in every way, and the fact that it is not an "amateur" flick just adds to the awesome badness of it all.
This film is based on a classic short story by Ray Bradbury. This story is expanded here to make the plot "more exciting," I guess. Howvever, while the original story is an ingenious play on the idea of "the butterfly effect" (how seemingly unimportant events can produce impetuous effects in due time), the movie is one of the greatest shows of ignorance of scientific fact (and movie-making, to a lesser extent). At first it seems kosher, to explode in a feat of idiocy and take you on, laughing, till the end (? - of course). It's like a remake of a bad sci-fi movie from the fifties, but done in earnest. The casting choices are fine, I think, and the cinematography is OK, as well as the sfx - I don't know why so many people are dishing them, they're just nothing special. However, the script itself and the handling of it beg the question, and the question is - did you actually READ what you have written? The causal structure of the plot is insanely stupid, and the cliffhanger connections between plot element and setting are ludicrous.
Please get drunk before you watch this one and do not plan make it the highlight of your evening. It is a disgrace that great sci-fi literature (in this case, great for its plot, not really great in a literary way) is given such a bad treatment in some recent adaptations. This move is one of the glaring examples.
This film is based on a classic short story by Ray Bradbury. This story is expanded here to make the plot "more exciting," I guess. Howvever, while the original story is an ingenious play on the idea of "the butterfly effect" (how seemingly unimportant events can produce impetuous effects in due time), the movie is one of the greatest shows of ignorance of scientific fact (and movie-making, to a lesser extent). At first it seems kosher, to explode in a feat of idiocy and take you on, laughing, till the end (? - of course). It's like a remake of a bad sci-fi movie from the fifties, but done in earnest. The casting choices are fine, I think, and the cinematography is OK, as well as the sfx - I don't know why so many people are dishing them, they're just nothing special. However, the script itself and the handling of it beg the question, and the question is - did you actually READ what you have written? The causal structure of the plot is insanely stupid, and the cliffhanger connections between plot element and setting are ludicrous.
Please get drunk before you watch this one and do not plan make it the highlight of your evening. It is a disgrace that great sci-fi literature (in this case, great for its plot, not really great in a literary way) is given such a bad treatment in some recent adaptations. This move is one of the glaring examples.
Adam's Apples
(2005)
weird drama
16 June 2006
Do not be fooled - this is not a comedy. This is very dark and violent drama, with a touch of black comedy and great cinematography. All the characters appear quirky at first, and turn out to be tremendously dark, and when you can't stand it any more, things start to look better. I would say the best and most memorable aspect of this film are the ikea-poster-like landscapes we get to see so much. There is also some quirky religious symbolism, and scenes that verge on magic realism. Just think about light-hearted Romper Stomper set in rural Denmark. This is a very good movie, but not one for the faint-hearted. Oh, one thing, I am no street fighter, but those skin-heads really could work on their punches. Not very realistic.
The Fisher King
(1991)
a modern romance
7 February 2006
This is one of the best movies I've ever seen. I kept returning to it over they years and I always found it a great and enriching experience to watch. I especially like the shifting incarnations of the legendary Fisher King in this film (the wounded hero, kind of the wasteland, keeper of the holy grail. The archetype of the knight and of the wounded warrior can be seen as one of the prominent archetypes of masculinity we have. By this view, this movie can be seen as a research into masculinity as such. The performances by Bridges, Williams and Ruehl are exquisite. The eighties' New York is a great setting for this ethereal, symbolic quest, and the surreal theatricalness of some of the scenes (a la "Brazil") only adds to the overall artistic congruence of the film. The visuals are great. The movie works on many levels, so apart from this very abstract layer, we get a funny and intelligent comedy about modern misfits - with a great love story, or two. Also, I especially recommend this movie to anyone who loves New York City.
THX 1138
(1971)
do not miss if you're a sci-fan
7 February 2006
When I read what the story is, I thought this would be another remake of "Logan's Run" and I didn't watch this movie for the next 2 years. When I finally did (and I'm talking about the new DVD's director's cut - forget the original), I was completely blown away. It's a very intellectually stimulating movie (it reminds me of the story "A Madonna of the Machine" by Tanith Lee). Indeed, it does not stray far from the clichés of "Logan's Run" and alike, but it's directed and performed in a way that revitalizes the old themes completely. Robert Duvall is just perfect here (notice how childlike he is, especially with his aggression). Rather than being sarcastic or overly technological, the movie focuses on the human condition, presenting a world where people are reduced to numbers on a budget. There is a lot of silent cruelty here, a lot of determination in the face of helplessness, and in the revamped director's cut, we get stunning visuals and neat CGI. Like "Gatacca" and "2001: A Space Odyssey", among others, this is one of the movies you can show to friends who are prejudiced against sci-fi, to convert them.
The Machinist
(2004)
if Lynch was Catholic
5 February 2006
This movie looks really nice, done in pastel colors and shot in a way that everything seems to have a layer of dust on it. Christian Bale's body is really a pain to look at, I found myself cringing. He really is a very good actor - not for losing all the weight of course, but because of how he can get into character in all of his movies. Notice the way he slurs his words like an extremely feeble person would. The cinematography is also interesting, with Trevor usually shot so as to make him look separated - from the surroundings or from the people around him (if there are any), which further brings out his harrowing loneliness.
This is a movie about suffering, I think - suffering that one chooses not to admit (notice that Trevor rarely talks of his insomnia, for example). The story is really twisty, but you can feel you're slowly crawling someplace specific. The way things happen makes you think of David Lynch's movies, just with a different kind of metaphoric imagery. Instead of magic realism, we have visual religious metaphors here (fire, torturing machines, recurring physical torture, the crossroads, etc). One of the things I missed in this movie was just this lack of dreaminess (the surrealism is more in the visuals than in what actually happens), but then again, maybe this could be seen as being in keeping with the character of Trevor, who can't get any sleep and therefore, all dreams are withheld.
I must admit I really didn't like the ending (a little too simple for all that came before). Overall, however, it's a very well made movie. Don't miss Jennifer Jason Leigh in one of her best performances as the prostitute, Stevie.
This is a movie about suffering, I think - suffering that one chooses not to admit (notice that Trevor rarely talks of his insomnia, for example). The story is really twisty, but you can feel you're slowly crawling someplace specific. The way things happen makes you think of David Lynch's movies, just with a different kind of metaphoric imagery. Instead of magic realism, we have visual religious metaphors here (fire, torturing machines, recurring physical torture, the crossroads, etc). One of the things I missed in this movie was just this lack of dreaminess (the surrealism is more in the visuals than in what actually happens), but then again, maybe this could be seen as being in keeping with the character of Trevor, who can't get any sleep and therefore, all dreams are withheld.
I must admit I really didn't like the ending (a little too simple for all that came before). Overall, however, it's a very well made movie. Don't miss Jennifer Jason Leigh in one of her best performances as the prostitute, Stevie.
Bewitched
(2005)
Light Comedy
5 February 2006
This is just a light comedy, a good thing to watch on a Sunday morning, if you want to take your mind off things. It's neither very funny, nor very bad. I think fans of the show would be disappointed in that this is not really an adaptation of the show itself, but more of the theme of a witch marrying a regular guy - it's just that this witch happens to be cast in a remake of the show "Bewitched", so what we get is sort of a movie within a movie. Another thing is that there's really not much magic going on (well she's hiding her powers, what are you gonna do). There are a few good jokes and a lot of references to the original show; nothing's very creative but the clichés don't kick you in the face, either. All the performances are up to par, the CGI is decent, the casting could not have been better. Let me put it this way: the movie is like a cup of good hot chocolate - it's a pleasant thing but you won't find yourself writing home about it.
A great movie
4 February 2006
I didn't see this movie for years because I thought it would be something like 50 First Dates (which I found dull). Far from it. Like Being John Malkovich - I think - Eternal Sunshine... revolves around the existential notion of the self-creating individual. What comes to mind is the story "Metamorphosis" by Kafka, where a man finds himself transformed into a cockroach one day and finds how his life or he himself turns out to be totally inadequate. The story plays upon the "what if.." - things would be so great if I were somebody else, what if I were John Malkovich, or if a part of me I don't like could be erased, like in Eternal Sunshine... Existentialism holds that it's ridiculous to think you could be somebody else, as there would be no you anymore. The self-responsible, self-creating individual cannot take shortcuts without failure, as we can see in the case of Joel, who chooses to delete all of his memories of a past girlfriend, only to find that he really needs them. Most of this movie takes place in his mind. Like "Being John Malkovich" and "Adaptation," "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" feels like a European movie shot in Hollywood. It's just a great movie, with extremely good, natural performances (Kate Winslet rightfully received her Oscar nomination for this role). Just go and check the Awards and Nominations list. This is romantic, and a comedy, and food for thought at the same time. You'll find yourself coming back.
Underworld: Evolution
(2006)
A disappointing sequel
4 February 2006
What I liked about the first part was the way it was shot like a very good nu-metal video, but with hot vampires and werewolves in it. The CGI was great and classy, and the black-and-blue look gave the movie a great atmosphere. Compared to the original, I find the sequel very disappointing, in that in place of the atmosphere we get gore (and some bold sex scenes - woof!). The story is just too simple, even for a vampire movie - it's like a Buffy episode rolled out into a full-length film. Another bad thing is what they chose for the setting; in place of the looming Gotham of the first part (which I think worked very well with the idea of the modern vampire / werewolf the movie used), we get the Romanian outdoors, with guns. The plot is chaotic and too episodic, and there are fewer breathtaking special effects - even the supposedly more primeval werewolves pale in comparison with the raging fight club of The Underworld one. So as a fan of the first part, I found the sequel to have only a fraction of the "coolness factor" of the original. The movie could have taken what the first part offered way farther, but instead, we got what could be seen as somewhat uninspired material for a future video-game adaptation. I say wait till it's out on DVD.
Proof
(2005)
Better than you expect
4 February 2006
Judging by the poster, I thought this would be something of a warm, romantic, cheesy moralizing flick. Not so at all. The story is mainly intellectual, in that it doesn't really revolve around madness as such but more as an element of identity. The main character is trying to find a stand on who she is or is supposed to be, a search which is neatly connected with trying to find a mathematical proof, or a proof of the proof. You can really tell this movie was based on a play, but you stop noticing the theatrical partitioning of scene / location somewhere halfway through the movie, where you get hooked and realize that this is one of the most intellectually important movies you've ever seen. The performances seem somewhat detached, the characters don't change much as they interact, but this is in keeping with the main theme of the film, which is inner search. The story is well balanced and not very predictable. There is some artistically nice cinematic work e.g. the scenes out in the cold weather and how they correspond with (mathematical?) coldness and one of the proofs. This is definitely a movie you wouldn't want to miss. It's sort of like Adaptation with normal people in it. The only downside is the theatricalness I mentioned but it does not really detract from the experience.
Delicatessen
(1991)
unique
27 December 2005
This movie is really "neat." It has neat casting, cinematography, and a neat mixture of humor and tragedy and Burtonesque weirdness. This is not a gore flick, and this is not really a sci-fi movie. A black comedy with the artistic touch and wit of the guys who made your favorite "Amelie from Montmartre." Not to miss. Some of the characters are truly unforgettable, like the neurotic Aurore Interligator or the arachnophobic grandmother. I was really afraid this move would turn out to be dark, splatter-like stuff with a snigger to it, but it really is as good as the other well-known films by these directors (which IMHO is VERY good.)
Tell Your Friends