Category Archives: Science Fiction

Splice-2009

Splice-2009

Director Vincenzo Natali

Starring Adrien Brody, Sarah Polley

Scott’s Review #564

Reviewed December 26, 2016

Grade: B-

If you are looking for a realistic, character-driven movie, this film is not for you. Rather, Splice, a 2009 effort, is a science-fiction thriller that must be viewed with all disbelief suspended.

It’s not a work of art and has lots of plot holes, but it provides decent entertainment, bordering on fluff.

The two main characters, Clive and Elsa, played by Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley, are admittedly neurological scientists. Still, they’re not the brightest people in the world, and their motivations change with the weather.

The basic plot involves a married couple (the aforementioned scientists) who conduct an experiment to splice human and animal DNA into a new creation, a female hybrid named Dren.

Predictably, things go awry once Dren is let loose on the world.

The plot is thin, and there are questionable actions, motivations, and subplots, but somehow I still found it entertaining once I went with it.

There are cliches such as the scientists ignoring instructions, the one-dimensional supporting characters, and so on.

As a comical aside, I overheard the guy sitting behind me in the theater mutter as the closing credits rolled, “This was the worst movie ever.”

I understand where he is coming from, but I did not think the film was that bad.

For fans of horror or thrillers, I recommend it; anyone else might want to skip this one.

Inception-2010

Inception-2010

Director Christopher Nolan

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio

Scott’s Review #558

Reviewed December 22, 2016

Grade: A-

Inception (2010) is the type of film that will leave you astounded, baffled, confused, bewildered, and many other adjectives. To put it more simply, this film needs to be pondered after the fact.

This is a high compliment, as it is tough to remember such a complex (in a good way!) film.

Inception is visionary and meant to be processed.

A highly intelligent film, of sorts, that will leave you thinking afterward. The story is immeasurably complex and will leave many completely confused, but you’ll go with it.

In a nutshell, it tells the story of a man who intercepts people’s subconscious minds through dreams. Different layers of their minds are revealed as the film goes along.

There are also virtual levels to each person’s mind- complex, yes.

The film reminds me quite a bit of The Matrix- but better.

The film has many twists and turns throughout and will keep the viewer both perplexed and fascinated. My only slight criticism is that the dream sequences do not feel like dreams at all but are highly stylized action sequences.

Many props have been given for being so inventive, though.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Sound Editing (won), Best Sound Mixing (won), Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography (won), Best Visual Effects (won)

Never Let Me Go-2010

Never Let Me Go-2010

Director Mark Romanek

Starring Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield, Keira Knightley

Scott’s Review #555

Reviewed December 21, 2016

Grade: A-

Offering a unique experience in creative storytelling, Never Let Me Go (2010) is an excellent film that I was happy to discover.

A mixture of romance and science fiction, it tells of young love and tragedy. Interestingly, sacrifice and science can lead to dire results.

Based on a 2005 novel of the same name.

A small British drama about a private school where the children are raised as typical children, but at a certain point are expected to donate organs to save other lives; the concept is quite fresh and original.

The film deals with both the moral and psychological effects on the chosen ones as they attempt to end their lives, if they can prove they are in love.

My initial reactions were multiple emotions-thought-provoking, touching, and sad is what I felt.

This film will make you think. It is equally evocative and thought-provoking; many times I imagined myself in a similar situation.

As Andrew Garfield’s character gets out of his car on the side of the road and screams up at the sky, it is the most powerful scene in the film.

Excellent acting by the three leads (Mulligan, Garfield, and Knightley), with special praise for Carey Mulligan.

Charlotte Rampling as the mysterious headmistress of the school is brilliant.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Cinematography

Star Wars: Episode VII: The Force Awakens-2015

Star Wars: Episode VII: The Force Awakens-2015

Director J.J. Abrams

Starring Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill

Scott’s Review #540

Reviewed December 8, 2016

Grade: B

As a youngster who grew up on the original three Star Wars films (admittedly, I cannot keep track of, nor care enough to learn, the franchise’s exact chronological order), the 2015 reincarnation feels very nostalgic.

Star Wars (1977), The Empire Strikes Back (1980), and Return of the Jedi (1983) were magical films for a kid.

I saw each one in theaters.

Sadly, The Phantom Menace (1999) was a rather forgettable endeavor and did nothing to draw new fans to the franchise or keep existing fans engaged.

Taking center stage in this installment are beloved stalwart characters Han Solo (Harrison Ford), Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher), and Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) in a nostalgic trip down memory lane.

A slight gripe is the shamefully underused status of one of these characters.

The visual effects are impressive, the main villain is okay, and the action sequences are adequate, but the ode to history keeps longtime viewers engaged most.

In a way, Star Wars: The Force Awakens is aptly titled as it is a rebirth of sorts for the storied franchise.

Legendary actor Max von Sydow is shamefully underutilized, with a throwaway role in the film’s opening sequence.

He resembles the late, great Guinness, who was famous again in the 1970s when he appeared in the first Star Wars.

A coincidence?

Filmmakers are aiming for a modern reboot of Episode IV (1977).

The main character, Rey (Daisy Ridley), is meant to be the new Luke Skywalker, a Jedi hero known across the galaxy and missing for years. Rey has special powers and is accompanied by her sidekick droid, BB-8, a similar character to R2-D2.

The villain is Kylo-Ren, son of Han Solo and Princess (now General) Leia, and reminiscent of Darth Vader.

The film is a classic good-versus-evil tale as the evil First Order battles the good Resistance.

I enjoyed the good storytelling most of all, and prominent roles for Han Solo and Leia were good choices for the storied franchise. Newcomers Rey and her love interest, Finn, are appealing, as is fighter pilot Poe, played by Oscar Isaac.

Reportedly, this film kicks off another trilogy, so we will undoubtedly see more of these characters.

I could not help but notice the Nazi similarities of the First Order and their soldiers, the Stormtroopers. Possessing a red quality and a Nazi-like salute to their supreme leader, they even look German in appearance.

Kylo Ren, raven-haired, pale, and clad in a black cape, was clearly inspired by Darth Vader, especially in his masked appearance.

He almost could have been his son.

Set thirty years after the original Star Wars, the plot is similar, and I think this is a wise move: it introduces the franchise to a new audience while staying true to the rich history of the central characters and their offspring.

Han Solo and Leia discuss their love affair, past adventures, and their son, who has been hypnotized to the dark side. They struggle to concoct a way to rescue him and hope to persuade him that aligning with the Resistance is the only way.

Favorite scenes include the ultimate showdown between Rey and Kylo-Ren. Set in a snowy, wintry forest, the scene is visually gorgeous, with their glistening, glowing lightsabers, as are many scenes in one battle station or another.

The re-appearance of comical C-3PO is darling.

As with the original Star Wars, humor is mixed in to lighten the mood.

Han Solo and his dedicated sidekick Chewbacca gently spar, and when Han Solo takes the group to a saloon filled with interesting creatures, the scene is light and fun. 

The real drawback for me is that the film isn’t all that compelling, aside from the nostalgia. It is a classic battle of two wills, but nothing new and exciting.

Sure, there are a few new characters, but the plot is rather basic and what one would expect. 

I am not truly invested in the franchise, despite zillions of die-hard fans who are fanatics about the films and their intricacies, so this is more an opinion than a criticism of its merits.

Star Wars: Episode VII: The Force Awakens (2015) will undoubtedly please fans and introduce new ones to a galaxy and the “force.”

A satisfying trip down memory lane.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Score, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Film Editing, Best Visual Effects

Lifeforce-1985

Lifeforce-1985

Director Tobe Hooper

Starring Steve Railsback, Peter Firth, Frank Finlay

Scott’s Review #516

699938

Reviewed November 11, 2016

Grade: F

Lifeforce, a film made in 1985, is a film that I did not enjoy at all.

It tells the story of a team of astronauts who find three pods of seemingly human bodies, who eventually return the bodies to Earth and turn said humans into zombies.

That is it in a nutshell.

The story makes no sense whatsoever, and there is no rhyme or reason to the characters’ actions except to further the plot.

No mention or details as to why they are in outer space or anything that drives the character’s motives.

The film is way too complicated for its own good, and it would have been wiser to go for a straightforward action film rather than what we are treated to (a combo sci-fi/horror mess).

The special effects are completely dated and very cheesy.

Lifeforce (1985) is completely plot-driven, and I did not find it gripping at all; it is a waste of time that deserves to be completely forgotten.

Halloween III: Season of the Witch-1982

Halloween III: Season of the Witch-1982

Director Tommy Lee Wallace

Starring Tom Atkins, Stacey Nelkins

Scott’s Review #506

569108

Reviewed November 1, 2016

Grade: B

Halloween III: Season of the Witch was met with much disdain when it was released in 1982, a mere one year following the very successful Halloween II, the sequel to the iconic Halloween (1978).

Fans (and critics) expecting a third chapter in the maniac-wielding Michael Myers saga were sorely disappointed and perplexed at what they were “treated” to.

After all, the title is billed as “III”. Therefore, the film was met with disapproval.

This film is not even in the slasher genre, although I’ll categorize it as such for name recognition alone- more of a science fiction meets Twilight Zone.

Years later, this film would be heralded as a not-so-bad offering from a stand-alone film perspective. A different title might have been wise, but at the risk of being a forgotten film.

I agree with the sentiment-it’s not a fantastic film- the plot is far from its strong suit, but a brave film and one that has aged well.

The franchise creators (John Carpenter and Debra Hill) had hoped to create an anthology-style film series with different chapters all centered on the holiday of Halloween. This was not to be, and Michael Myers would return for the fourth installment.

Director Tommy Lee Wallace was also affiliated with the original Halloween.

The story begins a week before Halloween (reaching a crescendo on Halloween) as shop owner, Harry Grimbridge, runs along a highway in northern California, panicked and fleeing from corporate-looking men in business suits- he clutches a Halloween mask.

Finally rushed to the hospital by a stranger, he is killed by one of the businesspeople, who then sets himself on fire.

Grimbridge manages to tell Dr. Dan Challis that “They’re going to kill us.” Challis and Grimbridge’s daughter, Ellie, mounts an investigation to solve the mystery of her father’s demise.

Naturally, a romance ensues between the pair.

The film, while not a stinker, does have some issues. The corporate greed we recognize in the villain, Cochran, the founder of a company that produces Halloween masks and is responsible for a town’s prosperity, is silly.

Even more perplexing are his motivations- he plans to sacrifice children wearing the masks to honor some ancient witchcraft- huh?

He creates androids as his henchmen and airs creepy television commercials to release a signal- and there are strange bugs that emerge from the masks, thereby killing the mask wearers.

The story is ludicrous.

Other gripes involve the lack of chemistry between leads Tom Atkins and Stacey Nelkin, and the shameful waste of actress Nancy Loomis’s (Annie Brackett from Halloween) time and talents, as she is reduced to a one-scene appearance as the nagging, haggard-looking ex-wife of Challis.

She deserved better and would have been perfect in the lead female role. The fact that Loomis was married to director Wallace makes this even more surprising- they were later divorced.

The negative attributes listed above might lead one to think I detested this film, but it is compelling in its own right.

The musical score is one of the highlights of Halloween III. Techie and new-wave-ish, it does wonders at portraying peril and creepiness- especially where the male androids are concerned.

And the sing-along jingle to the tune of the classic children’s song, “London Bridge is Falling”, encouraging children to buy the masks, is superb.

Though the story does not work, the subject contains a throwback to science fiction films of yesteryear, most notably resembling Invasion of the Body Snatchers in its eeriness and mystique, which renders the film appealing.

In the end, a character we do not suspect is revealed to be an android, spinning the plot into a fun finale.

Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982) is flawed, but becomes a bit of an acquired taste- appreciated a bit more over the years- if for no other reason than going against the grain and trying to be something different and creative.

The story fails, but other little nuances succeed immeasurably.

Safety Not Guaranteed-2012

Safety Not Guaranteed-2012

Director Colin Trevorrow

Starring Mark Duplass, Aubrey Plaza

Scott’s Review #440

70227946

Reviewed July 3, 2016

Grade: B-

Safety Not Guaranteed is similar in style to another 2012 independent film, Ruby Sparks, in that both pose the question, “Is this fantasy or reality?”

The film explores time travel.

The story centers on a magazine journalist who, along with two interns, follows a man convinced he is building a time-travel machine.

The story then develops into a romantic comedy of sorts, and the audience is unsure whether the guy is crazy or a true genius.

It’s an interesting concept, intelligently written, and Aubrey Plaza and Mark Duplass are both quite likable in the lead roles.

The one flaw for me was, at times, the movie dove into slapstick territory with a silly secondary story of a stereotypically written Indian character attempting to lose his virginity.

Besides that, Safety Not Guaranteed (2012) has intriguing intentions.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best First Screenplay (won), Best First Feature

Robot & Frank-2012

Robot & Frank-2012

Director Jake Schreier

Starring Frank Langella

Scott’s Review #414

70227654

Reviewed June 18, 2016

Grade: C

Robot & Frank (2012) is one of those films that leaves me with a “meh” reaction after I’ve seen it.

It’s not that it’s a bad movie, but there’s nothing particularly special either- it is quite ordinary and rather forgettable after the credits have rolled.

The premise, on paper,  seems novel: a future with robots that grow attached to humans. Unfortunately, the movie did not live up to the idea.

I was hoping for an interesting 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)- type robot idea (HAL), but I got nothing like it.

I’m a big fan of Frank Langella, and I felt he was the main attraction in this movie.

On a side note, why is Susan Sarandon suddenly playing every meaningless supporting role these days? Another wasted role. She deserves better.

Several plot points had no follow-through, and the ending, while not exactly predictable, was nothing spectacular.

Meh.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best First Screenplay

Ex Machina-2015

Ex Machina-2015

Director Alex Garland

Starring Domhnall Gleeson, Oscar Isaac, Alicia Vikander

Scott’s Review #410

80023689

Reviewed June 17, 2016

Grade: B+

Ex Machina (2015) reminds me of another recent science-fiction film, Her (2013), but with a stronger female-empowerment edge.

The latter is more of a romantic drama with romantic undercurrents.

In contrast, Ex Machina has a cynical tone and elements of imprisonment and psychosis, even narcissism.

The film features excellent visual effects and a futuristic mystique, making it a successful treatment.

Directed by first-timer Alex Garland, who could very well be a director to watch rise the ranks with subsequent projects.

Young, fresh-faced computer programmer, Caleb Smith (Domhnall Gleeson), wins a week-long trip to remote Alaska, to spend it with his mysterious boss, Nathan Bateman (Oscar Isaac), the CEO of a software company.

Caleb must arrive at the luxurious, sprawling estate by helicopter, as it sits in a deserted part of the world and stretches for mile after mile through gorgeous landscape.

Nathan, played by Oscar Isaac, is both charismatic and creepy. He lives alone save for a beautiful Asian servant named Kyoko, who speaks no English, and a female robot named Ava (played by rising star Alicia Vikander).

Caleb’s task is to study Ava and determine whether he can relate to her as a human, even though he knows she’s a robot.

It is soon revealed that Nathan plans to reprogram Ava, thereby killing her. Caleb schemes to rescue Ava, but is that all it seems?

With a cast of only four principals, it is not difficult to assess each character and their relationships. Caleb is the least complex of the four, or rather, the one with motivations readily apparent.

The others are shrouded in mystery. Caleb expects a fun getaway but instead finds himself in the middle of an experiment. Is Nathan’s desire to perform psychological tests on Ava, by way of Caleb, genuine?

The audience immediately senses something is off about Nathan. Merely in his thirties, how could he amass such financial success so soon?

Why are he, a servant, and a robot the only inhabitants? Why does the helicopter pilot refuse to venture further than the drop-off point?

Some of these questions are answered, some remain unanswered. It is part of what makes the film mysterious and complex. Could Ava be the one doing her share of experimentation or manipulation?

Alicia Vikander deserves much praise for her role as Ava, and some would argue that the talented young actress should have won the Best Supporting Actress trophy for this role instead of for The Danish Girl (2015).

I’m not sure I would leap to the same conclusion, but she does amass a ton of subdued emotion as Ava. She is complex and profound. She longs to see the outside world and would cross a crowded street to see all the faces and different kinds of people.

Like Nathan, something about Ava isn’t right.

Is she calculating or simply soulful? But how can she be? She is a robot.

I compared her to another famous film robot/computer- HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968).

Along with Vikander, Isaac steals the film in a role that mixes creep with genius.

He sits around his estate in comfy clothes a blue-collar man might wear, drinking beer and studying Ava. He has sexual relations with his servant, and she is expressionless.

He doesn’t treat her well, so we don’t root for him. At the same time, his character is tough to read. Is he experimenting on Ava or Caleb?

Visually, Ex Machina has a sleek blend of modern, crisp CGI that never overshadows the story. It also includes a bloodletting scene that chills as much as any good horror film would.

Garland was heavily influenced by 2001: A Space Odyssey and Altered States (1980), and he made the film on a shoestring budget, without outside influences that might change his vision.

I commend this and wish more filmmakers would follow suit.

Ex Machina (2015), while perhaps not perfect, could be a blueprint for what this young director has in store.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Original Screenplay, Best Visual Effects (won)

The Martian-2015

The Martian-2015

Director Ridley Scott

Starring Matt Damon

Scott’s Review #379

80058399

Reviewed February 19, 2016

Grade: C-

The latest film from heralded director Ridley Scott (notable for classics Blade Runner (1982) and Alien (1979), The Martian (2015) is a science-fiction space adventure about a presumed-dead astronaut (Matt Damon) trapped on Mars after his fellow team members believe he’s dead.

NASA and a rescue crew desperately try to save him as supplies run out.

Extremely resourceful, Mark Watney (Matt Damon) cleverly avoids death by using his wits to survive and prosper on the challenging planet.

Following several other high-profile modern science fiction offerings, such as Interstellar (2014) and Gravity (2013), The Martian features a big Hollywood star in the lead role.

Much of the action follows Watney as he tries to produce food and supplies and preserve his sanity, think Tom Hanks in Cast Away (2000), on another planet, with an indoor operations station left by his abandoned crew.

The Martian has received accolades, even winning the Golden Globe for Best Musical or Comedy Film, though that’s a poor category.

The film has snippets of humor and a few background songs, but that is it. Maybe some late-1970s disco songs make it a musical?

I found The Martian to be a Hollywood mainstream film in every sense. That may be a high compliment to some, but I expect more.

It is not that The Martian is a bad film; it is not, but it is mediocre and has all the elements of an average offering. The film aimed for an emotional experience that I didn’t get.

I had little doubt that the ending would be sweet and wrapped in a bow.

Mark Watney is the typical all-American character in a “guy film”. He hates disco and loves ketchup. The film makes him a guy’s guy so the average filmgoer can relate to him.

He is in good shape, cracks jokes, and is likable.

But that is also a problem with the character in The Martian. He lacks substance. We know little about him, except that his parents never appear on-screen.

The way the film touts him as the hero and has him cheered and praised, while it would be warranted in real life, just feels forced and contrived.

This is not a knock against Matt Damon, who does a decent job.

My beef is that the character is not fleshed out.  The well-built Damon at the beginning of the film versus the scrawny Damon at the conclusion feels like a facade, since they used a body double in the later scenes.

This lack of authenticity disappointed me.

I expected more from the supporting cast. Jessica Chastain, Jeff Daniels, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Kristen Wiig play one-note types that any actor could have played.

Why were big stars cast at all?

Chastain as a mission commander, Daniels as Director of NASA, Ejiofor as NASA mission commander, and Wiig as a Public Relations specialist.

The casting, particularly Wiig in the straight-laced, stale role, was mysterious to me, and it wasn’t a particularly good portrayal… and I am a Wiig fan.

The humorous parts in The Martian are contrived and not dissimilar to countless other films, with the smart-ass remarks all containing a bland quality.

Lines like “Eat your heart out, Neil Armstrong” seem silly and unnecessary.

I expected more wit.

Let me be fair, the visual effects (it is space, after all) are impressive, and it was fairly interesting to see what is supposed to be the planet Mars, but in this day and age of CGI effects, the film isn’t that spectacular.

 I would much rather be given a compelling story than visual treats any day of the week.

My review of The Martian may seem harsh, but I expected more from it than I got.

With several Oscar nominations, including Best Picture, I expected a top-notch film, but The Martian didn’t come close.

Mediocrity, straightforwardness, and predictability describe The Martian (2015).

I have heard the novel is fantastic, so I added it to my reading list.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actor-Matt Damon, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Production Design, Best Visual Effects

Horror Express-1974

Horror Express-1974

Director Eugenio Martin

Starring Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, Telly Savalas

Scott’s Review #311

Reviewed December 30, 2015

Grade: B

Horror Express (1974) is a fun 1970s Spanish/British horror film starring legendary horror actors Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing.

A horror version of Agatha Christie’s Murder On The Orient Express, with a bit of camp thrown in, it is an entertaining late-night experience on a low budget.

It is the early 1900’s, and while traveling from Shanghai to Moscow via the Trans-Siberian Express, a British anthropologist named Professor Alexander Saxton (Lee) brings an enormous, mysterious crate on board containing a creature he discovered in a cave.

What we know is that it has something to do with human evolution.

A fellow passenger, Doctor Wells (Cushing), and other passengers become suspicious of the crate and demand that it be opened.

Things go awry, and victims begin to be murdered by the creature (an ape-like monster) and left with eyes completely white with missing pupils and irises.

The best part of Horror Express is the setting. The cozy train is a perfect backdrop for the events, and it makes the film exciting as the different cars are nicely set-decorated.

This lends itself to a sense of entrapment and being unable to escape the creature as it roams freely from car to car.

For a low-budget film, the train sets are quite believable, as are the train sounds. It feels like the actors are on a real train as the tooting horns and the sounds of the tracks are authentic.

Having actors as big as Lee and Cushing lends the film respect in horror circles, and both deliver believable performances.

This film would not have been as good without the talents (and name recognition) of both.

There are also interesting supporting characters, and I didn’t find the acting to be too over-the-top, as is common in similar horror films.

Specifically, the countess’s role and Telly Savalas’s appearance as a Cossack officer investigating the events are interesting.

Fans of this genre of horror will understand that suspension of disbelief is necessary as the plot gets a bit goofy- something about the creature taking the information from the victim’s brain and the victims subsequently turning into zombies- it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Especially towards the end, as some drunken Russians and some weird resurrections happen, but that is somehow okay.

For a late-night viewing with some spirits, you can’t ask too many questions, and Horror Express (1974) is a decent flick.

Jurassic World-2015

Jurassic World-2015

Director Colin Trevorrow

Starring Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard

Scott’s Review #307

80029196

Reviewed December 23, 2015

Grade: C

Jurassic World (2015) is a film I expected to like much more than I did.

Sure, it is a summer, blockbuster, popcorn flick. Based on the success of the earlier franchise efforts,  and, if memory serves, finding enjoyment in the 1993 original, Jurassic Park, I expected a fun ride.

Unfortunately, I was treated to a formulaic, escapade with uninteresting characters and mediocre writing.

The premise is standard. A behemoth of an amusement park exists in Central America, on Isla Nublar, where a dinosaur theme park has been running without incident for ten years.

A genetically modified dinosaur, created because a magnificent new attraction is needed, breaks loose and runs rampant.

A silly love story exists between the two leads Owen and Claire (Chris Pratt and Dallas Bryce Howard), as well as the inclusion of two young boys (Zach and Gray) sent by their divorcing parents to be with their Aunt Claire, who works as the Operations Manager at the park.

Owen is the dinosaur trainer. Predictably, there are “bad guys” who are greedy and desire to advance science at the risk of human life.

The special effects are fine, albeit completely CGI-laden, which is to be expected because the main stars are dinosaurs after all. I did anticipate better writing or, at least, more of a creative attempt at coming up with something a bit edgy.

The story was completely redundant. Where was the character development? There was none. We know very little about any of the principal characters.

One might argue that an adventure film does not necessitate this but it’s important. We know that Claire is a workaholic and has none time for her nephews- why? What makes her tick?

Here is a slight complaint. Why kill off only extremely minor characters or villains? I could see this (and the ending) a mile away. The whole film seems forced and sloppy.

Jurassic World is also filled with clichés. Owen and Claire initially dislike each other having had one unsuccessful first date back in the day. The film tries to push the love/hate, opposites attract element and it feels contrived.

How many times have we seen this in film history?

Also, Chris Pratt is perfect as the hunky, muscular “hero saves the day” type, and Dallas Bryce Howard running through the forest in a tight tank top is not unintentional.

This is not to say that the film is bad. It is a decent adventure film and the special effects are cool. I did enjoy the homage to the original 1993 version as the boys stumble upon the original visitor station complete with the 1992 jeep from the original Jurassic Park film.

I thought this was a neat little nod to history and I love that in a franchise film, but that is it for the positives.

Yes, this film was a blockbuster smash and made oodles of money. It, however, feels forced and clichéd and quite formulaic.

I was hoping for much more and deeper, stronger, material.

Interstellar-2014

Interstellar-2014

Director Christopher Nolan

Starring Matthew McConaughey

Scott’s Review #277

70305903

Reviewed September 25, 2015

Grade: B-

Interstellar (2014) is an interesting film to review.

It’s a science-fiction/futuristic epic with a run time of nearly three hours, and it’s complex and intricate.

It is the latest offering by director Christopher Nolan.

I cannot say I loved the film; however, I did appreciate and marvel at its visual and technical aspects, which completely overshadow the convoluted plot, which is difficult to follow because it jumps between worlds and galaxies.

The film reminds me of Inception (2010), with an obvious homage to 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), the latter directed by Nolan, but it’s not quite as compelling from a story point of view as Inception.

The complexities of different entities, worlds, and layers of worlds are featured and, admittedly, mind-blowing, which is the weak part of the film.

Making the film arguably too intelligent, it loses the audience’s attention.

By too intelligent, I mean too complex. As I review the film, I see two halves-the story side and the visual side. In Interstellar, both are essential components, and one fails while the other marvels.

The story goes something like this.

Matthew McConaughey plays Cooper, a widowed, former space expert stuck in a small town in the Midwest, where he begrudgingly runs a farm, living out an unsatisfying existence.

The Earth’s food and crops are slowly running out, and the planet is dying. His two children, daughter Murphy and son Tom, face a bleak world.

One day, a dust pattern with coordinates leads Cooper and Murphy to a secret NASA team intent on finding other worlds and attempting to save Earth.

Dr. Brand, a college professor and science wizard, leads the team, played by Michael Caine.

Cooper, naturally, is chosen to lead the venture, which could take him away from his family for years. He accepts, much to Murphy’s chagrin.

Once in outer space- assisted by Amelia Brand (Dr. Brand’s daughter)- the team embarks on an endless mission leading them to different planets and one strange encounter with a rebel astronaut (played wastefully by Matt Damon).

Years later (on Earth, anyway), Murphy and Tom (now grown and played by Jessica Chastain and Casey Affleck) assume their father Cooper is dead.

Critically, the story is way too much to comprehend. I let go of the story instead of focusing on the visual spectacle I was treated to.

The plot eventually meanders off track as the team traverses through a space wormhole created by an alien intelligence and travels fifty years without aging.

Life has gone on on planet Earth. Some characters age, others do not.

To summarize, the story is convoluted and impossible to follow.

Speaking of the story side of Interstellar, the writing contains an irritating wholesomeness, especially in the early stages- pre-outer space.

McConaughey was given this tough, machismo side to him that screams of Hollywood traditionalism- almost like “I am a man- I save the family”. Haven’t we seen this too many times in film?

I also found the relationship between Cooper and his young daughter, Murphy, incredibly saccharine and screaming Hollywood schmaltz.

McConaughey was given and succeeded in delivering one great crying scene.

Interstellar’s visuals are a spectacle and far better than the story, especially in the final third of the film.

The sheer grandeur is astounding. When the crew lands on Miller’s planet, an ocean world, a great tidal wave topples their spaceship, killing one of the team.

The tidal wave looks monumental in size and ferocity. Later, when the crew lands on an icy planet, the immense cold and the planet’s shape work perfectly, and it feels like they are in outer space.

The scene where Cooper attempts to contact a character through a bookshelf is inventive and creative. The scene is set up like a maze with different periods, colors, and shapes; the way it blends them is impressive and artistic.

Visually, Interstellar has similarities to the 1968 epic 2001: A Space Odyssey. Its grandiose, artistic, experimental, and epic style, along with the obvious space theme, makes the two films comparable.

However, while 2001: A Space Odyssey is about life and carries a clear, powerful message, I didn’t find the same in Interstellar. Instead, I did not find a message, only a confusing story, mixed with spectacular visuals.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Original Score, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Production Design, Best Visual Effects (won)

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes-2014

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes-2014

Director Matt Reeves

Starring Andy Serkis

Scott’s Review #232

70300076

Reviewed March 29, 2015

Grade: C+

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) is a summer blockbuster hit that knocks it out of the park visually; it is magnificent to look at, with creative sets and realistic images, but the story is mediocre and predictable.

I think the filmmaker’s true intent was to focus on the look of this film, and succeeds. The film is a slightly better-than-average big-screen adventure with more style than substance.

Set in San Francisco, or what was once San Francisco, the film takes place in a futuristic world. Apes have forged a new civilization after a deadly virus has eliminated 90% of the human population.

The apes are highly intelligent and manage a happy, unified existence. Then, one day, a human is encountered and, scared, shoots an ape.

This leads to a peaceful resolution between Caesar, the leader of the apes, and the humans: they each stay in their respective territories.

However, humans need access to a dam in the apes’ area to generate electricity. Mutual distrust leads to tension, but the civilized apes and humans reach a truce.

Naturally, conflict escalates as sinister humans and apes vow revenge on each other. This leads to a war while the peaceful apes and humans strive to work things out.

A further angle of the story is the hunger for power within the ranks of the Apes, reminiscent of Lord of the Flies.

The human protagonists, Malcolm and Ellie, played by Jason Clarke and Keri Russell, are a wholesome, decent couple.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes pales in comparison to the original 1968 masterpiece, Planet of the Apes, starring Charlton Heston. Comparing the two is unfair, since, sadly, this one has nothing to do with the original.

It is simply the same franchise tag.

However, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is weaker than its predecessor, Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2010). We had a charismatic star, James Franco, and an interesting story.

The apes are experimented on, and their intelligence is a strong angle.

The sequel is rather one-note and leans on a machismo, us-against-them angle that isn’t unique.

The main drawback of this film is its limited scope. The characters are portrayed as a) the good and sympathetic humans, b) the evil and destructive humans, c) the good and heroic apes, or d) the evil, bad apes.

The film defines everyone for the audience, with no ambiguity or complexity in the characters. This is a bit limiting. The evil ape Koba is purely bad, and the drunken, gun-happy humans are bad.

This is not to say that Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is not enjoyable; it is. It’s a fun, entertaining flick. For what it is, the film has a message: there is a way to find peace and love between different species and types of people.

Hopefully, the audience gets that message.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) is a summer blockbuster action/sci-fi flick many will enjoy; however, it is a plot-driven extravaganza that could have been better with more layers to the story and more shape to some of the characters.

It is worth seeing as a visual cinema treat, but scarcely more than that.

Oscar Nominations: Best Visual Effects

The Day the Earth Stood Still-1951

The Day the Earth Stood Still-1951

Director Robert Wise

Starring Michael Rennie

Scott’s Review #155

60026578

Reviewed August 18, 2014

Grade: B+

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) is one of the best, most credible, original science fiction thrillers. It has stood the test of time, considering it is over sixty years old.

Made in 1951, the film is a message movie about a spaceship that suddenly arrives on planet Earth in the United States Capitol of Washington, D.C.

Michael Rennie is fantastic as Klaatu, the calm, poised leader of the spaceship. Along with Gort, a 7-foot-tall robot, Klaatu intends to deliver a message of peace and humanity to Earth’s leaders.

The arrival sets off a panic, and Klaatu is captured, only to escape and meet local townspeople as he tries to pass himself off as human and deliver his message.

The Day the Earth Stood Still is a liberal-slanted, anti-war, pro-tolerance, and acceptance movie, but also a good, old-fashioned black-and-white science fiction thriller rolled into one.

It’s an important film.

It is an edgy, questioning film that can easily still be viewed and appreciated today (sad that not much seems to have changed in the world after all these years).

It is political, and the Washington, D.C., setting is wise and symbolic.

While a handful of humans are portrayed as intelligent and accepting, most of Earth’s human beings, especially politicians, are portrayed as war-happy, foolish individuals.

The viewer will question the world around them and, hopefully, begin to question political decisions and the horrors of war that continue unabated.

Golden Globe Nominations: 1 win-Best Original Score-Motion Picture, Best Promoting International Understanding (won)

Her-2013

Her-2013

Director Spike Jonze

Starring Joaquin Phoenix, Scarlett Johansson

Scott’s Review #147

70278933

Reviewed August 5, 2014

Grade: A-

Her (2013) is a very unique film directed by Spike Jonze.

The film tells the tale of a lonely, depressed man named Theodore, played by Joaquin Phoenix, who lives in a beautiful high-rise in futuristic Los Angeles.

He works as a writer for a company that creates intimate cards for people in relationships.

After a recent divorce, he falls in love with his computerized operating system, Samantha, played by Scarlett Johansson (voice only).

Conflicts emerge as the relationship deepens and intensifies.

This is a uniquely crafted love story, but also a story of loneliness and the world of technology we now live in.

It portrays human relationships as troubled and unsuccessful, yet several characters have wonderful relationships with computers.

Is this what the future may bring for human beings? How many people have fallen in love with a fantasy or a voice on the phone?

The film ponders how technological advances have changed relationships and wonders what will happen further into the future. Technology, while wonderful, has changed our interpersonal relationships, and this film delves deeply into that.

Conversation is a lost art, and Her captures both the joys and tragedies of technology.

Visually, the film is successful because it portrays Los Angeles in a sophisticated, ultra-sleek, modern way that is fascinating.

Several technological games are featured (the Alien child is brilliantly comical), and the “Mom points” are fascinatingly ironic.

Her is a deep film that raises questions, and I applaud this in modern cinema.

Her is a slow-moving film, but a questioning one.

It won the 2013 Best Original Screenplay Oscar, and I am so glad the Academy recognized the film’s originality.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay (won), Best Original Score, Best Original Song-“The Moon Song”, Best Production Design

World War Z-2013

World War Z-2013

Director Marc Forster

Starring Brad Pitt

Scott’s Review #121

70262639

Reviewed July 20, 2014

Grade: B

World War Z (2013) is the type of film that is a summer hit but will most likely be forgotten over the years.

It is a slightly above-average, enjoyable action/ zombie thriller, but not much more.

It stars Brad Pitt as a former United Nations investigator called in to save the world from a zombie pandemic. The crisis spreads simultaneously across major cities worldwide.

The film sees Pitt traversing the globe in an attempt to find a cure for the epidemic before it is too late and the zombies make the world extinct of humans.

The zombies are super zombies: they can fly and move at lightning speed, making them ultra-dangerous.

The story is implausible and plot-driven, but it doesn’t matter and works on some level. My theory for this success is that the film is fast-paced, the action starts almost immediately, and Brad Pitt is charismatic.

He is the star, and all the action centers around him.

The film contains exciting, tense scenes, including a plane crash sequence and a chase around a medical lab.

World War Z (2013) is a popcorn film meant to be sat back and enjoyed, not overanalyzed or taken too seriously.

It is a perfect summer hit.

Alien-1979

Alien-1979

Director Ridley Scott

Starring Tom Skerritt, Sigourney Weaver

Scott’s Review #94

60029356

Reviewed July 5, 2014

Grade: A-

Alien is a science-fiction success from 1979 that began a long-running franchise and made Sigourney Weaver a household name.

It has the brilliant direction of Ridley Scott, who sets up the atmosphere and camera angles perfectly.

Arguably, in both the horror and science fiction genres, the film is riveting from start to finish.

Weaver stars as Warrant Officer Ellen Ripley, a member of a spaceship returning to Earth. The ship picks up a distress signal and is ordered to investigate.

They discover an alien existence.

From this point, the film certainly has a horror element, as the members of the doomed spacecraft are knocked off one by one in a pure horror fashion, but the brilliant part is that you do not know when or how, and many of the deaths come out of nowhere.

The film’s captivating visual effects elevate it, and the narrow spacecraft tunnels and hallways are stunning.

The film’s villain, the alien, is masterful because it remains mysterious to the audience. Its sporadic appearances add to the tension.

Alien (1979) is a memorable classic that ranks high on the sci-fi genre list of excellent films.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Art Direction, Best Visual Effects (won)

Golden Globe Nominations: Best Original Score

Slaughterhouse Five-1972

Slaughterhouse Five-1972

Director George Roy Hill

Starring Michael Sacks

Scott’s Review #84

972612

Reviewed July 1, 2014

Grade: A-

Slaughterhouse-Five, adapted from the novel of the same name and released in 1972, is a dreamlike visual experience that moves through cinematic time.

The main character (Billie Pilgrim) is a World War II soldier who survives a horrific explosion during the war, and he, along with the viewer, floats through time to relive, but not change, three other periods in his life.

It is a first-person narrative.

As a senior during the most engaging period, he is transported to a lavish planet in outer space where he falls in love with a Goddess.

The film has a clear anti-war sentiment, and it’s cerebral, unique, mesmerizing, and tough to explain, but dreamy, clever, and surprisingly fresh after 30-plus years. It should be experienced.

It is a science fiction film.

My favorite scene is the humorous, yet tragic, runaway Cadillac scene.

Golden Globe Nominations: New Star of the Year-Actor-Michael Sacks

Altered States-1980

Altered States-1980

Director Ken Russell

Starring William Hurt

Scott’s Review #82

246472

Reviewed July 1, 2014

Grade: B-

Altered States (1980) is a trippy, strange horror/sci-fi hybrid film (William Hurt’s debut) that is visually impressive.

Still, the story is too far-fetched and implausible to be taken seriously.

It feels like an earlier version of The Fly, but inferior.

Hurt plays an abnormal psychology professor obsessed with experimental schizophrenic hallucinatory drugs, which he takes, causing him to ultimately experience episodes of being half man, half ape.

Through the use of a sensory deprivation tank, a strange Indian tribe comes into play.

It’s a very silly premise, but it’s somehow believable to a point, especially in the first act.

The ending of the movie was ridiculous and uninteresting to me, and it seemed extremely disjointed as a whole.

There were lots of behind-the-scenes troubles with this film, which could explain the unbalanced feeling.

Otherwise, the sporadic, weird colors and patterns during the scientist’s episodes were effective.

Drew Barrymore’s first film (she plays a toddler).

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Score, Best Sound

Golden Globe Nominations: New Star of the Year-Actor-William Hurt

Aliens-1986

Aliens-1986

Director James Cameron

Starring Sigourney Weaver

Scott’s Review #80

Reviewed June 29, 2014

Grade: B+

Aliens (1986) takes away the rawness of the original Alien (1979) and gives the film franchise a glossier, slicker look.

Made eight years later, the film is set fifty-seven years in the future, when Ripley, played to perfection by Sigourney Weaver, awakens.

To her horror, she discovers the aliens have colonized Earth, and she is forced to return to prevent a catastrophe. The militia is in tow, adding a masculine element that supports the film throughout.

This scenario sets the stage for what becomes an excellent sci-fi adventure story.

The special effects are wonderful and were extraordinary when the film was shot in 1986. The tunnels and spacecraft are perfectly lit and designed, creating a bright, fun setting while letting the audience know doom is lurking.

The actual aliens are visually frightening and, compared to the original, are more plentiful.

Sigourney Weaver takes center stage and leads this film successfully.

I’m not sure many other actresses could pull off her level of authentic toughness and, in the process, give off no sex appeal and still get away with it.

The only detractor is that the film feels a bit dated in a purely 1980s way. It has an 80s look, and that’s not a positive.

Not on par with the excellent original Alien, but otherwise, a well-made, supernatural thrill ride.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Actress-Sigourney Weaver, Best Original Score, Best Sound Effects Editing (won), Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Best Film Editing, Best Visual Effects (won)

Golden Globe Nominations: Best Actress- Drama- Sigourney Weaver

Gravity-2013

Gravity-2013

Director Alfonso Cuarón

Starring Sandra Bullock, George Clooney

Scott’s Review #69

70274337

Reviewed June 24, 2014

Grade: B

Gravity (2013) has become a film that has divided people- some have described it as “brilliant”, “groundbreaking”, and “phenomenal”.

Because of the hype, I expected something of a masterpiece. Not being a 3-D fan (usually unnecessary), I gave in and saw it in 3-D, which did help the film.

I have discovered the theory- the techies will love it; the storytellers will not.

Yes, the film is inventive, and the space scenes are magnificent, so much so that I felt like I was floating in space looking down at planet Earth.

Sandra Bullock is excellent as a lost astronaut, fearful and desperate.

But the story is quite basic and, frankly, weak. I kept waiting for the plot to thicken and was left wanting much more than the movie delivered.

The backstory for Clooney and Bullock was limited.

I must stress, though, that technically this film is astounding and deserves the praise heaped on it, but as a complete movie, it didn’t deliver.

Oscar Nominations: 7 wins-Best Picture, Best Director- Alfonso Cuarón (won), Best Actress-Sandra Bullock, Best Original Score (won), Best Sound Editing (won), Best Sound Mixing (won), Best Production Design, Best Cinematography (won), Best Film Editing (won), Best Visual Effects (won)