Viewed in
2011
Formats
DVD
Premise
Matt Damon stars as a New York Senator who falls in love with a ballerina (Emily Blunt), but mysterious men in hats keep them apart for mysterious reasons with mysterious powers.
Liked
The acting.
Disliked
The similarities to Dark City.
Thoughts
From the moment I saw the trailer, I instantly thought of my favorite film of all time. The plot, premise, and archetypes all looked too familiar. Sadly, I was right.
Having said that, it was still a good film. It obviously had much better star power with Damon as the lead. He was excellent as a promising politician with a checkered past, carrying the film through its sci-fi and romantic moments with natural ease. Blunt was lovely and had good chemistry with our hero. Like most American films, you need a British accent to let the audience know "don't mess with this guy", and Terence Stamp was very strong as the antagonist. I also liked solid performances by John Slattery and Anthony Mackie (The Hurt Locker).
For me, everything else was predictable because I had seen this story before in Dark City. Hero fighting the system? Check. His history and love life possibly manufactured? Check. Horde of baddies with abilities to control time and space? Check. Free will versus fate? Check. Retro metropolis setting? Check. Heck, even both films' bad guys have weaknesses against water! At least the Strangers from the 1998 masterpiece didn't need hats to keep them in power.
Obviously not everything was identical, but you get the picture. There were some aspects of this film that were superior, such as star power, special effects, better developed love story, and overall production value.
Look, I know The Adjustment Bureau probably got an unfair shake because of I happened to love Dark City with a passion. I highly doubt most moviegoers love or remember an indie sci-fi flick released a dozen years ago (though a quick web search yielded a surprising number of hits), so their experience won't be as deja vu as mine. So without bashing it any further, I thought it was a decent, accessible science fiction thriller that didn't dumb things down for the audience.
What I would change
No idea. I never read Philip K. Dick's short story, so I don't know how close this was to the original source, which would give it some leeway in terms of coincidental similarities with you-know-what.
Showing posts with label science fiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science fiction. Show all posts
Akira
Viewed in
2002, 2003
Formats
DVD
Premise
The landmark anime film classic about psionic kids in post-apocalyptic Tokyo.
Thoughts
It's been forever, but it was an eye-opening classic in the anime genre. It was full of mature themes, trippy sequences, an uncompromising gritty vision, a memorable style, an interesting score, and thought-provoking ambiguity. The interpretive ending might have been too ambitious, to the point of pretentiousness. Also, the dialogue was laughable at times, as the leads just repeatedly shout each others' names.
What I would change
Nothing.
2002, 2003
Formats
DVD
Premise
The landmark anime film classic about psionic kids in post-apocalyptic Tokyo.
Thoughts
It's been forever, but it was an eye-opening classic in the anime genre. It was full of mature themes, trippy sequences, an uncompromising gritty vision, a memorable style, an interesting score, and thought-provoking ambiguity. The interpretive ending might have been too ambitious, to the point of pretentiousness. Also, the dialogue was laughable at times, as the leads just repeatedly shout each others' names.
What I would change
Nothing.
Aliens
Viewed in
2010
Formats
Netflix HD streaming via Xbox 360
Premise
Sigourney Weaver returns in the sequel as she joins a military squad to revisit the hostile planet. James Cameron takes over as director.
Loved
Weaver's kick-butt character.
Liked
The suspenseful intensity, the impressive special effects.
Disliked
How similar it was to Avatar.
Thoughts
A worthy sequel to a classic.
Weaver was one of the coolest aspects of the first two films. It was not just because of the rarity of a female lead in a sci-fi action flick, but because how much she kicked butt in that role; she was smart and tough as nails. I was just plain giddy when she went into all-out Ripley mode around the halfway mark. Like before, the cast was solid, including Michael Biehn, the perfectly cast Lance Henriksen as an android, and Carrie Henn as the lone survivor on the colony. Admittedly, I was surprised by Paul Reiser's dramatic chops, since I only knew him from Mad About You.
For the most part, this film still maintained the uneasy suspense and silent-but-deadly vibe from the classic. Like before, it started off with spooky atmosphere, and built up into a nerve-wracking crescendo, only more action-oriented. When it morphed into shoot-em-up, it was very well done. The majority of special effects still held up, especially the improved animatronics/puppets able to show more of the aliens as agile, fighting entities. Also, the robot suits were impressive.
The biggest flaw was that the plot was a bit flimsy, especially in terms of characters acting dumber than expected. After watching this, it did deflate Avatar a bit, because I realized that Cameron recycled numerous moments, characters, and technology from Aliens.
This belongs in the pantheon of sequels equal (or nearly equal) to the original, thanks to Ripley, fantastic visual effects, and continuing the uneasy/queasy feeling of the unknown. I still preferred the original, due to a more consistent suspenseful experience and story.
What I would change
Nothing.
2010
Formats
Netflix HD streaming via Xbox 360
Premise
Sigourney Weaver returns in the sequel as she joins a military squad to revisit the hostile planet. James Cameron takes over as director.
Loved
Weaver's kick-butt character.
Liked
The suspenseful intensity, the impressive special effects.
Disliked
How similar it was to Avatar.
Thoughts
A worthy sequel to a classic.
Weaver was one of the coolest aspects of the first two films. It was not just because of the rarity of a female lead in a sci-fi action flick, but because how much she kicked butt in that role; she was smart and tough as nails. I was just plain giddy when she went into all-out Ripley mode around the halfway mark. Like before, the cast was solid, including Michael Biehn, the perfectly cast Lance Henriksen as an android, and Carrie Henn as the lone survivor on the colony. Admittedly, I was surprised by Paul Reiser's dramatic chops, since I only knew him from Mad About You.
For the most part, this film still maintained the uneasy suspense and silent-but-deadly vibe from the classic. Like before, it started off with spooky atmosphere, and built up into a nerve-wracking crescendo, only more action-oriented. When it morphed into shoot-em-up, it was very well done. The majority of special effects still held up, especially the improved animatronics/puppets able to show more of the aliens as agile, fighting entities. Also, the robot suits were impressive.
The biggest flaw was that the plot was a bit flimsy, especially in terms of characters acting dumber than expected. After watching this, it did deflate Avatar a bit, because I realized that Cameron recycled numerous moments, characters, and technology from Aliens.
This belongs in the pantheon of sequels equal (or nearly equal) to the original, thanks to Ripley, fantastic visual effects, and continuing the uneasy/queasy feeling of the unknown. I still preferred the original, due to a more consistent suspenseful experience and story.
What I would change
Nothing.
Alien (Director's Cut?)
Viewed in
2008
Premise
The first in the franchise, in which a mysterious, killing alien stows away on a human cargo ship.
Who should watch
Those who like effective, scary science fiction.
Thoughts
While I am not a fan of horror, I enjoyed this influential film. Not only did it launch Sigourney Weaver's career, it also proved that a female action star was possible. Had this film failed, director Ridley Scott might not have been able to create his masterpiece, 'Blade Runner'.
In addition to Weaver, the well-acted cast included Ian Holm and Tom Skerritt. What was interesting was because the story took place entirely on a cargo ship of seven (or eight), it sometimes felt like I was watching a play.
Considering when this was filmed, I was pleasantly surprised by the special effects, as they were very convincing even by 2000's standards. Well, except for the giant computers with monochrome monitors and archaic code.
What made it so scary was the Hitchcock-style suspense. I was expecting a big monster just tearing the place up for two hours. Instead, there was a lot of nerve-wracking waiting. The camera was often from the character's point of view, so I was as clueless as the characters, until it was too late.
This film contained one of the most famous scenes in cinema history, which I will just call 'the dinner scene'. Unfortunately, since I watched this nearly 30 years after it debuted, I had already seen the scene in tributes and parodies. I felt a bit cheated out of the shocking experience of seeing it for the first time.
Even though the late great Jerry Goldsmith did not like how his score was altered for the film, I thought the end result was very effective. The minimalistic music and long pauses of silence enhanced the unknown danger awaiting the hapless humans.
Thanks to special effects, Sigourney Weaver, and great pacing by the film makers, this horror film did what it was supposed to do, it made me sit on pins and needles wanting to know what happens next.
What I would change
Nothing.
Random
I put a question mark on whether I had seen the 'Director's Cut' because according to sources, there were two added scenes, but I only recall seeing one in my viewing. While it explained the demise of two of the characters better, I thought leaving that up to the audience's imagination was the right choice initially.
Was this the first film to start the monster-behind-the-trash-is-a-cat cliche?
2008
Premise
The first in the franchise, in which a mysterious, killing alien stows away on a human cargo ship.
Who should watch
Those who like effective, scary science fiction.
Thoughts
While I am not a fan of horror, I enjoyed this influential film. Not only did it launch Sigourney Weaver's career, it also proved that a female action star was possible. Had this film failed, director Ridley Scott might not have been able to create his masterpiece, 'Blade Runner'.
In addition to Weaver, the well-acted cast included Ian Holm and Tom Skerritt. What was interesting was because the story took place entirely on a cargo ship of seven (or eight), it sometimes felt like I was watching a play.
Considering when this was filmed, I was pleasantly surprised by the special effects, as they were very convincing even by 2000's standards. Well, except for the giant computers with monochrome monitors and archaic code.
What made it so scary was the Hitchcock-style suspense. I was expecting a big monster just tearing the place up for two hours. Instead, there was a lot of nerve-wracking waiting. The camera was often from the character's point of view, so I was as clueless as the characters, until it was too late.
This film contained one of the most famous scenes in cinema history, which I will just call 'the dinner scene'. Unfortunately, since I watched this nearly 30 years after it debuted, I had already seen the scene in tributes and parodies. I felt a bit cheated out of the shocking experience of seeing it for the first time.
Even though the late great Jerry Goldsmith did not like how his score was altered for the film, I thought the end result was very effective. The minimalistic music and long pauses of silence enhanced the unknown danger awaiting the hapless humans.
Thanks to special effects, Sigourney Weaver, and great pacing by the film makers, this horror film did what it was supposed to do, it made me sit on pins and needles wanting to know what happens next.
What I would change
Nothing.
Random
I put a question mark on whether I had seen the 'Director's Cut' because according to sources, there were two added scenes, but I only recall seeing one in my viewing. While it explained the demise of two of the characters better, I thought leaving that up to the audience's imagination was the right choice initially.
Was this the first film to start the monster-behind-the-trash-is-a-cat cliche?
Appleseed
Viewed in
2004
Premise
Something about giant robots (aka mechas), humans, love, conspiracy. The usual mecha stuff.
Who should watch
Animation fans.
Thoughts
The best part of the movie was the interesting combinations of computer graphics, hand drawn animation, and extreme cell shading. However, technology and style could not make up for boring story. They used every science fiction cliche you can think of. The best action scene was when the mechas fought through the shopping mall.
What I would change
Thought up an orginal robot plot.
2004
Premise
Something about giant robots (aka mechas), humans, love, conspiracy. The usual mecha stuff.
Who should watch
Animation fans.
Thoughts
The best part of the movie was the interesting combinations of computer graphics, hand drawn animation, and extreme cell shading. However, technology and style could not make up for boring story. They used every science fiction cliche you can think of. The best action scene was when the mechas fought through the shopping mall.
What I would change
Thought up an orginal robot plot.
Artificial Intelligence: AI
Viewed in
2002, 2004
Premise
In a world where robots look and behave like humans, a family adopts a robot 'boy' who wishes to be human.
Who should watch
Haley Joel Osment fans. Those in the mood for well-acted, but creepy movie.
Thoughts
I think 'creepy' best describes this film. It's not exactly a bad thing, that's often a case for a Stanley Kubrick project.
What stood out the most for me was the superb acting. Haley Joel Osment carried the film with his enthralling, creepy performance. Personally, I found this more challenging and better than when he was in 'The Sixth Sense'. Another great acting job was by Jude Law. He nearly stole the show as a robot designed to be the suavest, sexiest gigolo.
What brought the film down was the long, meandering story. It seemed like the film makers were way too ambitious, and did not want to cut out their favorite scenes, even if it might not fit the big story.
Despite the flaws, I think the premise and acting and creepy mood made the film very interesting and worth checking out. It might have been Kubrick's true vision, but Spielberg does his best tribute to him.
What I would change
Got rid of the third, "happy ending" act.
2002, 2004
Premise
In a world where robots look and behave like humans, a family adopts a robot 'boy' who wishes to be human.
Who should watch
Haley Joel Osment fans. Those in the mood for well-acted, but creepy movie.
Thoughts
I think 'creepy' best describes this film. It's not exactly a bad thing, that's often a case for a Stanley Kubrick project.
What stood out the most for me was the superb acting. Haley Joel Osment carried the film with his enthralling, creepy performance. Personally, I found this more challenging and better than when he was in 'The Sixth Sense'. Another great acting job was by Jude Law. He nearly stole the show as a robot designed to be the suavest, sexiest gigolo.
What brought the film down was the long, meandering story. It seemed like the film makers were way too ambitious, and did not want to cut out their favorite scenes, even if it might not fit the big story.
Despite the flaws, I think the premise and acting and creepy mood made the film very interesting and worth checking out. It might have been Kubrick's true vision, but Spielberg does his best tribute to him.
What I would change
Got rid of the third, "happy ending" act.
Attack the Block
Viewed in
2011
Formats
Movie theater
Premise
Teenage hoodlums from the projects of London, aka The Block, take on an alien invasion.
Liked
The premise, the kids, some of the comedy, the creativity.
Disliked
The underwhelming plot.
Thoughts
I think I over-hyped myself for Attack the Block.
There was definitely some creative moments. And it's true that one of Earth's greatest monsters are reckless teenage boys. Watching them running amok with bats, fireworks, bikes, and a samurai sword, taking out malicious aliens was quite fun. (Too bad for the inauspicious timing of the London riots.)
The action sequences were fun mash-ups of parkour, X-Games, hooliganism, MacGyver, and old-school horror. The violence and gore was well done, given its budget, with cool visuals of shadowy beasts that were entirely black, except for their rave-ready canines. I also appreciated some thought into the reason behind the invasion.
I probably missed a bunch of British jokes, despite recently completing a Doctor Who marathon. But I was in better shape than my buddy. There were some funny dialog between the main teenagers, as they traded insults and made pop culture whimsy. I liked the moments with the two preteens trying join their gang, but keep getting rejected, ordered to go home and "watch some Naruto". They could've done more with the absurdity of teenage boys unaware of the significance of their actions, as they dealt with aliens, drug-dealers, and annoying relatives.
The characters were surprisingly well-drawn. The original gang of five was pretty easy to distinguish, and organic, not caricatures. The Nick Frost pot-head, on the other hand, was pretty useless.
Again, maybe I would've laughed more had I been a Brit. But when the film was over, I felt underwhelmed, as if they ran out of ideas out from the promising premise. Or perhaps the premise was not as bad-ass as I thought and was simply in denial.
Overall, it was a bit scary, a bit silly, a bit gory, a bit hilarious, a bit cool, a bit creative, but also a bit disappointing, considering Nick Frost and Edgar Wright were involved.
What I would change
Not sure.
2011
Formats
Movie theater
Premise
Teenage hoodlums from the projects of London, aka The Block, take on an alien invasion.
Liked
The premise, the kids, some of the comedy, the creativity.
Disliked
The underwhelming plot.
Thoughts
I think I over-hyped myself for Attack the Block.
There was definitely some creative moments. And it's true that one of Earth's greatest monsters are reckless teenage boys. Watching them running amok with bats, fireworks, bikes, and a samurai sword, taking out malicious aliens was quite fun. (Too bad for the inauspicious timing of the London riots.)
The action sequences were fun mash-ups of parkour, X-Games, hooliganism, MacGyver, and old-school horror. The violence and gore was well done, given its budget, with cool visuals of shadowy beasts that were entirely black, except for their rave-ready canines. I also appreciated some thought into the reason behind the invasion.
I probably missed a bunch of British jokes, despite recently completing a Doctor Who marathon. But I was in better shape than my buddy. There were some funny dialog between the main teenagers, as they traded insults and made pop culture whimsy. I liked the moments with the two preteens trying join their gang, but keep getting rejected, ordered to go home and "watch some Naruto". They could've done more with the absurdity of teenage boys unaware of the significance of their actions, as they dealt with aliens, drug-dealers, and annoying relatives.
The characters were surprisingly well-drawn. The original gang of five was pretty easy to distinguish, and organic, not caricatures. The Nick Frost pot-head, on the other hand, was pretty useless.
Again, maybe I would've laughed more had I been a Brit. But when the film was over, I felt underwhelmed, as if they ran out of ideas out from the promising premise. Or perhaps the premise was not as bad-ass as I thought and was simply in denial.
Overall, it was a bit scary, a bit silly, a bit gory, a bit hilarious, a bit cool, a bit creative, but also a bit disappointing, considering Nick Frost and Edgar Wright were involved.
What I would change
Not sure.
Avatar
Viewed in
2009 (2), 2010
Premise
James Cameron's historically expensive story about a paralyzed soldier who gets to control another alien during a military conflict.
Who should watch
Those with a strong bladder who like expensive action flicks.
Thoughts
Definitely an epically visual feast.
Obviously, every new computer graphics-laden movie usually looks better than the last, but this film definitely felt like it achieved something significant. I do not recall another film since 'Lord of the Rings' that had such an effortless, natural blend of animation and actors. Thanks to the remarkable technology and performances, these blue aliens truly existed as characters in my eyes. For the most part, the film destroyed the 'Uncanny Valley'. I know this because I got chills during a 'Braveheart'-like speech, and again during an act of terrorism.
One reason for it's long length was because the film makers successfully created a visually beautiful planet, and a detailed history for the alien race. Like the main character, I enjoyed taking the time immersing myself in their culture and world.
While I got to watch it in IMAX 3D, I was somewhat underwhelmed by it. Unlike other IMAX films, the ratio aspect was smaller, with black bars even on the sides. Shockingly, the 3D was rarely breathtaking, which was something I had expected. My friend was convinced that the second half had less 3D in it, but it's possible that after two hours, our eyes just got used to it. I know it's not considered prestigious, but a few gratuitous 3D shots would have given the film an extra 'oomph' factor.
Despite all the good stuff, I hesitate to call it great. In fact, considering Cameron's track record of blowing away expectations, I was rather disappointed. I blame the story. It was not bad, but was just predictable. When I saw the trailer, I already knew how it was going to shake down, and it pretty much did. Those who have seen 'Dances with Wolves' or 'Princess Mononoke' will get a familiar sense of 'blah'. Hardcore science fiction or anime fans will probably think 'been there, seen that' with some of the themes and creative worlds.
No matter how much it cost (I would like to believe the half a billion dollars rumor), it was all very well spent. I enjoyed the hard work and creativity poured into the special effects and the alien culture. I just wished the poured a little bit of that creativity more into the story.
Upon multiple viewings, I found the film to be much much more enjoyable. Once I stopped caring that about the predictable plot, I was able to truly appreciate the exquisite animation, thoughtful details, and 3D IMAX experience. As an American, I found parallels to Vietnam and 9/11 in certain parts.
What I would change
Changed the marketing to hide the plot. I think had I not known what the plot was, then I probably would have been swept away more easily by the experience and enabled myself to dive into James Cameron's world.
2009 (2), 2010
Premise
James Cameron's historically expensive story about a paralyzed soldier who gets to control another alien during a military conflict.
Who should watch
Those with a strong bladder who like expensive action flicks.
Thoughts
Definitely an epically visual feast.
Obviously, every new computer graphics-laden movie usually looks better than the last, but this film definitely felt like it achieved something significant. I do not recall another film since 'Lord of the Rings' that had such an effortless, natural blend of animation and actors. Thanks to the remarkable technology and performances, these blue aliens truly existed as characters in my eyes. For the most part, the film destroyed the 'Uncanny Valley'. I know this because I got chills during a 'Braveheart'-like speech, and again during an act of terrorism.
One reason for it's long length was because the film makers successfully created a visually beautiful planet, and a detailed history for the alien race. Like the main character, I enjoyed taking the time immersing myself in their culture and world.
While I got to watch it in IMAX 3D, I was somewhat underwhelmed by it. Unlike other IMAX films, the ratio aspect was smaller, with black bars even on the sides. Shockingly, the 3D was rarely breathtaking, which was something I had expected. My friend was convinced that the second half had less 3D in it, but it's possible that after two hours, our eyes just got used to it. I know it's not considered prestigious, but a few gratuitous 3D shots would have given the film an extra 'oomph' factor.
Despite all the good stuff, I hesitate to call it great. In fact, considering Cameron's track record of blowing away expectations, I was rather disappointed. I blame the story. It was not bad, but was just predictable. When I saw the trailer, I already knew how it was going to shake down, and it pretty much did. Those who have seen 'Dances with Wolves' or 'Princess Mononoke' will get a familiar sense of 'blah'. Hardcore science fiction or anime fans will probably think 'been there, seen that' with some of the themes and creative worlds.
No matter how much it cost (I would like to believe the half a billion dollars rumor), it was all very well spent. I enjoyed the hard work and creativity poured into the special effects and the alien culture. I just wished the poured a little bit of that creativity more into the story.
Upon multiple viewings, I found the film to be much much more enjoyable. Once I stopped caring that about the predictable plot, I was able to truly appreciate the exquisite animation, thoughtful details, and 3D IMAX experience. As an American, I found parallels to Vietnam and 9/11 in certain parts.
What I would change
Changed the marketing to hide the plot. I think had I not known what the plot was, then I probably would have been swept away more easily by the experience and enabled myself to dive into James Cameron's world.
Back to the Future III
Viewed in
2009
Premise
In the conclusion to the trilogy, Marty goes back to 1885 to save Doc after the events from the second film.
Who should watch
Fans of the franchise.
Thoughts
A surprisingly strong rebound to complete the trilogy.
I liked this better than the second film, because it felt more like the first film. It was less reliant on special effects (to hide its dated-ness), and the 1880's America was believable (such as Doc's refrigerator). The time-travel stuff was simplified and easy to understand. As a stroke of genius, many themes come full circle, even though the loop closed in 1885, well before the other events occurred.
The Clint Eastwood jokes cracked me up, especially calling him a yellow-bellied coward. Also, Doc Brown's love subplot was adorable and actually did not distract from the main story.
My main complaint was that the arch-nemesis aspect was sorely lacking. While it was the same actor, the Buford character (Biff's relative) should have been a bigger influence on the storyline. It's just not the same without a Tennan lurking in every corner.
This excellent sequel somewhat alleviates the flaws of Part II, and completes one of the most re-watchable film trilogies in history.
What I would change
Nothing.
Random
If you listen to the last part of the credits, you'll hear a premature version of the 'Forrest Gump' theme, obviously by the same composer.
2009
Premise
In the conclusion to the trilogy, Marty goes back to 1885 to save Doc after the events from the second film.
Who should watch
Fans of the franchise.
Thoughts
A surprisingly strong rebound to complete the trilogy.
I liked this better than the second film, because it felt more like the first film. It was less reliant on special effects (to hide its dated-ness), and the 1880's America was believable (such as Doc's refrigerator). The time-travel stuff was simplified and easy to understand. As a stroke of genius, many themes come full circle, even though the loop closed in 1885, well before the other events occurred.
The Clint Eastwood jokes cracked me up, especially calling him a yellow-bellied coward. Also, Doc Brown's love subplot was adorable and actually did not distract from the main story.
My main complaint was that the arch-nemesis aspect was sorely lacking. While it was the same actor, the Buford character (Biff's relative) should have been a bigger influence on the storyline. It's just not the same without a Tennan lurking in every corner.
This excellent sequel somewhat alleviates the flaws of Part II, and completes one of the most re-watchable film trilogies in history.
What I would change
Nothing.
Random
If you listen to the last part of the credits, you'll hear a premature version of the 'Forrest Gump' theme, obviously by the same composer.
Back to the Future II
Viewed in
2009
Premise
Marty McFly (Michael J Fox) and Doc Brown (Christopher Lloyd) go into the future to keep McFly's kids out of jail, but sets off a chain event that allows Biff to rule the town in 1985.
Who should watch
Fans of the first film.
Thoughts
It was a pretty good film, but I should have mentally prepared myself of the inevitable sequel letdown.
At first, I thought this took place entirely in 2015. Little did I expect a mind-boggling third act. It's kind of a spoiler, but Marty and Doc eventually return to 1955, and are forced to save the future without ruining what they accomplished from the first film. The hilarious and well-choreographed dance between the characters from both time lines was a stroke of mad genius.
Another thing I liked was that the film truly showed the consequences of time-travel, which was illustrated by 2015 Biff destroying 1985. Also, some of the actors playing older/younger versions of themselves/relatives was amusing.
However, as a standalone movie, it was sub-par, mainly because of the first act. When characters repeat the same actions in the past, it's funny, but when they repeat it in the future, it feels like a re-run.
Unlike the first film, this one was heavily dependent on special effects, and the lack of quality stood out like a sore thumb. Add the fact that the writing felt dated due to inaccurate predictions of the future, the first act was just plain distracting and boring. Even the excuse to bring Marty into the future was lame.
While I understood that it was meant to set up for the last film, the whole 'Are you chicken' theme was annoying. Mainly because it came out of nowhere, and felt uncharacteristic of Marty.
Basically, I hated the beginning, loved the ending, but overall felt disappointed that it took two hours to set things up for the third film.
What I would change
Rewritten the first act by figuring a better reason for Marty and Doc to go into the future and taken out the useless chase scene.
2009
Premise
Marty McFly (Michael J Fox) and Doc Brown (Christopher Lloyd) go into the future to keep McFly's kids out of jail, but sets off a chain event that allows Biff to rule the town in 1985.
Who should watch
Fans of the first film.
Thoughts
It was a pretty good film, but I should have mentally prepared myself of the inevitable sequel letdown.
At first, I thought this took place entirely in 2015. Little did I expect a mind-boggling third act. It's kind of a spoiler, but Marty and Doc eventually return to 1955, and are forced to save the future without ruining what they accomplished from the first film. The hilarious and well-choreographed dance between the characters from both time lines was a stroke of mad genius.
Another thing I liked was that the film truly showed the consequences of time-travel, which was illustrated by 2015 Biff destroying 1985. Also, some of the actors playing older/younger versions of themselves/relatives was amusing.
However, as a standalone movie, it was sub-par, mainly because of the first act. When characters repeat the same actions in the past, it's funny, but when they repeat it in the future, it feels like a re-run.
Unlike the first film, this one was heavily dependent on special effects, and the lack of quality stood out like a sore thumb. Add the fact that the writing felt dated due to inaccurate predictions of the future, the first act was just plain distracting and boring. Even the excuse to bring Marty into the future was lame.
While I understood that it was meant to set up for the last film, the whole 'Are you chicken' theme was annoying. Mainly because it came out of nowhere, and felt uncharacteristic of Marty.
Basically, I hated the beginning, loved the ending, but overall felt disappointed that it took two hours to set things up for the third film.
What I would change
Rewritten the first act by figuring a better reason for Marty and Doc to go into the future and taken out the useless chase scene.
Back to the Future
Viewed in
2009 (I've seen this trilogy in bits in pieces plenty of times in the past, so I don't count those as real viewings.)
Premise
Michael J. Fox accidentally time-travels back to when his parents were in high school, and he must find a way to get them to fall in love while try to get back home to 1985.
Who should watch
Everyone!
Thoughts
Arguably the film of the decade. Pretty much everything about it was great.
I loved the writing, especially how it made time-travel paradoxes accessible to the average moviegoer, while still keeping the story intelligent and entertaining. Scientifically, I know watching a photo change does not really make sense, but it's a great cinematic symbol for the state of the situation. The consequences and details were really well fleshed-out, and I'm sure multiple viewings would reveal wonderful insights and nuance.
The acting was fantastic. Not only was his acting excellent, Fox's size was a great way to show the underdog aspect, especially when comparing his character to Biff. But the acting crown goes to the one and only Crispin Glover as the nerdy George McFly. Words cannot describe how bizarre, weird, and demented, yet perfect his performance was in this film.
While I had seen this film in pieces in the past, this was the first time I got to finally watch it in one sitting, and despite watching it nearly 25 years too late, it amazingly holds up. On top of the writing and acting, I think it remains timeless because the story allowed the film to be a relatively low-budget science fiction adventure. The film makers portrayed the 1950's and 1980's America correctly, and there was very little need for special effects. (This will be an important point when you read my review for the sequel.)
This must-see film was a masterpiece and my favorite of the trilogy.
What I would change
Nothing.
Random
I think there was a continuity issue. Early in the film (in 1955), Marty was seen wearing Converse shoes when he invented the skateboard, but during the climax (still in 1955), he wore Nikes.
2009 (I've seen this trilogy in bits in pieces plenty of times in the past, so I don't count those as real viewings.)
Premise
Michael J. Fox accidentally time-travels back to when his parents were in high school, and he must find a way to get them to fall in love while try to get back home to 1985.
Who should watch
Everyone!
Thoughts
Arguably the film of the decade. Pretty much everything about it was great.
I loved the writing, especially how it made time-travel paradoxes accessible to the average moviegoer, while still keeping the story intelligent and entertaining. Scientifically, I know watching a photo change does not really make sense, but it's a great cinematic symbol for the state of the situation. The consequences and details were really well fleshed-out, and I'm sure multiple viewings would reveal wonderful insights and nuance.
The acting was fantastic. Not only was his acting excellent, Fox's size was a great way to show the underdog aspect, especially when comparing his character to Biff. But the acting crown goes to the one and only Crispin Glover as the nerdy George McFly. Words cannot describe how bizarre, weird, and demented, yet perfect his performance was in this film.
While I had seen this film in pieces in the past, this was the first time I got to finally watch it in one sitting, and despite watching it nearly 25 years too late, it amazingly holds up. On top of the writing and acting, I think it remains timeless because the story allowed the film to be a relatively low-budget science fiction adventure. The film makers portrayed the 1950's and 1980's America correctly, and there was very little need for special effects. (This will be an important point when you read my review for the sequel.)
This must-see film was a masterpiece and my favorite of the trilogy.
What I would change
Nothing.
Random
I think there was a continuity issue. Early in the film (in 1955), Marty was seen wearing Converse shoes when he invented the skateboard, but during the climax (still in 1955), he wore Nikes.
Blade Runner
Viewed in
2000
Premise
Something about clones.
Who should watch
Those who like science fiction film noir. Film buffs. Harrison Ford fans.
Thoughts
I liked the mood and noir. After 'Metropolis', this film was credited most for film noir dysutopias. There were some interesting ideas about the future and cloning.
While I do not think it was that great a film, I still recommend it for its pioneering influence.
What I would change
Created a story that made more sense and more interesting characters.
2000
Premise
Something about clones.
Who should watch
Those who like science fiction film noir. Film buffs. Harrison Ford fans.
Thoughts
I liked the mood and noir. After 'Metropolis', this film was credited most for film noir dysutopias. There were some interesting ideas about the future and cloning.
While I do not think it was that great a film, I still recommend it for its pioneering influence.
What I would change
Created a story that made more sense and more interesting characters.
Brazil
Viewed in
2007, 2012
Premise
Terry Gilliam's dystopian epic of a clerk whose world is turned upside down.
Format
DVD, HDTV
Liked
Trippy visuals, comedic performances, satirical insight.
Disliked
Cheap ending.
Thoughts
As expected, it was crazy ass weird. Gilliam filled the movie with funky camera angles and trippy fantastic imagery. Big ups to whoever built those jaw-dropping set designs.
Underneath/despite the off-kilter visuals, there was substance to go with the style. I very much enjoyed the darkly comedic performances from Sir Ian Holm, Robert DeNiro, Bob Hoskins, Michael Palin, and the late great Graham Chapman. Jonathan Pryce was perfectly cast as the desperate loser lead.
In addition, the story has some really sharp/still relevant/spookily prophetic barbs about inhumane metropolis, advertising overflow, burgeoning bureaucracy, oversized vehicles, cosmetic surgery, our reliance on complicated gadgets. Unironically, it correctly predicted flat screen televisions.
Upon second viewing, I was disappointed in the last act. It came off as a cop out, a cheap excuse to flood the feature with bizarre eye candy. Or I've become too wary of such types of twists.
I used to think Brazil was Terry Gilliam's best. Now, I'm leaning towards Twelve Monkeys. Nevertheless, for film buffs, this was still a must-see. Though one time may be enough.
2007, 2012
Premise
Terry Gilliam's dystopian epic of a clerk whose world is turned upside down.
Format
DVD, HDTV
Liked
Trippy visuals, comedic performances, satirical insight.
Disliked
Cheap ending.
Thoughts
As expected, it was crazy ass weird. Gilliam filled the movie with funky camera angles and trippy fantastic imagery. Big ups to whoever built those jaw-dropping set designs.
Underneath/despite the off-kilter visuals, there was substance to go with the style. I very much enjoyed the darkly comedic performances from Sir Ian Holm, Robert DeNiro, Bob Hoskins, Michael Palin, and the late great Graham Chapman. Jonathan Pryce was perfectly cast as the desperate loser lead.
In addition, the story has some really sharp/still relevant/spookily prophetic barbs about inhumane metropolis, advertising overflow, burgeoning bureaucracy, oversized vehicles, cosmetic surgery, our reliance on complicated gadgets. Unironically, it correctly predicted flat screen televisions.
Upon second viewing, I was disappointed in the last act. It came off as a cop out, a cheap excuse to flood the feature with bizarre eye candy. Or I've become too wary of such types of twists.
I used to think Brazil was Terry Gilliam's best. Now, I'm leaning towards Twelve Monkeys. Nevertheless, for film buffs, this was still a must-see. Though one time may be enough.
Children of Men
Viewed in
2006
Premise
In the near future, mankind is infertile. In this chaotic world, a man finds himself in charge of rescuing a pregnant woman.
Who should watch
Everyone who enjoys great film.
Thoughts
This was the best film from 2006. I was sorely disappointed that it was not even nominated for Best Picture by the Oscars.
I do not even know where to begin. This film had everything: originality, thought, well-choreographed action, great acting, heart-wrenching emotion, detailed universe and humor all wound up with precision.
I love that they do not explain why things happened in the story. This is because the characters cannot explain why things are happening either, and it would have slowed the pace. The audience only understands the rules of this world and then we are thrown onto the roller-coaster ride.
The reason you must see this is for a certain battle scene. Halfway through this intense fight, you reach an 'oh shit' realization that all this is done in one take without the aide of computer graphics. All you can do is watching amazement. I hope the DVD will have a featurette on how did the filmmakers pull it off.
What I would change
Nothing.
2006
Premise
In the near future, mankind is infertile. In this chaotic world, a man finds himself in charge of rescuing a pregnant woman.
Who should watch
Everyone who enjoys great film.
Thoughts
This was the best film from 2006. I was sorely disappointed that it was not even nominated for Best Picture by the Oscars.
I do not even know where to begin. This film had everything: originality, thought, well-choreographed action, great acting, heart-wrenching emotion, detailed universe and humor all wound up with precision.
I love that they do not explain why things happened in the story. This is because the characters cannot explain why things are happening either, and it would have slowed the pace. The audience only understands the rules of this world and then we are thrown onto the roller-coaster ride.
The reason you must see this is for a certain battle scene. Halfway through this intense fight, you reach an 'oh shit' realization that all this is done in one take without the aide of computer graphics. All you can do is watching amazement. I hope the DVD will have a featurette on how did the filmmakers pull it off.
What I would change
Nothing.
A Clockwork Orange
Viewed in
2002
Formats
DVD
Premise
Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of the Anthony Burgess novel about a delinquent creating chaos in futuristic England and forced into government mandated re-education.
Thoughts
It's been a while, but I still recall Malcolm McDowell's edgy performance, Wendy Carlos' synthesized score, the bastardization of classic music and "Singin' in the Rain", and the re-education scenes. It was mentally disturbing, hypnotic, and haunting. An interesting must-watch for film buffs.
What I would change
Nothing.
2002
Formats
DVD
Premise
Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of the Anthony Burgess novel about a delinquent creating chaos in futuristic England and forced into government mandated re-education.
Thoughts
It's been a while, but I still recall Malcolm McDowell's edgy performance, Wendy Carlos' synthesized score, the bastardization of classic music and "Singin' in the Rain", and the re-education scenes. It was mentally disturbing, hypnotic, and haunting. An interesting must-watch for film buffs.
What I would change
Nothing.
Cocoon
Viewed in
2012
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Wilford Brimley stars as a member of an old folks home who discovers the neighbor's swimming pool has rejuvenating powers.
Liked
Themes of aging.
Disliked
Outdated vibe.
Thoughts
Interesting but hard to enjoy.
I liked that the aliens were benevolent, going against type. I also enjoyed the thought-provoking themes and discussions about aging, mortality, and roles of the elderly family members. It was definitely arguable whether some characters did the right thing in the end.
However, there were many outdated aspects to the movie. For example, the alien designs were the typical large-eyed, green-skinned humanoids. Special effects were archaic, except for the well-done puppetry in one scene. Plot logic and pacing also did not age well. It was implausible to believe they could keep a secret for that long. In addition, if the mothership was so powerful, why couldn't it just grab the cocoons by itself? Lastly, Steve Guttenberg's character was flat out annoying.
Cocoon had some good ideas, but overall, time was not kind to this movie.
2012
Formats
HDTV
Premise
Wilford Brimley stars as a member of an old folks home who discovers the neighbor's swimming pool has rejuvenating powers.
Liked
Themes of aging.
Disliked
Outdated vibe.
Thoughts
Interesting but hard to enjoy.
I liked that the aliens were benevolent, going against type. I also enjoyed the thought-provoking themes and discussions about aging, mortality, and roles of the elderly family members. It was definitely arguable whether some characters did the right thing in the end.
However, there were many outdated aspects to the movie. For example, the alien designs were the typical large-eyed, green-skinned humanoids. Special effects were archaic, except for the well-done puppetry in one scene. Plot logic and pacing also did not age well. It was implausible to believe they could keep a secret for that long. In addition, if the mothership was so powerful, why couldn't it just grab the cocoons by itself? Lastly, Steve Guttenberg's character was flat out annoying.
Cocoon had some good ideas, but overall, time was not kind to this movie.
Cowboy Bebop: The Movie
Viewed in
2003, 2004, 2005
Formats
Movie theater (dubbed), DVD
Premise
A stand-alone movie based on the anime series, in which the gang try to capture a terrorist.
Loved
The whole film.
Thoughts
It's been a while, but I recall loving the film, and it was consistent with the tone and character of the beloved series, just with a way better production value. It had a better story because it was not episodic like the anime. Yoko Kanno's score was fantastic. Even the English dub was not bad, though I still prefer the original Japanese.
What I would change
Nothing.
2003, 2004, 2005
Formats
Movie theater (dubbed), DVD
Premise
A stand-alone movie based on the anime series, in which the gang try to capture a terrorist.
Loved
The whole film.
Thoughts
It's been a while, but I recall loving the film, and it was consistent with the tone and character of the beloved series, just with a way better production value. It had a better story because it was not episodic like the anime. Yoko Kanno's score was fantastic. Even the English dub was not bad, though I still prefer the original Japanese.
What I would change
Nothing.
Dark City
Viewed in
1999, 2000, 2001 (2), 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 (2) [Director's Cut], 2013
Formats
DVD, Blu-Ray (Director's Cut), DVD (Director's Cut)
Premise
A man wakes up in a hotel room without any memories, but with clues of being a serial killer.
Loved
The gorgeous noir style, the degree of difficulty, the score.
Liked
The interesting ideas presented in plot and dialogue.
Thoughts
Since seeing it the first or second time, this has been my favorite film of all time.
What stood out the most was director Alex Proyas' mastery in creating a visually eye-popping universe, full of noir and surreal landscapes, on a very small budget. The style was memorable and haunting, giving the city a character of its own. Assisting in creating this mood was Trevor Jones' oppressive score and the cinematographer's wonderful use of shades and shadows.
I liked how the writing took its time to reveal the truth about the city, while moving the story briskly. At the same time, it explored themes about the dehumanizing nature of big city life, our memories, and soul.
The cast was excellent, from solid Rufus Sewell, to the vulnerable Jennifer Connelly, to the stuttering Keifer Sutherland. William Hurt put in fantastic work as the driven detective thrown into the madness.
I would be a liar if I claimed Dark City was perfect. The computer graphics definitely look outdated, no matter how much leniency you give due to budget. There were some physics-related issues that one could question afterward. Some of my friends have fallen asleep because the cinematography was so dark to the point of monotony. Most glaring was the unintentional comedy during the climactic battle, especially if you have seen enough anime. For me, the greatness of the entire film made these moments forgivable.
The biggest difference between the Theatrical Release and the Director's Cut was that some subplot scenes were added for a villain, and the opening narration was remove. I really liked the Director's Cut opening, because it added to the shroud mystery. The additional scenes brought little to the table, and ruined my favorite aspect of the score, in which it played non-stop, enhancing the claustrophobic character of the city.
If I had my way, I would replace the Theatrical opening with the Director's Cut opening, and let the rest be.
1999, 2000, 2001 (2), 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 (2) [Director's Cut], 2013
Formats
DVD, Blu-Ray (Director's Cut), DVD (Director's Cut)
Premise
A man wakes up in a hotel room without any memories, but with clues of being a serial killer.
Loved
The gorgeous noir style, the degree of difficulty, the score.
Liked
The interesting ideas presented in plot and dialogue.
Thoughts
Since seeing it the first or second time, this has been my favorite film of all time.
What stood out the most was director Alex Proyas' mastery in creating a visually eye-popping universe, full of noir and surreal landscapes, on a very small budget. The style was memorable and haunting, giving the city a character of its own. Assisting in creating this mood was Trevor Jones' oppressive score and the cinematographer's wonderful use of shades and shadows.
I liked how the writing took its time to reveal the truth about the city, while moving the story briskly. At the same time, it explored themes about the dehumanizing nature of big city life, our memories, and soul.
The cast was excellent, from solid Rufus Sewell, to the vulnerable Jennifer Connelly, to the stuttering Keifer Sutherland. William Hurt put in fantastic work as the driven detective thrown into the madness.
I would be a liar if I claimed Dark City was perfect. The computer graphics definitely look outdated, no matter how much leniency you give due to budget. There were some physics-related issues that one could question afterward. Some of my friends have fallen asleep because the cinematography was so dark to the point of monotony. Most glaring was the unintentional comedy during the climactic battle, especially if you have seen enough anime. For me, the greatness of the entire film made these moments forgivable.
The biggest difference between the Theatrical Release and the Director's Cut was that some subplot scenes were added for a villain, and the opening narration was remove. I really liked the Director's Cut opening, because it added to the shroud mystery. The additional scenes brought little to the table, and ruined my favorite aspect of the score, in which it played non-stop, enhancing the claustrophobic character of the city.
If I had my way, I would replace the Theatrical opening with the Director's Cut opening, and let the rest be.
Day the Earth Stood Still, The
Viewed in
2008
Premise
Remake of the 1951 classic about a mysterious alien appearing on Earth with an unknown agenda.
Who should watch
Keanu Reeves fans. Those who want to watch the original, but hate black-and-white.
Thoughts
Apparently, I liked to more than most. Perhaps because I had just seen the original, and liked all the references to it.
To my surprise, Keanu Reeves was believable as the human-looking alien. I was able to take him seriously, unlike, say the 'Matrix' movies. My other favorite part was how much the the story stuck to the original, with some nice little twists and shout outs.
In some ways, this film was superior to the original. Such as the believability of the situation and how Klaatu behaves.
If you only had time to watch one, the original is still the must-see classic.
What I would change
Saved some budget by reducing the number of gratuitous CGI scenes.
Random
I found it amusing that Jaden (Will Smith's kid) was literally following his father's footsteps by driving through a deserted New York City, a la 'I am Legend'.
Speaking of the Big Apple, what's up with the slew of deserted NYC scenes, such as these two films and 'Vanilla Sky'?
Spoiler!
My favorite twist was the cemetery scene, in which the kid asks Klaatu to revive his father. I was fine without the famous speech, mainly because that would have been too idealistic of a scene.
On the other hand, I wished the resurrection scene was kept, but I understand it wouldn't have fit in the context of the plot. And they should have sneaked in a 'Klaatu barada nikto' in there.
2008
Premise
Remake of the 1951 classic about a mysterious alien appearing on Earth with an unknown agenda.
Who should watch
Keanu Reeves fans. Those who want to watch the original, but hate black-and-white.
Thoughts
Apparently, I liked to more than most. Perhaps because I had just seen the original, and liked all the references to it.
To my surprise, Keanu Reeves was believable as the human-looking alien. I was able to take him seriously, unlike, say the 'Matrix' movies. My other favorite part was how much the the story stuck to the original, with some nice little twists and shout outs.
In some ways, this film was superior to the original. Such as the believability of the situation and how Klaatu behaves.
If you only had time to watch one, the original is still the must-see classic.
What I would change
Saved some budget by reducing the number of gratuitous CGI scenes.
Random
I found it amusing that Jaden (Will Smith's kid) was literally following his father's footsteps by driving through a deserted New York City, a la 'I am Legend'.
Speaking of the Big Apple, what's up with the slew of deserted NYC scenes, such as these two films and 'Vanilla Sky'?
Spoiler!
My favorite twist was the cemetery scene, in which the kid asks Klaatu to revive his father. I was fine without the famous speech, mainly because that would have been too idealistic of a scene.
On the other hand, I wished the resurrection scene was kept, but I understand it wouldn't have fit in the context of the plot. And they should have sneaked in a 'Klaatu barada nikto' in there.
Day the Earth Stood Still, The
Viewed in
2000, 2008
Premise
A mysterious alien arrives with a message, but will 'primitive' humans listen?
Who should watch
Movie buffs.
Thoughts
Antiquated, but still quite interesting. It felt like a standard sci-fi film, but that is probably because this set the standard for the genre.
Everyone has seen Gort the robot, but it's Klaatu the alien who made the film go. I was surprised by the story, as he tried to accomplish his mission from a grassroots approach. Given when it was made, the special effects were effective, and made me appreciate the film makers' creativity to overcome their obstacles. Also, gotta love that theremin music!
Naturally, the film was outdated, from the Cold War implications to the 'Gee whiz!' dialogue to Klaatu looking very human. I found that charming. One of Klaatu's complication was his inability to reach out to everyone on Earth, in today's world of internet and mobile technology, this seems silly.
Aside from the outdated feel, it was an honest attempt to create a story filled with imagination, moral ambiguity, and social commentary. For those who want to see how science fiction started, this is a must see.
What I would change
I might have taken the film more seriously without the subplot with the kid Klaatu befriends.
Spoiler Section!
I cannot believe I completely missed the Jesus references for Klaatu throughout the film. His resurrection and pseudonym of 'Carpenter' are dead giveaways! Had I been aware while watching, I might have appreciated it even more, as it added a layer of spirituality to the film. I am very curious if the remake will embrace or avoid this aspect.
Lastly, I liked the film's themes of peace and Klaatu's patience with human squabbling. I was expecting brain-sucking monsters, and got something with brains and heart.
2000, 2008
Premise
A mysterious alien arrives with a message, but will 'primitive' humans listen?
Who should watch
Movie buffs.
Thoughts
Antiquated, but still quite interesting. It felt like a standard sci-fi film, but that is probably because this set the standard for the genre.
Everyone has seen Gort the robot, but it's Klaatu the alien who made the film go. I was surprised by the story, as he tried to accomplish his mission from a grassroots approach. Given when it was made, the special effects were effective, and made me appreciate the film makers' creativity to overcome their obstacles. Also, gotta love that theremin music!
Naturally, the film was outdated, from the Cold War implications to the 'Gee whiz!' dialogue to Klaatu looking very human. I found that charming. One of Klaatu's complication was his inability to reach out to everyone on Earth, in today's world of internet and mobile technology, this seems silly.
Aside from the outdated feel, it was an honest attempt to create a story filled with imagination, moral ambiguity, and social commentary. For those who want to see how science fiction started, this is a must see.
What I would change
I might have taken the film more seriously without the subplot with the kid Klaatu befriends.
Spoiler Section!
I cannot believe I completely missed the Jesus references for Klaatu throughout the film. His resurrection and pseudonym of 'Carpenter' are dead giveaways! Had I been aware while watching, I might have appreciated it even more, as it added a layer of spirituality to the film. I am very curious if the remake will embrace or avoid this aspect.
Lastly, I liked the film's themes of peace and Klaatu's patience with human squabbling. I was expecting brain-sucking monsters, and got something with brains and heart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)