Rogue One

Gareth Edwards, 2016

4/5

I take quite a bit of pride as being someone that has been able to completely dodge the George Lucas Star Wars Prequels. I have no plans to see them. I don't care one bit that I will have that blind spot through the rest of my life. I am going to push my daughter into seeing the original 3 as soon as she is old enough. But I will warn her about those prequels just like I will warn her to stay away from the troublemakers at school. Lucas basically went Adam Sandler on the precious Star Wars franchise, where it was evident that he lost his fastball. It changed the way the fans viewed Lucas. Maybe it was because he never seemed apologetic. Instead he was the opposite, he actually seemed quite smug about them. He made the concious decision with those films to not take cinematic risks and shoot for something edgy that pleased the veteran adult audience. He made characters like Jar Jar Binks for his kids. The closest you will get me to seeing those three would be to watch one of the unofficial fan edits, such as Topher Grace's version.

So let's rank the original three. For me (and most people I think) - it goes Empire, New Hope, Jedi. With a pretty big drop off from Empire to Jedi. I watched Jedi a few months back now and all I can really recall (and this is probably the 3rd or 4th time I had seen it) is the Ewoks' dancing at the end. 

So where does Rogue One land? Well, in all fairness - I still have not seen the Force Awakens. But I would place this film directly behind A New Hope. This is better, and far better than Return of the Jedi.

You kind of have to go into this with neutral expectations, sit and just kind of take it all in. I didn't know much about it and went into it not expecting to see any familiar characters, other than the digital recreation of Grand Moff Tarkin (Peter Cushing - who died in 1994). I will admit at first glance when he appeared on screen that he didn't quite look 100% authentic and some of the digital elements bled through. But in the following scenes he sort of blended in. The idea of a standalone film is interesting because it completely abandons the familiarity of the characters that are buried in the zeitgeist. The Force Awakens was able to deliver a dose of nostalgia. But Rogue One isn't set on providing a dosage of nostalgia. But there are certain elements for sure that bring you back to the Star Wars universe and make you feel at home. Walks through trade districts, where you see all walks of (alien) life - as Jyn (Felicity Jones) bumps into a strange figure who immediately snarls "watch where you're going". Reminiscent of the Mos Eisley Cantina in New Hope. One of the features of the Star Wars movies is how absorbing the world can be. Rogue One created this same feeling.

Rogue One for the most part fits into the Hero's Journey structure with some deviation. But it's visually stunning, sounds great, compelling, and completely engaging. If I were to criticize anything, its that once the plot is set up, you can kind of predict the direction things are heading and the pace it takes to get there starts to slow down in the second act. But ultimately it's another Star Wars installment that goes down easy and feels ripe for a rewatch.

Spectral

Nic Mathieu, 2016

IMDB

3/5

At first glance Spectral looks as if it's another one of the many 2016 Netflix original offerings that may just slip between the cracks, because of the dozens of films queued up that you feel you will never get through. But actually it was originally produced by Universal Pictures and was pulled from schedule presumably due to fears that it wouldn't perform well at the box office. Netflix stepped in and purchased the distribution rights, giving them the ability to release it in their system. Which is a nice save, because it could have been just another film that sat and collected dust and never saw the light of day. It's more than that, and worth a look if you are a fan of the sci-fi genre. If you are a fan of the sci-fi genre, it means that you are also willing to go into a movie like this with a grain of salt. Because Spectral, while pretty entertaining, definitely fits into a formulaic molding. You need to go into this knowing that you aren't getting a Blade Runner. Hell, you aren't even getting a Starship Troopers which is a better version of a Sci-Fi action movie where soldiers attempt to overcome a seemingly undefeatable enemy force. I read somewhere that it was to be marketed as a "supernatural Black Hawk Down". Which is actually a pretty accurate quick description to throw on it. Black Hawk Down had a group of soldiers attempting to rescue two lieutenants in a completely explosive landscape. The landscape is similar here, as well-trained soldiers attempt to reveal what is behind this mysterious enemy that is taking down scores of their men in the battlefield. Early speculation has them believing it's some kind of enemy cloaking device.

While the production design doesn't feel cheap, there are elements of the story that certainly do. Spectral falls victim to some of the typical action-genre tropes. One glaring annoyance is when engineer Clyne (James Badge Dale) determines that the creatures must be made from Bose-Einstein concentrate because of their chemical properties. Well, they need to fight them with plasma cannons and it just so happens that they have everything they need to equip themselves with these weapons right in the bunker that they have hunkered down in. There are a lot of convienent things that are done with the various forms of technology they have. Because of this, at first the enemy force seems undefeatable but that quickly changes in the second half of the film when it seems like Clyne just needs to sit down and stare into space for about 30 seconds and then he can figure everything out.

The Last Days on Mars

Ruairi Robinson, 2013

IMDB

2/5

On paper, The Last Days on Mars is a movie that I probably should have liked more than I did. A group of space explorers, led by Vincent Campbell (Liev Schreiber), stumbles upon an organic microbe on Mars that infects the astronauts and basically turns them into space zombies. Just the idea of space zombies is great. Not done a lot, a variation from the saturated horror sub-genre.

But Last Days is a film that's just lacking. Definitely not from a production standpoint. It's always amazing how, even bad space movies, always seem to have really elaborate production design. The spaceship and it's surrounding areas looks and feels authentic. You never are thinking that it's just a group of actors in space-suits sweating their asses off in a desert in Jordan (where it was actually filmed). You discover that their clock has basically run out on their mission, leaving them with an experience but with nothing really tangible in terms of a monumental discovery. This displeases them, particularly Kim (Olivia Williams). She was clearly hoping to be one of the explorers to really find something to bring back to planet earth. Something that would give them immortal status in the science world. When Marko (Goran Kostic) discovers microscopic life in the lab, he secretly dips out to get more samples. At this point the film really has you locked in, eagerly awaiting to see what is in the petri dish.

But the film becomes a far cry from Alien. Weak script is really to blame. This is a group of scientists, and nothing that ever really comes out of their mouth feels very scientific. When Vincent is lowering himself into a sinkhole, he sees some stalagmites. You would think his assessment of the organic matter would solicit some intelligent response, but instead he says something along the lines of "whatever it is, it's alive". Oh wow. Even Avatar managed to provide significantly more sophisticated dialogue when you were in that alien world. The film never manages to carve out it's own niche. It just becomes another horror film of the scary thing picking everyone off without any twists and turns. The film does manage to weave together an interesting conclusion. This is definitely a film that could be added to a list called "Bad movies that could have good sequels".

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Francis Lawrence, 2013

IMDB

4/5

I have to start this review with a bit of an apology. After seeing the first Hunger Games film, a lot of memories of the 2000 Japanese bloodbath thriller Battle Royale surfaced. It felt so similar. I went on to do a little research, discovering that The Hunger Games books actually stirred a bit of controversy because of the similarities to the Royale films. Some argued that because of the Royale films being released before the books, that author Suzanne Collins must have lifted the premise. I was one of the people who felt that Collins had ripped off Kinji Fukasaku’s idea. The whole kids getting put on island forced to fight it out to the death couldn’t have been conceived by both purely on coincidence. But the second installment of the Hunger Games comes into it’s own. It builds off the first film, and takes on a different form that sets itself apart. The detailed dystopian landscape, as unforgiving and tragic as it is, is alluring. The film does what so many of the great dystopian films (Children of Men, The Road, The Matrix) do so well. It creates a dreadful end-of-days scenario where the state of humankind is haunting. Through fascist political overreach and highly evolved technology, we see what humans are capable of doing to each other in such horrid circumstances. You continue to stay invested in Jennifer Lawrence’s Katniss Everdeen character as she tries to find independence / solitude from the Snow regime. But because her character has become an iconic figure, it becomes evident that she is forever changed and unable to escape the public spotlight. A symbol of hope for the poverty-stricken people but a symbol of rebellion to the leadership. Francis Lawrence does a good job of making you completely despise the Snow regime and really get behind the plight of Katniss. From the detailed visual effects to the sound design, Catching Fire feels very much like a Battle Royale meets Snowpiercer meets novel Ready Player One by Ernest Cline (soon to be adapted to film by Steven Spielberg). I am glad I gave the second one a go. I plan on continuing on. Catching Fire certainly leaves you hanging, eager to see what happens next.

Circle

Aaron Hann / Mario Miscione, 2015

IMDB

3/5

There a handful of films (Buried, The Man from Earth, 12 Angry Men, Pontypool, Rear Window and a lot of Hitchcock's work for that matter) that take place in a single location. With a limited setting, you need to have a good script powering the narrative. Because you are going to be stuck with these characters for 90 minutes or so, they NEED to be interesting.

Circle takes place in a single room. A bunch of strangers awaken from an mysterious daze and find themselves placed upon red circles like human board game pieces. They realize quite quickly that they are part of an odd social experiment. When one of them steps off of the red circle that they stand on, they die. Not long after they realize that it's not the only way to die in the circle room. Seemingly at random, the ominous eye at the center of the room zaps an innocent victim. But then they determine it's not random. Not only is it not random, they are actually in control of who gets exterminated. What transpires is a dark social experiment where everyone in the room makes a stand for their life, and also has to play executioner to the people standing around them. What starts off as superficial judging turns into moral examinations. The numbers dwindle down and the experiment turns into pure Survivor-esque strategy. It's interesting that you really don't spend a whole lot of time with the poor people in the room. But because of their dilemma, you are forced to learn a lot about them rapidly. Like they are making a stand for their lives, and because of that they reveal themselves much faster than they would over a cup of coffee where they have all of the time in the world. The end result is a really inventive and unique movie, one that feels like an indie hybrid of Saw, the aforementioned 12 Angry Men and the not-often-mentioned Cube.

Ex Machina

Alex Garland, 2015

IMDB

4/5

Anyone familiar with Alex Garland's previous work is aware of the fact that he is a great writer. Responsible for writing the novel The Beach (which eventually would become the not-as-good film adaptation directed by Danny Boyle), the still under-rated 28 Days Later, the almost-amazing space-thriller Sunshine, and the also quite good 2012 stylistic action film Dredd. He's sort of gone all over the place, from one side of the planet to the other and then all way to space.

Ex Machina is a thriller, set mostly inside the elaborate contemporary home of Silicon Valley Elon Musk / Tony Stark / Steve Jobs archetype Nathan (Oscar Isaac). Nathan creates a contest where a random employee of his will get the opportunity to stay with him for a week, basically a mentor retreat type of thing. Coder employee Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) wins the competition and the film quickly jumps to him arriving at the estate, which is a seemingly endless island that Nathan owns. Picture someone owning the entire Isla Nublar island from Jurassic Park sans dinosaurs. Caleb soon discovers that Nathan is actually working on an A.I. prototype that he wants to show off. Gleeson is really fit for the Caleb role, serving as sort of a quirky nerdy type that contrasts well with Isaac's eccentric billionaire role. Isaac is able to bring a lot more illustration to his character, and is able to pull off a nice progression going from a friendly beer-drinking health fanatic to a deviously manipulative genius.

The film becomes a blend of elements ranging from Spielberg's AI to Spike Jonze's Her to the genre-spawning Terminator films. It becomes a philosophical experiement, examining what makes us human and challenging the idea of conciousness. The well-paced story builds into a extraordinary climax that will have you playing out scenarios in your head for hours after viewing. The story is unpredictable, the characters are engaging, and the film itself is really nice to look at. The effects are subtle, the electronic score (provided by Portishead's Geoff Barrow and composer Ben Salisbury) is very present. Ex Machina marks his directorial debut, and he certainly proves that he's good controlling the camera as well as creating what's in front of it. It will be interesting to now see what happens with Garland's career, seeing as he is a proven one-stop-shop for great film-making.

Europa Report

Sebastian Cordero, 2013

IMDB

2/5

A group of astronauts are deployed on a mission to Europa, one of Jupiter's moons where there is suspicion of alien life or at least the evidence of past life.

So many films in the found-footage genre use the less is more device when it comes to employing something freaky or creepy. There is an expected build-up of tension, suspense, anticipation. Sometimes, like the foundational found-footage genre-creator The Blair Witch Project (a personal favorite that gets a lot of praise on this blog), it's a device that's used very effectively. There you are getting a gradual increase in the amount of creepy stimuli. At first it's just a little pile of sticks in the woods. Then it's the chilling cries of a baby. And then of course the climax at the house. It's about pacing, accumulation and then release. Structure.

Here, you wait for delivery that just never comes. It starts off as a little flash on the screen that one of the astronauts sees from the ship. Then it's another flash. Then it's another flash with some camera distortion. Then some more camera distortion. You continue to get teased and teased for the duration of the film and by the end it's just not enough. The documentary-style interviewing recounting that events that occurred feels faulty and unnecessary. The set design is impressive in regards to the space craft and it's endless surroundings, but there are points in the film where you just want to get off the damn thing and explore. There are no rules set in stone in terms of a story like this, it can go anywhere. But it's supposed to be a Sci-Fi Thriller. Instead of any thrills it has the mildness of Contact without the quality. Its a film that feels too restricted, too minimal. Upon looking back to some of the much better space movies: Blade Runner, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Alien, Starship Troopers, Moon... Europa feels very scant and very forgettable. 

Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

Irvin Kershner, 1980

IMDB

4/5

Continuing on to revisiting the second film of the Star Wars franchise. 2 down, 4 to go. Getting a little nervous finishing the originals and venturing on the originals. It should be said I have never seen the prequel films YET. So after all is said and done, it will be a journey of revisiting my past and taking a chance on a controversial trio of films that I never have given a chance to previously. There is a lot of hype surrounding The Empire Strikes Back, as it is widely considered the best film of the Star Wars franchise. This is understandable. A New Hope is basically a set-up piece for the Empire Strikes. By now you are already invested in the characters. And there is an eagerness after Hope concludes to see the continuation of the story because it leaves you hanging. But probably because there’s a sense of extensive detail to the Star Wars universe. You visit it and get wrapped up, don’t want to leave after the final credits roll, and want to go back there again. There is a level of engagement to these films that other franchises would love to have. Some have succeeded, but many have fallen short.

This is one of those beloved films that is truly difficult to criticize. Even reflecting on it now, what the hell is wrong with this film? Is it possible that this is a flawless movie? It’s undoubtedly one of the best sequels of all time. It takes the first film and builds upon it with its bigger budget, exactly what you want a sequel to do. With the Star Wars films in general, its the always entertaining classic battle of good vs. evil. But this film boldly breaks some of the conventional movie rules as well, in terms of challenging the good guy always wins concept. It’s refreshing to see an sci-fi/action film with some gray area. While A New Hope focused a bit more on Luke’s backstory and building his character (and really the good guys in general), Darth Vader has more of a presence in the second film and is more of a showcase of his unforgiving brutality. But between the set design, story, special effects, Empire is a timeless masterpiece. It only reinforces the fact that it’s a great idea to revisit this franchise, including this film specifically, years after seeing it for the first time. There’s new things to see, new things to appreciate. The classic light-saber battle may be in the depths of your brain, but let it come to the surface again. Come back to this one as an adult if you already haven’t, it’s worth it.

Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope

George Lucas, 1977

IMDB

4/5

Making the decision to revisit The Star Wars franchise comes with some early thoughts. Is the franchise going to live up to the test of time? So often we go back to these films from our childhood, films that made an impact, and they just look horrendous. The special effects look campy, there’s bad acting, sometimes even the story itself seems elementary. And in my case, where it’s been 20 years since I’ve seen this film, those thoughts were certainly floating around in my head. First off, it’s actually a bit difficult to get the Star Wars films in your hands. Sure, you can go out and but the DVD’s at Best Buy or off of Amazon. But like most films nowadays, you can’t get that $4 rental from Amazon or iTunes. This is likely because negotiations are probably still going on pertaining to the digital release of the films. This will probably happen fairly soon seeing as Disney now owns the franchise. So we got the DVD from Netflix, put it in and pressed Play. The menu screen loads, and you hear that eternally familiar theme song.

The pacing of the story in the first film is really noticeable. There is a two hour window to squeeze in a lot of setup. George Lucas really does a fantastic job of keeping it moving along. In fact, damn. Watching “A New Hope” again really evokes a nostalgic feeling. George Lucas, what the fuck happened dude? This first film is really a masterpiece. The special effects are bafflingly good for 1977. The set design is elaborate, comprehensive, creative, innovative. The alien creatures, who clearly went on to influence every future Sci Fi film from The Fifth Element to Total Recall, are impressively constructed. This is a remarkable film that doesn’t necessarily feel like it was made 38 years ago. Did Lucas have this kind of foresight, where he knew that the air battle scene would look that good decades later? Even the light-sabers hold up. Sure, there are some of the dated effects like that electrical effect we see so much in films like Back to the Future or Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure, but it feels excusable here. The only real criticism that can really made for this film is it feels like it lacks a certain occasional emotional component. Luke sees the incinerated bodies of his aunt and uncle outside of his home on Alderaan, and instead of grieving for a period of time he immediately departs his home planet to fight off the Imperial forces. Later, when Leia is reunited with her father who considered her lost and dead, there are no tears. But these are things that would likely slow things down, when it’s pretty important that the story moves forward.

Snowpiercer

Joon-ho Bong, 2014

Can I Stream it?

4/5

The world is has been forced into a modern-day Ice Age after a global warming solution failed. The remaining inhabitants of Earth now live on a transcontinental train that circles the globe once a year. The lower class inhabitants live in the rear carts of the train while the upper class resides in the front, more lavish end of the train.

Korean director Joon-ho Bong's (The Host, dystopian sci-fi piece runs on an inventive concept that mirrors some of the class warfare of the Hunger Games with some of the offbeat humor on a futuristic backdrop of The Fifth Element. The fast moving train is unforgiving. The back end carts are fed gelatin-like bricks of processed protein that resembles out of the can cranberry sauce (except a really disgusting version of it), while the front end dines on lavish meals consisting of fresh fruits and vegetables and meats. The never-ending tension reaches a boiling point early on the film and the lower class passengers decide to rebel under the leadership of Curtis (Chris Evans) and guidance of Gilliam (John Hurt). As they attempt to push forward to the upper section of the train, you see a brilliant progression of the luxuries (probably the best feature of the film, such a pleasant surprise) awarded to the upper end of the Snowpiercer hierarchy. There are moments when the cart doors open to a barrage of defenders and you witness sequences not seen since Tarantino's Kill Bill.

Because it's Bong's English debut, there is likely some things that got a bit mixed in translation. Some of the humor feels misplaced, a bit awkward at times. But it's completely forgivable. There is enough meat on the bones to the rest of the picture. Snowpiercer is visually appealing and built on an innovatory premise with some good performances, and that's enough to make a good sci-fi film.

Edge of Tomorrow

Doug Liman, 2014

Can I Stream It?

4/5

Typically reluctant to get involved in the physical elements of war, Cage (Tom Cruise) finds himself on the battleground fighting against an invading alien force that has already destroyed much of the world. When he falls victim to one of the creatures during a firefight, he realizes that when he dies he awakens at the beginning of the day where everything starts over again.

Liman's Sci-Fi thriller is a mix between Groundhog Day and Starship Troopers (who would have though that would have ever been possible?). Cruise once again finds himself in the Sci-fi genre, where at this point he should feel quite comfortable having already starred in films like Minority Report, Oblivion, War of the Worlds -the latter two dealing with similar plots of aliens invading Earth. But where last year's Oblivion fell victim to dragging predictability, Edge really keeps you engaged and maintains it's rapid pace to the end. Unfortunately Edge fell victim to poor marketing, and didn't really perform well at the box office in early June 2014 when it was released. It should have done much better, seeing as it wasn't up against any big-budget action films but instead found itself up against tween-adaptation/tearjerker The Fault in our Stars. But it was probably too smart for the typical action-seeking-moviegoers who are still mourning the loss of Paul Walker from cinema, forever depressed about the unfillable hole in their precious Fast and the Furious franchise. But who cares about the numbers, really. The only unfortunate part of it is that Liman wasn't immediately praised for his work here, and he really should have been. Instead, the film will likely go on to maintain more of a cult status which is fine too. History should be kind to you Doug Liman.

The film is certainly not absent of lots of CGI and big-budget effects, but they really provide a complimentary dynamic to the brilliant screenwriting. It never feels gimmicky or ever makes you feel like there's any kind of imbalance. It doesn't just try to wear you down with stimulation. It's a heady piece that puts your brain to work. And along with the great writing, Liman puts some his familiar Bourne Identity film-making techniques to work again, with a lot of the erratic jumps and cuts. During the opening moments of the film you realize that the earth has been invaded by aliens as they land on earth on asteroids. You don't see them right away, and when you are finally introduced to them on the battlefield you realize how much of an unstoppable force they are. They sort of come off as a hybrid of Predator & James Cameron's Alien on amphetamines. By the time you actually have one in your sights, it's probably too late to take it down unless you have an impeccable shot. And Cruise's early work on the battlefield is anything but impeccable. Playing against type, he attempts to blackmail his commanding officer in an attempt to cowardly escape actual battle. It's a clever trick, because you really get a sense of his character's evolution as he has to repeat each day correcting his mistakes, hoping to eventually figure out how to defeat the mighty force. In a genre where is quite the disparity of quality, Edge manages to stand out while performing its own take on the alien invasion theme.

Oblivion

Joseph Kosinski, 2013

Can I Stream It?

3/5

Jack is a Drone Technician that services patrolling drones that defend the remaining habitable portions of Earth that haven't been destroyed by nuclear blasts that won the war for the human race. These drones keep the alien invaders still present at bay while Jack's organization can successfully complete their Nuclear Fusion accumulation mission off of the coast. Jack is told that the work is nearing completion and he will soon join the remaining members of Earth on a moon orbiting the planet Saturn. But he soon finds that the agency that he works for might not have been completely honest with him, and that there may be something more to the visions that he has been having in his dreams.

This Cruise-led Sci-Fi that gives nods to Minority Report, A.I., Planet of the Apes, to the Matrix and Blade Runner. The dystopian landscape is a truly a feast for the eyes, from the Sky-High contemporary pod house that Cruise's character Jack resides in or the multitude of gadgets that they use. These visual elements are the biggest perk of the film, the highlight probably being the spaceship / drone battle about 3/4 into the picture. In fact, the drones could easily be considered characters in the film. You never really get sick of those little sounds that they make as they zero in on a target, and if it's hostile you hear the couple of beeps before the enemy becomes nothing but disintegrated matter. Jack spends the first hour or so of the film showing you the modern planet. Manhattan is submerged under soil, with pieces of classic architecture still protruding from the surface. He even has his little nostalgic shrine that he sneaks off to periodically, where he can listen to rock LP's and read A Tale of Two Cities. Oblivion really feels like it has something going for it, that is until the reveal. At this point, it makes a predictable stroll to the end. By the end you are given a certain amount of closure but wondering why the hell it took so long to get there.

Her

Spike Jonze, 2013

Can I Stream It?

5/5

Set in the near future in downtown Los Angeles, Theodore (Jaoquin Phoenix) is a lonely man still struggling with his fairly recent divorce to his wife Catherine (Rooney Mara). He discovers a newly released operating system named Samantha (Scarlett Johansson) that once installed quickly familiarizes itself with his life. He forms a connection with the OS that grows quite quickly into a more romantic direction, filling the void that was in his life prior to installing her.

A high concept film that put in the wrong hands, could fall into pieces. And it doesn't with Jonze at the helm, and why would it? He has already proven that he is right guy for making such a picture, directing other outrageous high concept pictures like an obsession with Malkovichian mind-control in Being John Malkovich, or directing the complicated Adaptation which follows screenwriter Charlie Kaufman's struggles with writer's block while trying to adapt Susan Orlean's The Orchid Thief. This time he goes it alone without the help of Kaufman, and still manages to maintain a similar quality with his previous films.

The futuristic L.A. is quite beautiful. Urban curvature, a certain reddish glow, holographic imagery, green spaces. People shuffle about, rather closed off from each other with their ear-buds in. Actually a not-so-evolved version of our current iPhone culture, yet generations ahead. You settle into this world quite quickly, and when Theodore encounters the new Operating System it feels fit for the times. This is a society in which technology has been long interwoven, as humorously shown when Theodore is on a blind-date with a woman (played by Olivia Wilde) when he discusses some her interests that he had already seen on her online profile, and rather than be creeped out she considers it rather sweet.

The stigma's have been washed out of society. The personality is created, very much on it's own, and evolves quickly. The OS is basically a drastically evolved version of Siri. Rather than a computerized voice speaking to him, it's a sultry female voice. A voice with warmth, vulnerability, desire. Theodore finds his lonely nights are no longer so lonely, and his daytime hours are enhanced. The film examines some real philosophical questions. Is it considered real love when it's with a non-physical entity? Can it really love you back? While Her doesn't hide it's satire of our current digitally obsessed culture, it doesn't beat us over the head with it while maintaining the adequate amount of comedy blended with drama. Some of the ideas are actually quite frightening in a sense. How comfortable can you feel talking to a digital entity that absorbs knowledge so rapidly? How can you just turn off your own skepticism that the voice on the other side isn't just preying on your very easy-to-identify human vulnerabilities? And while Theodore is conflicted, he is still engaged with Samantha. He loves her. And she loves him? And in a sense, how can he not love her? He has a beautiful voice in his ear that is watching with him through every moment, big or small. She sees what he sees. She hears what he hears. She remembers it all. She can play the perfect song at a moments notice, or even create a new one for him. She can optimize the moment. She can use her various algorithms to sense his sensitivity. Samantha's informational capabilities are quite endless, but of course there's the ongoing struggle given the lack of pure consciousness. It's a love story of man and machine, and Jonze provides so much depth to the dynamic that he makes it very intriguing.

Grabbers

Jon Wright, 2012


3/5

A small Irish community is is shaken up when an alien creature lands in the sea. As residents begin to vanish, a newly-paired Guard duo tries to find its weakness. Upon discovering that it feeds off of blood, they attempt to poison their own blood by consuming large amounts of alcohol at the hometown pub.

In this silly beer-soaked sci-fi horror, Grabbers possesses some of beats of similarly-themed Attack the Block but also has some of the laughs-in-the-middle-of-chaos of Shaun of the Dead. The lead characters are easy on the eyes newbie good-girl Lisa Nolan (Ruth Bradley) and jaded lonely sad-sack Ciaran O'Shea (Richard Coyle). Nolan can't wait to fulfill her duties as Guard while O'Shea can't wait to wade through the monotony of his day, so his liver can do the bulk of his daily work at the local watering hole. When the two are assigned together early on there's a bit of tension between the two that makes you anticipate the predictable shift to romance. It doesn't take long to introduce the antagonist alien sea-beast (the first scene actually). Introduced at first using the effective what you don't see is more scary technique, when you it does finally show itself it's not disappointing. As the town bands together to fight it off using their best tool, their ability to put down the pints. The normally quiet town gets a shot in the arm when the beast arrives, and the sense of inebriated community between them all is inviting and amusing. Although the film may push the Irish stereotypes, as soon as "The Irish Rover" starts playing in the pub you wish you were right there with them singing along, Guinness in hand.

A film that could quickly become distracting with lame CGI and poor acting really isn't at the end of the day. There's impressive camera work involved, a fitting score, and a medium-sized cast that really deliver satisfying performances. The lack of a back-story and rush to create a romance between the two Guards feels a bit far-fetched, but then again its a movie about a giant alien squid who pukes up drunkards so who is really judging it on that level? Besides, there are moments in the film where it could venture down over-used roads and it actually pulls back. For what the movie is it's good. It knows what it is, and what it needs to accomplish. 

Pacific Rim

Guillermo del Toro, 2013


2/5

As giant alien creatures (known as the Kaiju) ascend from the middle of the earth to destroy humanity, humans join together to mobilize a defense. They decide to fight fire with fire as they create massive robots called Jaeger's that rival the Kaiju in size. These robotic machines are human operated involving two people bound by the mind. They are able to gain a bit of a foothold in the war with their machines but are intent on destroying the crevice in which they emerge from.

A film likely to be adored by thirteen year old boys across America. And only them. Guillermo del Toro proves that he should stick to the Fantasy genre, and not enter the world of big Hollywood Blockbusters. Toro goes from treating viewers to such haunting, imaginative creations in Pan's Labyrinth to removing all layered storytelling and just shoving big budget effects down our throats. Like the monstrous Jaegers in Pacific Rim, the film is bloated, too big for its own good, uninspired, and derivative. The premise itself feels imitative. The look of Iron Man. The interface of Avatar. The utter destructionism of Godzilla. The Transformers-like battles. Yeah, we've seen all of that. It's been done before. 

What is the point of the soldiers proving that they are capable of proving their martial arts abilities? The robots don't even utilize those moves. They slowly punch through the air like soaking wet Rock-em Sock-em toys. Oh, and they can break out a sword in a clutch moment to abruptly end the battle so the film can make one of many erratic cuts in the story? How convenient. The $190M budget was clearly spent on CGI and not on the writing. The dialogue is so elementary and just feels empty and downright lacking. Cliche sayings like "step into my office" or "let me check for a pulse, okay, no pulse". Charlie Hunnam (Sons of Anarchy) does step out of his Jax Teller comfort zone (albeit handcuffed to Ron Perlman), and does come off as a more wholesome figure than his well-known Samcro President role. And poor Idris Elba. The man who will always live in infamy for his role as Stringer Bell deserves more than this. But he probably made the mistake we all did. We all saw Guillermo del Toro's name on it, and thought: "how could this be a bad move?!". He had nothing to work with. The soldiers jump into the Jaeger head and they look like Daft Punk members who couldn't play an instrument. The interpersonal relationships between father and son, or almost-lovers feels rigid. It will be interesting to see how history treats this film. Maybe Guillermo is saying bye bye to his darker days. Clearly at this point he is more inclined to channel Ishiro Honda instead of The Brothers Grimm. 

Ghostbusters II

Ivan Reitman, 1989

(REWATCHED)


4/5

The population of ghosts seem to be increasing in the Big Apple, which puts the Ghostbusters back in business. They realize that the bad vibes of the city are actually causing a pink slime to materialize below the city that in turn is energizing the reanimation of an ancient genocidal ruler from his painting in the Manhattan Museum of Art.

The sequel to the 80's cult classic holds up. It could easily make a list of "Most consistent sequels ever", because it really feels like an accurate continuation of the first film. "Movies that if they are on television, you can't turn the channel and must sit down and watch". The screenplay is superb, the script is impeccable, and the acting is great because you are really seeing Dan Akroyd, Harold Remis, Bill Murray, Sigourney Weaver at the peak of their careers. Also at his peak is Rick Moranis, who has been noticeably absent from cinema since his self-imposed retirement in 1997 after becoming a single dad when his wife died of cancer. It's a masterful blend of the supernatural and comedy genres. Michael Chapman is really great behind the camera in this film as well, such as the Statue of Liberty scene. The film also gives you another serving of an 80's soundtrack that if you don't like, you are empty inside. How dare anyone criticize the effects. The proton-packs are on equally par with light-sabers, no argument. That would be one of the disappointing elements of a future remake of this franchise, which you know will come twenty years from now. They will have some cutting-edge visuals that will take away all of the grit and everything that made these films so good. The younger generation will then criticize the Ghostbusters purists as being old-timers. Ugh. Both films are an ode to the older New York City. Pre-9/11 (as you are reminded seeing the sky-scape shots of the Twin Towers), Pre-Giuliani, Post-Taxi Driver, Pre-Disneyfication of Times Square, Mid Central Park Ghost jogger. The city where the film's fictional Mayor reminds the boys that "Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right". This is an American Classic. One of those films you can't wait to force your kids to watch when they get older, and they damn well better appreciate it for what it is.

Prometheus

Ridley Scott, 2012


4/5

A group of scientific explorers descend on a planet that they believe may be the key to understanding the birth of our existence. As they land on the volatile surface of the planet, they realize that finding those answers is not going to come very easy, if at all. 

Ridley Scott spent more than 10 years developing this Sci-Fi thriller, a loose prequel to the Alien films. The lengthy production time certainly shows. The final product is a visually stunning, suspenseful picture that feels very much like Scott's past films. Intricate set design rivals all of his past work. The film shows off technology that would make Tim Cook jealous. Holograms, stasis pods, dream readers, mapping sensors. They say film can predict future technology, and this would certainly be a great example of it. The array of high-tech gadgets make it feel like Minority Report blended with the original Alien. It's certainly a film built for the big-screen. Some may accuse the film of biting off more than it could chew. Probably because it attempts to tackle those age-old philosophical questions. Where do we come from? Why are we here? Rather than have a crew land on a planet to be eaten alive by whatever native creatures exist, it's good that there's some complexity to the mission - despite how grandiose it is.

The tension builds as the Prometheus lands on the foreign ship, with the crew looking for The Engineers. The pace effectively picks up, and the applied tension through the rest of the film is very well-placed. While the dialogue isn't exactly mind-blowing, the acting is impressive. Michael Fassbender is perfectly cast as the android David. Charlize Theron is effective as cold-mannered ship captain Meredith Vickers. Noomi Rapace (Lisbeth in the original Dragon Tattoo films) is also particularly impressive as Dr. Shaw. When the first unfriendly creature appears, a wave of familiarity washes over you. It feels very Alien-like, you welcome it with open arms. Once that door opens, it does not close. While the film may have it's flaws, one of them is not a lack of ambition. Scott is likely the only living filmmaker who could make a picture with so much detail. He is willing to put in the time to make sure his distinct style is all over the place. Almost like a James Cameron from space, Scott has a history of putting together a beautiful ship, only to deconstruct it piece by piece with damage and still maintain the aesthetics.