A Green Lantern

Earlier I saw some concept images for the upcoming (2011) Green Lantern movie and it got me thinking...

"Wouldn't this make a better science fiction movie than it would a super-hero movie?"

I know that people will argue that super-hero movies are science fiction movies. But that isn't true. Just the same way that there are horror movies that aren't science fiction. It can take place in space, it can defy physics, it can raise the dead or build a laser- but none of these things make it science fiction.

The problem is of course that Sci-Fi is both a genre and a topic. Because of this the distinction between what is science fiction and what is about an aspect of science fiction is sometimes difficult to tell. Stephen King has a book (Danse Macabre) all about how some movies, like Alien, might take place in space and have astro-miners and aliens but are inherently horror films. The astro-miners are the protagonists but the antagonist, the alien, is a monster. This is much the same way that Frankenstein (1931) is a horror or monster movie and not science fiction, even though it is full of text tubes and has a mad scientist. James Bond movies are full of lasers and space technology but it is pretty clear that these things are plot devices, MacGussins, furthering the plot but adding very little in terms of theme.

But that's what makes a movie science fiction. Theme rather than content is what makes it a genre. However, its common for the dichotomy in science fiction to be taken advantage of. Not jut works borrowing the look or style of science fiction but by the direct degeneration of genre based on its successes. As a prominent literary genre science fiction shares some themes with other genres, as they all do. But too often is a successful piece in this genre re-categorized as Literature, implying something about the nature of science fiction as a genre and the other books under that distinction. (But this, in itself, raises the issue of genres. There is a very strong argument against organizing art by genre. Non-stronger perhaps than walking through a book store and recognizing the complete incompetence of the aisles. Nevermind high and low art. Because Brave New World can be removed from 'Science Fiction' and put in it 'Literature' it should not be a surprise that Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man can be taken out of 'Literature' and put amongst the growing number of black romance novels that are beginning to define the 'African American Lit.' section. But it is a surprise.)

Science fiction is a very difficult to interpret type of story telling because it is a topic and a genre. But it shouldn't be this hard. the themes in science fiction, the true tropes of the genre, are abundant, giving, and clear. The morality, implications, intentions, behind these ideas and how they are used is what breathes life into true science fiction. Traveling through time or flying through space can mean more than just point A to point B. But often it doesn't, and that is why so much posing as science fiction sucks. And it really sucks.

If we are going to hold on to antiquated organizational means such as we have now than new distinctions need to be made. Maybe there is a difference between science fiction and sci-fi and maybe it is high and low. But even if there isn't, is it so much to ask that people at least start to think about it and make some better decisions.

There is a line in the sand. It the past few years I have only seen a handful of truly great and truly science fiction movies made. Moon, Sunshine, District 9. If movies like these want to compete than they need to avoid the Superhero Summers. I have pretty low hope for science fiction at the movies this year. I'd really hoped that the superhero trend would end and that movies like Avatar would start a new trend and like the 80s we could finally get some good science fiction back. But maybe next year or the year after that.

I don't really care about Green Lantern, at all. But, here is an opportunity, a real chance, to do something with the superhero movie as a type. Of all the comic book characters that have been offered the chance at film none of the big names has the clear option to be a science fiction movie more than Green Lantern. As far as a superhero story goes Green Lantern is soft science fiction bordering at times on fantasy. What more could they ask for? How much easier could it be to make this mainstream film science fiction and do it right- making it enjoyable but also provocative. Make a superhero movie sure, if you must, but make it explorative.


photo credit: io9

Fantasy Movie Studios

We've decided to start a friendly game for BSD readers and other bloggers we know. It will be a fantasy movie studio game, where you start with a budge of 100 Euros and purchase movies with it. The studios are ranked by the most total box office gross at the end of three months, the studio with the highest being the winner.

If you would like to play, just comment or send us an e-mail and I'll get you the sign-up information.

The site is here, if you'd like to check it out.

Arrested Development Movie

During the life of this blog we've seen the return of X-Files, Futurama and Star Trek. And while those returns had varying degrees of greatness, I have high hopes for our next resurrected franchise.

While this has been bounced around for a while now, I have a lot more confidence in the creation of an Arrested Development movie now that Jason Bateman confirmed it on Inside the Actor's Studio. It is also up on IMDb and looking pretty real.

Also, for bonus points, try watching the series backwards. It's really interesting to see how the plot unfolds that way.

The Oscars

Every year I tell myself that I'm going to watch all the movies nominated for Best Picture, mostly because then I can complain more effectively. Not that I think most of the Best Picture winners aren't deserving, but I rarely feel they are most deserving. This year I managed to watch 2.5 of the movies nominated for Best Picture and I don't even see myself being able to finish The Reader before tomorrow night. Despite that, I am going to try to make a few observations.

Best Actor
The only two performances I have seen from these nominees are Sean Penn and Brad Pitt. Brad Pitt as Benjamin Button was nothing special in my mind. I really enjoyed the movie, but his performance wasn't especially moving or great in my mind. I though Sean Penn did a good job as Milk and would rather see him win it than Pitt, but I hope it goes to someone else.

Best Supporting Actor
Heath Ledger has this won hands down. It's not even a contest.

Best Actress
I've only seen half a role in this one, but so far Kate Winslet did a very good job with the character. Her acting was subtle and even stoic, but very effective. And there were a lot of sex scenes, that's always a plus. Couple all that with the fact that she has six nominations and zero wins, I think this one goes to her.

Best Supporting Actress
Taraji P. Henson was good in Benjamin Button, but I'm not sure it was Oscar worthy, then again i haven't seen any of the other nominees, so who knows.

Best Director
Honestly, I have no idea. Everyone says Danny Boyle is going to run away with this thing, and if what I've heard about Slumdog Millionaire is true, he should. Making that great of a movie with untrained actors? That is a feat.

Best Picture
The category I tried so hard to be able to actually give an educated opinion on. Unfortunately I failed. Is saying Dark Knight or Wall-E cheating? I think both of those were better pictures than Benjamin Button, Milk or half of The Reader. If I had to pick between Button and Milk, I would go with milk. While I enjoyed Benjamin Button more, I didn't find anyhting particularly moving or important about it, which I think is an important consideration for best picture. Milk was a great movie and was very touching. But, from what I've read Slumdog Millionaire has this category and I've heard it's great.

While I'm disappointed that Dark Knight didn't get nominated for Best Picture, I'm even more disappointed that Wall-E did not. While I find it hard to fathom an animated movie ever winning, I think that it deserved a nomination at least. It was an amazing movie and deserves more than to simply win Best Animated Feature.

Well... there you have it. My awful opinions. I highly doubt I will be watching tomorrow night, but I'm sure I'll be bugging my girlfriend about who won what throughout.

If you want some better opinions on the Oscars, go here:
Careful with that Blog, Eugene
Nate Silver

The Next Beowulf: Moby Dick

While any movie hoping to surpass the utter craptastic excellence that is Beowulf has a lot of work ahead of it, the new Moby Dick flick might just do it. Yes... I said, the new Moby Dick, because there has been like seven other adaptations according to Wikipedia. Go ahead and check them out if you want. I'm just going to make the assumption that they suck and be done with it. However, they surely don't have the level of suck that this new movie could be capable of.

They're going to turn Ahab into a good guy! How is that even possible? While, I've never read the novel, I've read enough about literature to know the guy is a nut... BSD is NEVER for making a character saner... that just doesn't make any sense. I'm sure I'll see this thing eventually, just because it's guaranteed to be hilariously bad.

Links:
Rotten Tomatoes
Film School Rejects

Cthulhu... I love you

Please add to the ranks of the gay film classics (The Bird Cage, The Crying Game, et cetera, et cetera)- Cthulhu: or Welcome Home to the End of the World (2008)

I first learned about this movie the same way I learn everything about Cthulhu, throught ambient noise, the only way anything Lovecraftian seems to travel. As if from the belly of some long lost god-creature my T.V. set, unaccompanied by my attentions, ran an ad for Here!- Gay Television on Demand .  And through the waves of radiation something in the Cthulhu center of my brain, along with my Gaydar, was triggered and I heard the call of the beast; the call of gay Cthulhu.

It'd seem that sometime in the sadly Dickianless movie making period of 07-08  a littl Lovecraft novella called "The Shadow Over Innsmouth" was adapted by the up-and-coming gay production company and cable channel Here!.  From what I understand the movie is a two way metaphor where the fear and pressure that Russ (the films gay protagonist) faces when returning home to his small-town roots in order to attend to his mothers estate is matched by the realization that his father is part of the Cult of Cthulhu, a cult that worships the greatest evil know in the universe, a large, flightless bird, generally found hibernating in the Pacific Ocean in the submerged ancient city of R'lyeh, who is most assuredly the sign of the end of days.  It's pretty scary stuff.  

Now truth be told I haven't seen this movie, as of yet, so I cannot say for sure that Cthulhu is gay in this movie, or if it even makes an appearance at all.  But I'm hoping he does, and I'm hoping for some gay-tentacle love finally done tastefully. 

PSA: National Coming out Day is October 11th.  Remember, you've got a friend in BSD.  

Watchmen Update

The internet has been astir with rumors about the ending of the upcoming Watchmen movie, and while I usually don't post about movie rumors all that much, this one has me worried. For any of you who don't know Watchmen is a graphic novel by Alan Moore (V for Vendetta, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen), a rather interesting character to say the least. Many consider it the greatest comic book ever written. While I am no where near an expert on comics, Watchmen is one of the few I have read. Alan Moore has been a critic, to say the least, of the several movies made from his comics, and while I think he goes overboard sometimes, after reading V for Vendetta, I'm starting to think that maybe he does have a point. After reading the graphic novel, I still enjoy the movie, but it is nowhere near as good as the comic. So, I suppose that is why I am so worried about this movie, but also extremely excited at the same time. The following link and analysis contains spoilers, so if you haven't read the comic and don't want to know plot details, don't read below or click this link.

-Highlight for Spoilers-

From the rumors I've heard, some sort of nuclear assault is going to replace the weird squid alien that came at the end of the comic. Ozymandias is supposed to be using this plot device to draw the world together because of an outside threat. I just don't understand the change... The squid monster worked fine, and we here at BSD always support a good tentacle rape joke. Did they want to make the movie more realistic? It's a friggin' comic book adaptation. I just have a hard time believing that they can manage the same message with a nuclear war as Moore did with the alien "invasion". Ozymandias used the alien to unite the world against a common foe, an extra-terrestrial invader World of the Worlds style. I just don't know how this can accomplish the same thing. Hopefully I'm proven wrong.


But, who knows... I won't hold judgment on the movie until I see it, but I'm worried. But, I'm also pretty damn excited. At the very least, I am looking forward to seeing the characters on the big screen, the action, the special effects, and Rorschach's costume. I hope that'll be worth the price of admission and that I'll be pleasantly surprised by the rest.

House of Frankenstein

(This post is part of Careful With That Blog, Eugene's Universal Horror Blog-o-Thon. I usually only write posts when something really good hits me, so hopefully this is decent writing. Enjoy.).



My only real experience with Universal monster movies is yearly around Halloween when Caleb and I, and some of our friends head down to an old theater in Detroit to watch some classic horror films. While they are fun, I’m definitely not as big of a fan of them as Caleb is, or probably Paul. I think their biggest problem is that you already know the plot going in… I think it’s just pop culture osmosis or something. Besides that, their pacing is a little too slow and their plots too convoluted, but the latter is partly what makes them so fun. However, seeing House of Frankenstein for the first time made me realize just how much Universal had missed their mark on the film. While it turned out to be a generic monster movie that tried to cram Dracula, The Wolfman and Frankstein’s Monster into the same movie, I was imagining something far greater… A buddy movie… Seinfeld for monsters. While The Munsters and The Addams Family give you an idea of what I’m talking about, those were takes on the family sitcoms of the 60s and 70s.

All I want is a bunch of freaks sitting around their apartment in Bucharest and whining about their problems. Frankenstein’s Monster the idiot of the bunch, Dracula the womanizer, The Wolfman always annoyed at the lost sleep from his murder binges, The Invisible Man talking big, but never actually doing anything but sit around and watch M.A.S.H. re-runs, The Creature from the Black Lagoon glubbing… it’d be great. Doctor Frankstein could be their landlord, maybe… You could throw The Mummy in there, too. We could call it Frankstein’s Place.

The plots would be a mix of the mundane and the ludicrous, maybe an annoying Van Helsing could stop by every once in a while. The monsters would want to just be left alone, but they’d have to throw him out the window or they could just eat him, I suppose. But that would be the genius of the show, there is just so much material to pull from. Despite how contrived most of the movies are, these characters are extremely interesting.

Why have them doing the same damn thing all the time? I’ve seen enough Universal Monster movies to know they all have the same basic plot. For once we’d see the world through the monster’s eyes. Sure they’d kill people every once in a while, and maybe The Invisible Man would be tempted to rape some people, but… okay, well that’s not really defensible, is it? But… it would be great! Blood, guts, Frankenstein’s Monster sitting in front of the TV and watching Sesame Street all day.

Okay, this probably is just a really bad idea and I’ve gone off the deep end, but it really seems like it’d make a good show. At least it would be better than House of Frankenstein. At the very least there wouldn’t be any gypsies.

House of Frankenstein focused on some demented scientist whose brother new Dr. Frankenstein. His goal was to bring Frankenstein’s Monster back to life or switch someone’s brain with the Monster’s… or… something, I honestly don’t remember. He ends up killing some schmuck who runs a travelling freak show and quickly after brings Dracula back to life. Dracula eventually gets into a hilarious carriage accent and Dr. Weirdo and his painfully Igor-like assistant head off to free Frankenstein’s Monster and The Wolf Man from blocks of ice beneath Frankenstein’s castle (which I assume is the titular “house”). The Wolfman is freed first and falls in love with some gypsy woman, who eventually has to kill him… Of course, he dies before Frankenstein’s Monster comes back to life. Yes, folks… this movie whose one draw is that we get to see The Monster, Dracula and The Wolf Man together never actually puts them conscious on the screen at the same time.

Fucking brilliant. And that’s the best part of this show! It has all of them together at once, doing weird monster stuff. It’d be like the Super Friends with less world-saving and more pointless table smashing! It takes the best parts of those Universal movies (the monsters), sticks them together and removes the stupid, megalomaniacal idiots, the overacting heroines and the contrived plots. We’d leave in the angry townspeople, of course, because who doesn’t love an angry mob every once in a while?

Teen Wolf Too: the Todd Howard story

Todd Howard (Jason Bateman) has problems. He’s recently been admitted to Hamilton University on a sports scholarship he doesn’t deserve. So why did they accept him? Well, Todd’s got a cool cousin, his name is Scott Howard. Scott Howard was like Todd once (an uncoordinated loser virgin) but Scott had something other guys didn’t have- a little wolf in his genes. Scott was able to use his werewolfishness to score babes, sink threethrows, ride on rape-vans and generally win over everyone he met. Scott was a cool guy. So why shouldn’t Todd expect his story, a weak repackaging of Scott’s 1985 smash hit Teen Wolf, not turn out the same way?

Because Todd doesn’t know he’s a werewolf, even though the slightest amount of pubescent cleavage or school related stress is enough to throw him into a glowing eyed, Vader voiced, sweaty hissy fit. But all that changes during one fateful dance when Todd cups the ass of the hottest piece of Georgia peach at Hamilton University. Hormones hit hard in Todd. The claws come out as they say and without much warning Todd is grabbing a hold of fat guys and pushing down old women in an attempt to hide his hairy shame.

Todd's o-face.

From there Todd’s life gets a whole lot worse. As you may or may not know minorities have not always been treated with the utmost respect in this country and werewolves are no different. It wasn’t until the mid 50s with the outcome of Chaney v. Board of Education that the desegregation of schools allowed for wolves and men alike to attend the same schools. And even after the ruling it took time for the integration to take hold, first in the youth of the nation (specifically Beacontown High School) and then on a larger scale. So it should come as no surprise when Todd, outed about his condition, is the butt of dog jokes and flea related pranks.

It seems the only person unafraid of Todd’s hidden side is Nicki, a doe-eyed biology major in one of his classes, full of masochism and suffering from sever father issues. She isn’t afraid of the animal within Todd (or the flower within herself,) even when he verbally assaults her in the library, throws some books at her, and talks down to her. Nicki is a glutton for this Teen Wolf Too’s mantic abusive love.

Soon enough Todd is pushed into the ring for his first match on the Hamilton University boxing ‘team.’ It is about here that Todd’s life changes into something a little more familiar: Scott’s life. After a few too many blows to the face Todd ‘wolfs out’ and pummels his opponent in a blur of hair and pulled punches.

Exit light. Enter montage. Todd is swept up into the fast paced life of competitive college boxing and all the perks it has to offer- most notably high hipped 80s women, fat timesless sidekicks, and fast flashy cars. With all these things Todd is also accompanied by the Wolf, who is fast becoming the high jumping, Frisbee catching, orgy hosting, Motown singing mascot the schools needs. Quickly Todd’s story devolves into a series of the training, fighting, and flirting montage with more Wolf than Todd and more hotter girls than Nicki than Nicki.

 

Who do you want to be today?

Lucky for Todd he has friends like Chubby and Stiles, who enjoyed being outperformed so much by Scott in high school they felt the need to room with less impressive cousin in college. After slowly pushing him into the wolfy limelight Stiles and Chubby come to the realization that Todd’s hormonal other side is much worse than they ever thought it could be. Not only is he more likable than them Todd also works far less. Through bitter jealousy, or maybe true friendship, Stiles shows Todd what he has become: “A jerk.”

Todd reconsiders his choices. Is it better to be different and popular, or the same and un-noticed?

Enter redemption montage. After seeing how out of hand he allowed his life to get after turning into the Wolf, Todd has a heart to heart with his uncle Harold as Scott’s father once again substitutes in for his nephews absent parents. After learning the old one-two of bowing from his over weight and over aged uncle Todd rushes over to the library to make amends for the way he’s been treating Nicki. As always Nicki is more than hhappy to accommodate Todd and as soon as he lets loose with the big “I’m sorry I hurt someone I really love” line the two spiral into a cramming session to prepare Todd for his biology final.

Enter cramming montage. Between piles of books Todd learns a whole semester of biology, taking short study breaks to pound Nicki into a sex coma all to the accompanying classic Send Me an Angel by Real Life.

Needless to say Todd aces the test and wins his last match of the season without wolfing out. I guess one night of light training, hard studying, and awkward sex can make up for nearly anything.

Also needles to say this movie has a few problems. It’s no Never Ending Story 3, but than again what is. However there are a few mistakes that go beyond forgiveness. One such mistake is the story and casting. While it’s obvious that Teen Wolf Too is a half-assed remake of Teen Wolf they try to stay as true to the initial story as possible. So much so that much of the story and characters are exactly the same- but not all. Though James Hampton returns as Uncle Harold and Mark Holton as Chubby other characters are not as well remembered, like Coach Finstock and Stiles who both reappear in Teen Wolf Too with new faces.

Anther problem with this movie is the pace. The array of montages do little to speed along the plot and instead last much longer than most of the dialog scenes. The dialog scenes are also incredibly slow. The amount of dead time (silence) in Teen Wolf Too is more uncomfortable than Todd and Nicki’s lab partner flirtations.

But perhaps most bothersome about Teen Wolf Too is how it destroys the forth way time and time again. Through out the film sighs, Frisbees and t-shirts continue to appear with the wods TEEN WOLF TOO printed on them. Its almost as if the students of Hamilton University are all aware of Todd’s cousin Scott and are clever enough to think of calling him ‘Teen Wolf Too’ as an homage to the legendary Beavers player.

The only part of this film which can honestly be commended is its excellent depiction of the werewolf as a serial rapist. Just like other movies in the same genre, like Lon Chaney, Jr.’s the Wolfman of Disney’s Beauty and the Beast, Teen Wolf Too properly conveys the absolute boner-rage and forceful lust which all werewolves are driven by.

All and all Teen Wolf Too is an awful film. It’s a poor remake and worse sequel. Parts of it can be considered ‘good awful’ but it’s too slow and awkward to watch to even be enjoyed on that level. The best thing someone interested in watching this movie could do would be to watch Rocky II (2 not too) and Teen Wolf (one) side by side. Maybe the only good thing that Teen Wolf Too has going for it is that it’s a stepping stone to a better film- like Temple of Doom before it or Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation after it, Teen Wolf Too is the middle child in a three part series of excellence. What’s next? Teen Witch of course.

Monday, September 1, 2008

I don't know if that is something you're interested in...

... but Harrison Bergeron (the beautiful sonofabitch) is coming to the big screen.


If you are not familiar with him you can find his story here.

I really got into Kurt Vonnegut this summer. I blasted through Breakfast of Champions in just a matter of lunch breaks and loved every word and doodle of it. After reading a friend related some staggeringly sad information to me: "I'd read Slaughterhouse-Five and Cat's Cradle and enjoyed both of them. But after I read Breakfast of Champions I just thought 'Shit... I've read the best thing anyone person could possibly be expected to write.'" And I know what she means, after BoC you can't expect anything better- it is just that good. (Not that the rest is lacking, but, instead, simply saying, if there has to be a best maybe this is it.)

I'm not sure what Vonnegut's seminal work is supposed to be. I'd always thought it was Slaughterhouse-Five but I come from a war weary (and leery) family of readers, and that may account for much of my opinions. Either way it's all damn good stuff. I never "LOLed" but I was always pleasantly amused and quite astounded.

Friday, August 1, 2008

Klaatu Barada Nikto

First came An Inconvenient Truth, then came Wall-E, next comes Klaatu. Slowly, the ought decade of cinema is becoming more and more ecocentric and ecofriendly. And, I can only hope that the remake of the wonderful 1951 film, The Day the Earth Stood Still is a continuation in this positive trend. Because I can see no other forgivable reason for creating such a remake as the two films, as of yet to me, do not look very much alike.

Some movies should never be remade- like To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) or in another way the original Star Wars (1977), to do so would degrade this countries cultural history. As the Library of Congress says with the United States National Film Registry some films are preserved because they are "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant." Some things just shouldn't be fumbled with. And, even though there is a vast number of people who will never take the time or have the pleasure of viewing 1951's The Day the Earth Stood Still that does not mean that anyone should go along and deliver a fresh new copy of it to the uninterested and unselfeducated masses.

Some things you just don't mess with. Now, I'll argue back and forth that John Carpenter's The Thing may in fact be superior to its 1951 original The Thing from Another World, and I'll hold out on the latter if only because of its classic suspense and how dated it may appear by today's standards. But, no matter how dated The Day the Earth Stood Still may be I still can't see much excuse for making a classic like it anew. ... Though, if anyone were to ever play Klaatu again I think Keanu Reeves is as alien enough as a human being can be and still be able to do it well.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951):


The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008):


I'll see this movie. And I'll even hope it's good, but I'll never consider it to be The Day the Earth Stood Still, of fully forgive its producers (no matter how good it is) for deciding to make it, even when I'm buying the Gort toy which I'm sure they'll make (and sure I'll buy) though I really wish they won't.

Maybe someday I'll review the original in the sappy as hell sentimental way we here seem to like to do.

CML

Thursday, July 3, 2008

Wall•E (review number 2)

As much as I had started this hoping to write a review of a clever kids film I find it now to be, just as the film itself, much more. This is than not a review but an in-depth reflection. Also, I’ll assume you’ve already read either Matt or Paul’s review or seen the film and forgo any plot synopsis. 

Wall-E is a special type of movie¬¬– it is science fiction for children. Not only that but Wall-E is sci fi in its purest state, reflecting on human society and condition from the outside; and this time through children’s eyes.

This movie stimulated in me what so much science fiction has overlooked: my heart. Lo, in little Wall-E all the short comings and pity I’d ever felt at the realization each time I watched Star Wars that R2-D2 and C3-PO were programmed AI machines were washed away and I saw a robot as human being and more. And that is the essence of appear for this film, a story which not only lights up neurons in the intellectual mind but touches and wrenches at the lover’s heart as well. A movie about love, love of life and love of freedom, from when Wall-E longingly looks from his isolation on earth at the wonderment and grandeur space to the realization of a few choice and lucky human souls that there is a world beyond their own egocentric existences. Wall-E and Eve, Mary and John, even the Captain and Mo, all took that first step away from their individual solitude and duty, and, like stepping out across the sea of tranquility, realizing that though they had never been told they could, there was a whole world beyond their track willingly opening itself to them. Most stunning to me about the character and action of the film was the purpose which Eve, the robot of Wall-E’s affection, ultimately serves and represents: she is the birth, or re-birth, of life on earth. Eve, like her namesake, is sent to earth to become the first mother, again, with the intention of finding and harboring the slightest sign of green life returning to the desolate surface of the planet. (Slight spoiler) I was dumb struck by this, both the implication and the incredible, yes I’ll say it, cuteness of the whole thing- Wall-E presents Eve with a plant, a plant she holds within her very ovarian looking body, a plant which means the future of all life on earth. Wow, now that is good story telling.

Wall-E has all the special touches a science fiction fan would like to see from Pixar. Just like the “Binford” tool box in Toy Story stood out to any self respecting Home Improvement fan, this film didn’t miss a chance to make homage to the classics of sci-fi films and literature. And the film is full of these little nods and notices as it mixes ideas from some of the greatest science fiction conceived with out allowing the knowledge or obviousness of the influences to feel pretentious. The story has elements of Huxley’s Brave New World and its Pavlovian conditioning. Bradbury’s conception of a age of humanity subject and witness only to video screens and cheap media as he wrote of in Fahrenheit 451 is perhaps less present in the story but still adds some eeriness of disconnect and inhumanity to the ambience of the films human race. I think Matt Bias said it best when he wrote “Dressed up in all these pretty colors is a dystopian world that would make Orwell proud.” It isn’t an Orwellian story, but it has an adversity to totalitarianism and concept of dystopia that any one can recognize and appreciate. Visually the movie is a stargazer and futurist’s dream. In no small way are 2001: A Space Odyssey’s influences on the film hidden, including not only the visual and character traits of Hal that appear in the film’s Auto-Pilot but also in the architecture and acoustic atmosphere of Wall-E. Both a knock at her role as the computer repeating crewmen in Galaxy Quest and a modest bow to her status as a living science fiction icon, Sigourney Weaver could be heard as the ships voice. Perhaps though what I found most impressive was to see that the animators had properly rendered the moon landing site as it sands today, something which even Futurama was unable to do and is an amazing example of the attention to detail and scientific accuracy under which the entire film was produced.
I must, as I’m so sure many have, breath a sigh of regret and sorrow for all those other movie patrons I saw that night buying tickets and walking blindly into canopies of darkness only to be met by some other story about someone who was not the little robot, Wall-E. It is in every respect a dazzling and binding film, out weighing any prior animations and I can only hope will someday stand among other science fiction films as a rare and unlikely classic; not a children’s toy rocket like Ewoks the movie but a fully realized and appreciated Saturn V titan of a film.

Sometime in our childhood we each sat down to a movie and had no idea that the seeds of a classic were about to be planted through our eyes and into our hearts and minds. Last night, I saw such a classic, and being fully realized to me I allowed myself to once again slip away to the land of my youth on magic carpets and rocket ships which embellished me with winds in my eyes and exhaust in my throat so strongly that tears were easily welled up in my eyes the whole night long. It is a wonder why anyone would like this film, it seems at first thought so alien, so far removed from anything recognizably emotional or human, but, as does all good science fiction, it is a retrospect through which we may see our true selves, both our inhumanity and our compassions.



Caleb Michael, go see Wall-E.

Sunday, June 29, 2008

Movie Review: Wall-E

Title: Wall-E




Director: Andrew Stanton




Released: June 27, 2008




Runtime: 103 min.







Where Pixar found the cajones to make this movie I have no earthly clue, but they managed to conjure up the ghosts of Brave New World and 2001: A Space Odyssey and create an animated children’s movie the likes of which I have never seen, and truly doubt I will every witness again. Wall-E is, on the surface, a kid’s movie, but I’m hard pressed to fun much beyond the animation, the soft colors and cute robotic protagonist that is aimed at them. Oddly enough, this film is really for the very few adults who will actually give it the chance it deserves instead of snoozing while their kids stare at the wonderful animation.

Introducing the plot feels hallow to me after experiencing the spectacle first hand, but Wall-E is the story of the last robot running on earth, who spends his days building skyscrapers of compacted-trash. He does his job tirelessly and efficiently, but with a little lunch pail. He is a collector and a lover, who befriends the cockroaches because they are the only things left to befriend. Everything changes when he meets a girl (but then, doesn’t it always?) and fall heads over heels for her. From there the plot takes off until we meet Auto, who reminded me a lot of HAL, though not quite so disturbing of a character. For the rest, though, you’ll just have to go see it for yourselves.

From the opening shots of Earth, to the panning across the cityscape of some unnamed American city, we are given a view of the dusty-brown corpse of industrialization. Skyscrapers of trash jut into the air next to actual high-rises, a thick layer of age covering everything. With the interjection of Wall-E this landscape becomes a dichotomy of desolation and happiness. This will be repeated throughout the movie, but it really hits home here. Even in the worst places, the most barren and depressing wastelands there can be good, there can be happiness.

The amount of depth in the film is staggering, but what is more astounding is that it is woven so seamlessly and subtlety into the fabric of the story that it’s so easy to miss. Dressed up in all these pretty colors is a dystopian world that would make Orwell proud, for humanity has long ago polluted Earth beyond habitability and gone off to the stars for a sort of millennia-long cruise. There, they eat, sleep and let their entertainment rot their brains until they are less human than those pod-people from The Matrix. And stealing center stage from all of this is the idea that one little robot can be more human than any left alive. While the human cattle are being driven along by their robot servants, or would it be better to say masters, Wall-E is following his lonely heart with a self-sacrificing drive of a true hero.

Wall-E is the best movie I have seen in a long time, and it’s a shame to think that so many went to see Wanted instead of this masterpiece. Just go see it. A movie about a little junk collector robot managed to make me question what it truly means to be human. I am still sitting here, my head spinning, wondering how that is even possible. It is a disturbing look at the future if you really want to open your eyes and see, but above all else it is hopeful that humans and robots alike can progress if they are willing to sacrifice.

Rating: 5 stars

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

Movie Review: The Strangers

Title: The Strangers

Director: Bryan Bertino

Released: May 30, 2008

Runtime: 90 min.

I work at a movie theater, thus I get to see movies for free. Sometimes I even get paid to watch movies. This review should be the first in a long line of movie reviews this summer. I hope to see as many movies as I can, but these reviews will most likely be mostly positive, because I’m going to see movies I want to see, not just anything. The following review will be the exception.

I got to screen The Strangers on Thursday night, which was a pretty good gig, really. Instead of doing any real work, I got paid to watch a movie for a little over an hour and a half. While I would have preferred a better movie, I can’t really complain. It certainly was better than tearing tickets.

The Strangers is a horror/suspense film, coming from a long line of movies that I don’t care about at all. I never saw The Ring or any of the Saws, or even Friday the 13th (though I should see that one, if only because it’s a classic) so I’m definitely not in this movie’s wheelhouse. I suppose it does get the suspense aspect down, but the horror is a little lacking.

The basic premise is that random woman (Liv Tyler) and random guy (Scott Speedman) come home late at night to their cottage in the middle of nowhere and some weird woman knocks on the door asking for “Tamra” (which you’d hope is relevant to the plot or something, but not… it’s not at all) several times and mostly just freaking the two random people out. Eventually some crazies (including the first woman) start making loud noises and breaking things. And that’s basically the movie, spoiler free.

Before ripping the film apart, I’d like to speak to the few things that the movie did get right. The acting was pretty good and as realistic as can be given the fact that these people are constantly getting scared shitless and almost getting killed. There weren’t too many “why the hell are you doing that, you stupid idiot?” moments in the film, but there were a few. The side-plot was interesting enough, though not explored much. I really wish the movie had been about a guy proposing to a girl and her rejecting him because she isn’t ready to marry. I’m pretty sure I would have enjoyed that more, but probably not by much. Secondly, It was scary, just not scary enough in my opinion. Someone could have gotten the same reaction out of me by jumping out from around the corner and yelling “boo!”, but I’m not looking to be scared by movies anyway, so it doesn’t matter much to me. Finally, it does create suspense, but I’ll talk more about that later.

If you don’t want the movie ruined for you, stop reading here… I’m going into spoiler territory, which I don’t really like to do, but it’s sort of necessary.

My biggest problem with the film is that it has no plot to speak of. A bunch of whackos run around a house banging on it with axes and whatever else, bust up cars and break into the house. Inexplicably they manage to destroy random girl’s cell phone and steal the battery out of random guy’s phone. I have no idea how. Are they even human? How did they manage to get through a locked door? They even open a locked door somehow at one point in the movie… and can apparently withstand shotgun blasts from close range. Seriously, am I supposed to believe that random guy is that bad of a shot? The hooded whacko is like two feet from him, how does he miss? He’s not Greedo.

And that’s just it, none of your questions are even answered, not even the ones that the director obviously wants you to ask. Who are these people? Why are they doing this? Who is Tamra? How is Liv Tyler alive at the end? Is random guy alive too? Good villains have motivations, they have history, they have depth… these guys are cardboard cutouts. They’re faceless nut jobs who we’re to assume are torturing to people just because they can. The only explanation given at all is “you were home”.

The film is also as cliché ridden and predictable as can be, which I suppose is fairly common in this genre. The worst offense is the death of random guy’s best friend, which can be seen from the moment he appears on screen. Worst of all, it got to the point where I didn’t feel as if random couple had any chance against these masked whackos, which allowed me to become detached from their fate. They were going to die, it was inevitable (except not, because… people can survive being stabbed in the stomach and bleeding profusely for hours without any medical treatment) and there really wasn’t any point in seeing the damn thing.

I don’t go to movies to be scared, just like I don’t go to movies to see cool explosions, car chases and gun fights. I watch action movies for their plots, and enjoy the random explosions and other miscellanea because it is cool and fun. It’s the same with horror movies and this film left me annoyed. I’m sure people will gobble it up, but I say just go to an Amusement Park if you want to be scared, there doesn’t need to be a plot there.

In the end, this film is Signs devoid of any intelligence, plot, sentimentality or sense. Honestly, its one redeeming quality is that I got to see Liv Tyler for an hour and a half straight, and in the end, I guess that’s not a bad thing.

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Movie Reviews: Blade Runner

Title: Blade Runner



Director: Ridley Scott



Released: 1982



Runtime: 116 min.




Do Androids dream of electric sheep?

Maybe I'm not the best one here at BSD to tackle this one, but I've been on a sci-fi kick lately and this is the movie that began my summer of trying to watch science fiction movies. I'd already seen the movie, but my girlfriend hadn't, so we popped it into her DVD player (which strangely enough looks as if it was made by Fisher Price) and watched.

While I may not ever be able to forgive it completely for starting that damn cyberpunk fad, this movie stands completely on its own. Sure it's science fiction, but it's not Buck Rogers or Star Trek. I've always believed that at it's purest level, Sci-Fi is an amazing avenue for writing because it gives the writer a way to explore human nature without the reality of the future getting in the way. The reader or viewer can just sit back and truly think about themselves and their own society. I think, perhaps, that 1984 by George Orwell did this the best.


From this perspective, Blade Runner is a complete mindfuck. If you really watch, the view of humanity through a Replicant's eyes is not a pleasant thing. That is the true heart of the movie. These are human creations, human slaves and their actions are our responsibility. I could go off on metaphysical tangent about the rights of artificial sentient creatures, but I won't right now. I will sometime down the line, I'm sure, but I think that it's best that you watch this movie first.

Tyrell Corporation

Based on the novella Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Phillip K. Dick (which I haven't read, but Caleb has), Blade Runner is an exceptional film in every aspect. The basic plot outline is that humanity has created artificial intelligence that looks and behaves just like humans, or close enough. After a rebellion of these "Replicants", they are banned from Earth and special police officers "Blade Runners" are trained to find and kill any found on the planet. The protagonist, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) spends the movie seeking them out and trying to "retire" them. This journey reaches a crescendo on a roof top with one of the most moving soliloquies in any movie I have seen by Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer).

One of the most striking aspects of the movie is the background. Set in the Los Angeles of 2019, the city is dark, polluted and awash in a neon glow that would make todays metropolises green with envy. Cars fly, the streets are teeming with people and the black market thrives. It is a beautiful picture of a city that feels real unlike many of the genre. Even the ziggurat of the Tyrell building seems real in this world, despite it's massive size and rather alien appearance.

All the actors playing Replicants do an admirable job, as does Edward James Olmos as a sort of sidekick/driver/adversary to Ford's Deckard. These characters all have life of their own, even down to the little black market eyeball salesman. It is charming in its own dark and gritty way, and will no doubt leave you with the impression that this world is as vibrant and real as our own.


Do Androids dream of electric sheep? I'd like to think they do...


Other Reviews

Sunday, December 2, 2007

Beowulf: Worst Movie Ever

Somehow, Beowulf received a 70% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I can only assume that they are very easily distracted by shiny objects...

The movie I watched was a clusterfuck of blind drunk Norsemen, zombies, blood, gore, rape and stilettos made of golden ooze. And while that sounds like a pretty kick ass movie, it wasn't, and I'm not even positive why. It wasn't the fact that they totally disregarded the epic poem the movie was supposedly based upon (they followed the plot loosely up until the fight with Grendel and then I think they might as well have been going off of A Handmaid's Tale for how well it followed form), because they totally just said screw that shit.

Perhaps they were just too busy to staring at how pretty the animation was to actually write an adequate script, perhaps it was written after the writer's strike began, maybe they just figured people wouldn't care. Obviously, I'm the only one who did from the glowing reviews the movie has gotten.

I'm not even sure how they fucked up this movie. It's the greatest hero of all times fighting monsters and then sacrificing himself in a blaze of glory for his people. How do you mess that up?! Oh, that's right... by not following the story, ripping off every action movie ever made (Star Wars, Indiana Jones, 300, Braveheart, etc, etc), having a bunch of actors put together wooden performances with an awful script. Was anyone inspired by Beowulf's speeches? I've never been less inspired in my life. The entire movie can be summarized in one scene where Beowulf is swallowed by a sea monster and jumps out through the creature's eye, sword slashing, dripping with gore and yelling "I am Beowulf!". There, I saved you the pain of seeing it yourself.

The message of the whole ordeal is something along the lines of "don't think with your dick", instead of the ideals of courage, arrogance and excellence that the poem is based upon, but even that message is muddied. Beowulf messed up and fucks Angelina Jolie (who the hell can blame him?), but never really gets punished for it in the end. His son goes crazy and almost kills some of his loved ones, and maybe kills some random soldiers or something and breaks a stone bridge, but so what? Beowulf sacrifices himself to stop the dragon, but it's too little too late... the whole mess is Beowulf's fault anyway and we're supposed to believe he got a raw deal for dying at a ripe old age as a king? It just doesn't mesh. The Norse ideals make for a much better movie, anyhow.

I could go on and on ripping this film apart over historical inaccuracies, literary inaccuracies, things that defy physics and common sense, awful acting, bad writing, but in the end none of that even matters all that much as long as the movie is exciting. But, that's the thing... it's not. There are fight scenes, but they aren't very intriguing... there are a couple of battles, but you don't really see much of what is going on. The saddest part is that I could forgive this movie all it's sins except for the simple fact that it's not fun. It has to be to work. It's simply sad when the best part of a movie is the fat man behind you yelling "Go get 'em Gay-owulf!".

Friday, November 30, 2007

Beowulf… more like “Gay-owulf”…

Beowulf is very redundant movie. A very action packed, intense, thrilling, exciting, fierce, powerful movie; with one ripping, tearing, slashing, gouging talon and teeth filled scene after another. Also, the movie has Jesus in it, and golden boobs.

Watching this movie was like being transported into another world, an ancient world that still had the plague and where rape ran rampant in the streets. This effect was so strong that even the movie theater was transformed into the Roman Forum for a time and ideas and opinions were voiced aloud to the public. I’m thinking of course of when the big dark man behind me lectured his young child about the science of buying pop at the multiplex and followed up with a detailed explanation of the chemistry of sugar and caffeine in relation to the size of an extra large movie-soda bucket. Or when a particularly articulate bright woman voiced her dismay over the metaphor in the film that related a goblet with a vagina. Though, I must admit, this is one comparison I myself found confusing- one is a totalitarian object, the other is a drinking cup, the similarities are few. Or perhaps it was the voice of reason in the theater that called for “More titties!” and urged the hero further in his battle with a supportive shout of “Go get em Gay-owulf!” which completed this feeling of time travel for me. All I know is that for a time I was an artist and an aerator, seated with the greatest minds of my time observing a drama I supposed would rival those of Sophocles and Ennius. But alas, this film’s greatness, like it’s moral message, must have been in 4-D while the glasses they gave me could only see 3.

Full of fight scene, naked men and golden women Beowulf seems to have everything going for it: George McFLy in a screaming tantrum, a shinny Laura Croft, a five and a half foot tall Gimli. How could it loose? How could so much nudity and blood become excessive so quickly? How could the amazing 3-D effects feel so gimmicky? Beowulf is the ultimate concept combining all the glory and imagination of the two greatest legends to be placed on celluloid in the past twenty years, Shrek 2 and 300. And yet, with all it’s superb dialogue (“I…Am…SPARTA! Er…I MEAN BEOUWULF”) and it’s dazzling cinematography (Zemeckis is a master at playing hide the salami) Beowulf still fell flat on it’s face.

As a side note to anyone considering doing anything in 3-D. Yes, I know we live our lives in 3-D, but seriously, I don’t go to movies to feel like I’m in real life, I go to them for the exact opposite reason. All 3-D does is remind me of how horrible everything is, and how much better war and politics and famine would be if they were only in 2 dimensions. As for the 3-D effect in Beowulf, if the title character is going to spend the whole film naked it makes sense to put it in 3-D, but not if you aren’t going to show his massive war wrought penis even once. Come on, even Bart Simpson gave it up for the pedophiles and closet geeks and he’s a yellow cartoon. Anyways, William Castle’s “Illusion-O!” beats out 3-D any day of the week.

Let’s all get naked and go watch Beowulf.

Caleb Michael, in dedication to John Denyer

Saturday, June 30, 2007

A Duo of Sci-Fi Shows Resurrected

Rejoice!

Futurama and The X-Files are both getting new movies... hopefully, and I couldn't be more excited. They're two of the greatest TV shows of all-time, and at least Futurama was ended way too soon. I'll debate with you whether The X-Files was or not...

Here's an interview with Matt Groening on some magazine/website I've never heard of, but it seems legit enough... and I remember reading Groening saying basically the same thing from another source. The basic gist is that they are releasing four straight to DVD movies, then chopping up the movies to play as episodes on Comedy Central. Sounds good to me.

The X-Files news is a little less certain I suppose, given that I can't find any information on it from what resembles an actual news source, but whatever, I don't care. I'm going to just dive wildly into the hope and if my heart gets crushed, so what.

Here's a link of some news and a supposed interview with David Duchovny. They call themselves "the movie reporter"... that's good enough, right?

News about the movie is also on some sort of AOL TV blog. Um... just drink the kool-aid.

Anyhow, it is supposed to be a stand-alone "monster-of-the-week" type movie. For all of you who don't know what the hell I'm talking about, it's not going to involve aliens and won't be part of the whole alien colonization/government conspiracy/cigarette smoking man overarching plot that went through the series and was the focus of the first movie, Fight the Future. I honestly wouldn't care either way, as long as I get to watch some new X-Files.

Anyhow, I'm sure more news will follow once I find any. For now, I'll leave you with this...



Doesn't it just send chills down your spine?

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)