Equilibrium

Title: Equilibrium (2002)
Director: Kurt Wimmer
Genre: Action, Sci-Fi
Lead Actor(s): Christian Bale, Taye Diggs
Rating: R
107 minutes

I would say this movie is one part 1984, one part Fahrenheit 451, and one part Vulcans from Star Trek. John Preston (Christian Bale) is a cleric working for the government to round-up sense offenders, those citizens who purposely experience emotions and possess contraband that can elicit feelings. After accidentally breaking his morning dose of Prozium, Preston begins to understand the danger and freedom in emotions.

Christian Bale uses the same intensity that makes him a great Batman for the stoic cleric. His reintroduction to emotion is not a violent burst of dramatic feeling. It happens gradually, naturally. There are occasionally stronger bouts but they are not the overcomplicated and overacted experiences they could have been. Bale knows the line that needs to exist for this character and walks it beautifully.

Taye Diggs’s Brandt is Preston’s partner. His belief in the government, the Tetragrammaton, is furiously fixed and ingrained. Unfortunately Diggs lacks the pure strength needed for this type of character. He is too amiable. As such his more violent reactions seem oddly out of character. There are ways of being amiable and ruthless. Diggs just lacks the ruthlessness to make the role work.

I think the most impressive part of the movie is the intriguing fighting style. The characters practice can best be described as practicing karate with guns. They don’t use the guns purely for shooting bullets at people, but instead they are often used by the assailant holding the muzzle and working with the butt of the gun. The actors have learned this choreography with extreme skill. Every action is precise and strategic and surprisingly fast. Part of what makes this movie fun to watch is this unique style.

Overall it is a good movie with a good actor and a very interesting style. I love movies with this type of story line. It is very Orwellian and I love Orwell. For those who like a movie to give you something to think about, there are elements of that in this movie. For those who want strong and interesting action, it’s there. All in all it is a good movie and definitely worth the price of renting or buying. It is one of the more under the radar movies that should have been a hit.

******** 8/10

Inception

Title: Inception (2010)
Director: Christopher Nolan
Genre: Drama, Sci-fi
Lead Actor(s): Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Page
Rating: PG-13
148 minutes

Christopher Nolan is quickly becoming one of my favorite directors. Inception is trippy and thinky and great. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Cobb, the best “extractor” around with a very preoccupied subconscious. Extractors go into people’s dreams to unlock secrets for other people. Cobb and Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are recruited for a big job and they must build a team including a forger, Eames (Tom Hardy), an architect, Ariadne (Ellen Page), a chemist, Yusuf (Dileep Rao), and the benefactor, Saito (Ken Wantanabe) to go deep into a mark’s mind.

Cobb has the most story in the movie and it is very complicated. DiCaprio handles such an intricate character with the taut skill he has become adept at. That being said, I would like to see him as a lighter character. His recent choices for characters never have a chance to smile and he was just as good at characters that smile. Back to his performance in this movie, I completely understand why Nolan only intended for DiCaprio for the role. This character is constantly tormented by personifications of his subconscious. He literally faces his evils in a more concrete way than the average person can dream. Cobb, however, feels that he has to continue. It doesn’t matter if he puts his whole team at risk. This gravity ways on DiCaprio as heavy as an anchor. Every movement, facial expression, every inflection is defined by this evil.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is absolutely magnificent. He is half of the comedic relief (the other being Hardy as Eames) and also a more balanced and level person than Cobb. He is more dimensional than Cobb as well. Gordon-Levitt is just fun to watch in the movie. DiCaprio is tormented and marvelous, but Gordon-Levitt just helps pull the audience away from a constant and sharp decline with Cobb. Gordon-Levitt has really grown into a fun and talented actor.

The one actor I was probably most disappointed with was Ellen Page. She was great the first 20-30 minutes, but as soon as she started discovering Cobb’s back story, I thought she dropped the ball a bit. I know that Page can do serious, even frightening. She proved this in Hard Candy. As such I am not entirely sure why when things got darker, she distanced herself from the character. I think Gordon-Levitt’s character would have been just as effective in the role this character had to play.

The directing and writing, both done by Nolan, were interesting and made the movie more of an experience. I am dying to know how he did those hallway scenes. I also want to say I loved the villain. There were times where it was so utterly unsettling. The villain really bumped the movie to the next level. I am trying not to give too much away because it would ruin the movie and the ad campaign was so careful to reveal so little. That is how I like my trailers. They need to leave some mystery so I don’t come out of the theatre feeling like I could have saved my money and just watched all the trailers to get to the end.

If Inception is not recognized for certain elements come award season, I will be very disappointed and it will probably just make me like Nolan more. I urge everyone to see this movie. This is what great movies can be. They don’t have to be in 3-d, if they have a good plot, fun and interesting characters, and the director can use his imagination. Too many directors are relying on 3-d to make their movies. If Avatar had not been in 3-d, there is no way it would have made the massive amounts of money it did. It certainly would not have been nominated for Best Picture. I will now get off my soapbox and give one last plea to see this movie. There have been practically no good movies, not made by Pixar, out this summer and finally this arrived. If it were not for Ellen Page, this movie would have gotten a 10.

********* 9/10

Serenity

Title: Serenity (2005)
Director: Joss Whedon
Genre: Sci-fi, Action
Lead Actor(s): Nathan Fillion
Rating: PG-13
119 minutes

I adore Joss Whedon. I have watched and loved every television series he has created. This movie is an extension of his series “Firefly” which got royally screwed over by Fox when they decided to air the episodes in the order determined by a pecking chicken. The episodes can be seen in the order intended on the dvd or on hulu which hosts 5 episodes at a time. The film picks up approximately six months after the series ended. Shepherd Book (Ron Glass) and Inara (Morena Baccarain) have left the crew, but everyone else is continuing with their not altogether lawful jobs. Near the beginning, Simon (Sean Maher) and River (Summer Glau) decide to leave Serenity, but when they are at the departing point, Summer goes crazy and maims several bystanders and almost kills Mal (Nathan Fillion). Before fainting after Simon says the safe term, she whispers the word “Miranda.” The crew end up going on a suicide mission to figure out the mystery of Miranda and its deadly consequences. They also have to stave off a dangerous assassin after River and Simon.

Nathan Fillion is pitch-perfect as Mal. He always has been, but after the hiatus the show was forced to go on, he had no problem slipping back into his brown coat. His character is incredibly smart and knows how to play off people. If needed he can play the slightly dim jokester. In truth he is a very adept, loyal, and intelligent captain who would do anything for the safety of his crew.

Chiwetal Ejiofor plays the unnamed assassin. From his first scene, you realize this person is slightly unhinged and really quite terrifying. His weapon of choice is a very sharp, rather long sword. He is very different from the villains glimpsed at in the series (“two by two, hands of blue”). They were utterly emotionless and much more robotic. This guy is a bit scarier because he seems human, yet he has no problem mercilessly murdering several people just to shake those on Serenity.

This is a great follow-up to a great series. All the actors who reprise their roles slip easily back into the characters and the new ones are well-developed and interesting. The mysterious Miranda (which would have appeared at the end of the second season if it had been renewed) makes for a very intriguing and unique plot, in my opinion. The only thing I would have liked to see is them follow through with the “hands of blue” rather than introduce this new character. We got just a glimpse of them in the series and I would have liked to see more. She film is filled with the quintessential Whedon wit. It is fun, frightening, sad, funny, and intriguing all in a fascinating setting. This space western universe that Whedon created really deserved better treatment by Fox and a second season at least.

********* 8/10

Surrogates

Title: Surrogates (2009)
Director: Jonathan Mostow
Genre: Sci-Fi
Lead Actor(s): Bruce Willis
Rating: PG-13
89 minutes

This was another comic book translation, but I haven’t read the source and actually know very little about it. The premise is that in the future almost everyone in the world will have a thing called a surrogate. This is basically a robot that can look however you want and goes out and lives your life for you. Since surrogates are robots they can’t be killed and any damage done to them while the user is plugged in is not felt by the user. That is what is supposed to happen. The story begins with the destruction of two surrogates, but the police find their users dead as well. Bruce Willis also wears a funny toupee.

Willis plays the lead character, Tom Greer. He is one of the less enthusiastic users of surrogates, but he is in law enforcement and furnished one so it makes sense. His surrogate looks exactly like him except for aforementioned ridiculous toupee. Really, google it. Its hilarious. The make-up artist does and astounding job at making Bruce Willis (now 55) look like he did when he made Die Hard (he was 33). His surrogate acting was weird, but all the surrogate acting was weird they would have loose and human-like movements when dancing, but walking they held their arms like Barbies. I liked his acting when first reacting to the outside world, but for the most part it was heavy-handed and awkward, especially when interacting with his wife’s surrogate.

The movie had an interesting premise but should have had a better lead and more thorough script. The movie was short and it felt that way. I think the awkwardness of the surrogates, who are supposed to be essentially immortal humans, was more the fault of the director than all the actors. The poor choice of hairpiece for Willis also made it horribly hard to take seriously. It seemed more like a joke the director was having with the audience about how silly the whole movie was. I think the premise was very interesting and I don’t know how well the movie captured the book, but the idea deserved better.

**** 4/10

Moon

Title: Moon (2009)
Director: Duncan Jones
Genre: Sci-Fi, Drama
Lead Actor(s): Sam Rockwell, Kevin Spacey
Rating: R
97 minutes

I wanted to see this movie when it came out but it was only in my local theater for a flash. The movie follows a man, Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell), contracted to spend three years on the moon drilling for resources. The only contact he has is with a computer named GERTY (Kevin Spacey) and some recorded messages that are sent from Earth. After crashing near one of the harvesters, someone saves him, but no one else is supposed to be on the Moon. It is difficult to say too much because the real twist of the movie happens approximately a third to half way through the movie.

Kevin Spacey is never seen on film. GERTY has a mobile station and so can move around the station. He has a blue dot that seems to act as an eye for the station and his display shows a smiley face that changes emotion depending on the situation. He could be easily compared to HAL and maybe if HAL had been given the same direction they could have been the same, but GERTY’s only concern is the health and safety of Sam. It actually took me awhile to realize that Spacey was the voice of GERTY and I think it was the right decision to have the face of GERTY be an animated smiley face than the actor’s face. It would have taken away from both the story and the feeling of Sam’s isolation. Spacey does quite well when voicing GERTY. He has an almost maternal quality about his voice which is very true to the character. I firmly believe that GERTY would sacrifice himself to save or help Sam.

The real star of the movie is Sam Rockwell’s performance. The twist of the movie does have a large impact on the performance of Rockwell. Without giving it away, Rockwell proves his durability and versatility as an actor. His yearning for his wife and young daughter is almost heartbreaking. Unsurprisingly given the synopsis, Sam goes through an intense period of paranoia and Rockwell delivers a powerful performance. Rockwell really makes this movie.

The only thing lacking is the screenplay. There are moments where the movie drags horribly and it isn’t that long of a movie. The actual story has the material for a very strong 90 minute movie, but I feel like the writer just didn’t quite know where to take it.

I definitely recommend seeing this movie. Rockwell is at his best in this role. It is also wonderful to see such a well shot, minimalistic movie. Some will have a problem with the slow space since only two actors really spend any time on screen, but during the elements that the screenwriter did well, it is an amazing film. Unfortunately it is a bit inconsistent

******* 7/10

2010

Title: 2010 (The Year We Made Contact) (1984)
Director: Peter Hyams
Genre: Sci-Fi
Lead Actor(s): Roy Scheider, Helen Mirren
Rating: PG
116 minutes

I am currently taking an awesome class called Astrobiology in Pop Culture. Basically we sit around and watch movies involving aliens. We first watched 2001: A Space Odyssey and then we watched its sequel. This.

This is not on the same level as 2001, no where near close. Dr. Heywood Floyd (Scheider), Dr. Walter Curnow (John Lithgow), and Dr. R. Chandra all meet up with a Soviet space shuttle orbiting Jupiter to investigate the failed Discovery mission (from 2001). The Soviet Union and the US are inches away from nuclear war. They find the Discovery ship and Dr. Chandra restarts HAL. Obviously things go weird from there.

The sequel is as ridiculous as the original is meticulous. Floyd has a pet dolphin. He actually has a pet dolphin. He lives in a house that looks like an 80’s Barbie beach house. There is no real change when they go into space.

None of the acting is so phenomenal or pitiful to really remark upon with the exception of Keir Dullea’s return as Dr. Dave Bowman. He is really creepy, but he is supposed to be. He is also different than his original incarnation. The new Dave Bowman is eerily calm. He seems almost like a ghost, but he isn’t one. He is only in the film for like seven minutes, but he is the most memorable and striking character.

The film has many of the stereotypes of sci-fi. There is a no gravity moment. There are some cool motion sequences in space. The coolest effect is at the end and I am going to spoil it because it isn’t the last or final surprise. The black monoliths from 2001 return and multiply and eventually turn Jupiter into a star. I don’t know how sound the science of that is. I am a psychology student not a physics, but it did make for a pretty cool sequence.

I would not recommend seeing this unless you really like sci-fi, really want to see the sequel to 2001, are in a class studying astrobiology in pop culture, or you are bored and it is on tv. It isn’t the worst movie in the world, but none of it is really memorable. Dave Bowman and the Jupiter implosion are the only elements that are positively striking. The pet dolphin is memorable because of the absurdity of it.

***** 5/10

Someone should leave me a comment of a movie or a type of movie for me to review tomorrow. That would be awesome.

The City of Lost Children

I was horribly wrong in missing one of my favorite actor’s birthday yesterday. Ron Perlman chooses better television work than movie on average. He is currently in my favorite television show, Sons of Anarchy. I do love him in his television, but began to love him in this movie.

Title: La Cité des Enfants Perdus (The City of Lost Children) (1995)
Director: Marc Caro, Jean-Pierre Jeunet
Genre: Adventure, Sci-Fi
Lead Actor(s): Ron Perlman, Judith Vittet
Rating: R
112 minute
French

This is a weird movie. For those who don’t know Jean-Pierre Jeunet is the director behind Amélie and this movie is definitely weirder than that one. A mad scientist, Krank, kidnaps children to steal their dreams because he can’t dream. He only gets nightmares though. Some of his minions called Cyclops do the stealing and take the little brother of One, a circus strongman and ex-whale hunter. Although not the sharpest tool in the shed, One teams up with an orphan, Miette, to save the children. If that is not a strange enough story, Krank lives with six clones (sons), a dwarf clone wife, and a floating brain. Miette’s orphanage is run by Siamese twins referred to as The Octopus.

Ron Perlman, who is an American, portrays One. He is a strongman who is said to be as strong as a horse, but is quite gentle in personality. Since this is a French film, Perlman learned his lines phonetically and apparently delivered them without error. He did a wonderful job of appearing tough and strong while actually being a field mouse. Perlman is really wonderful at looking like a badass, but being a marshmallow.

Miette is the real badass. She is the spunky orphan. In her orphanage the children are sent to steal and beg and they are forced to render any goods over to The Octopus. Judith Vittet was approximately ten years old when she made this movie. Her portrayal of Miette reminds me a lot of Natalie Portman’s Mathilda in Leon without the sexual overtones. Vittet had a difficult role for such a young actress. Miette is very strong and has a big personality. Vittet handles it so well it makes me wonder about her own personality.

One of the things I like most about the movie is the distinctive visual style of it. It has strangely bright, yet muted colors. The camera is also used in a very interesting way when in Krank’s lair. It distorts the scene to make it seem more surreal and off. The motion of the camera for the different characters, especially the Cyclops, is unique depending on who it is. The Cyclops are always shown wide due to their group mentality. One is often shown from above despite his towering over other character.

The only weak point is that the script is full of so many ideas that none of them are completely developed. A few of the understories could have been sacrificed to better develop the important plot points. I think One’s personality could have been further developed. He was a bit one note, but there wasn’t really any opportunities for development. The plot is very interesting and very unique, but the plot and characters could not have been fully developed without trimming unless the movie was longer (which it could have been).

This is definitely my favorite cinematic performance of Perlman’s. It is also unlike any movie I have ever seen. It is a beautiful film with an interesting idea. It just was too packed with compelling ideas that were finessed enough

****** 6/10

Repo Men

Title: Repo Men (2010)
Director: Miguel Sapochnik
Genre: Action, Sci-Fi
Lead Actor(s): Jude Law, Forest Whitaker
Rating: R
111 minutes

I saw this over spring break when there wasn’t really anything good out. I probably would not have seen it otherwise. The premise is pretty interesting. In a near future, manufactured organs have eliminated the need for donor lists and messy transplants. They cost an arm and a leg, but can save your life. Of course, several people buy them and take out preposterous loans. When they fall more than 90 days behind the company sends repo men to get the organs back, effectively killing those that fall behind. As the plot of the movie progresses, Jude Law’s character, Remy, is pressured by his wife to get out of repossessions and into sales. Something goes wrong on his last job which requires one of the company’s hearts. He, of course, falls behind. He then begins to run from those he used to work with. Along the way he meets a girl Beth whom has something like 12 of the manufactured organs. They are instantly attracted to each other and go on the run together.

Jude Law is uncomfortable in such a brutish role. This observation is probably bolstered by the fact that the last movie I saw him in was Sherlock Holmes. Jude Law though just isn’t an action star and he should really stop trying. He can be the ladies’ man and he can be the suave man and the intelligent man, but he is not good as the high school drop out brute who seems to enjoy tasering people to reclaim organs for a corrupt company. I was always distinctly aware that I was watching Jude Law and that it was bad.

Forest Whitaker was more believable, but it still wasn’t a very good fit. I like him in the more intelligent characters, as well. His character, Jake, was a good character. He went from palling around with his friend to becoming worried about Remy’s inactivity to hunting him as his benefactor requested. I still think that Whitaker did the best job he could, but there must have been a smarter choice.

The character who was spot on and the one I most enjoyed watching was easily Lief Shreiber’s Frank. He is the head honcho of the store that the other characters work at. He is an asshole. From his first appearance, I was dying to see him get punched. You’ll have to see it to learn if he actually does. Schreiber plays an asshole so well and apparently easily. He was funny and had all the qualities needed for a good used car salesman. If it weren’t for his character, I don’t think this movie would have a good thing about it.

The script and directing are clumsy and corny. I think I rolled my eyes about three times at some of the ridiculous and clichéd lines that we were subject to. The director tried too hard to make the movie interesting. Instead it came off overdone and ridiculous. It is one of those movies that might become a cult classic. It is so bad that some may find it funny and enjoyable. It didn’t quite cross into that area for me, but I can definitely think of some of my friends who will buy it just to make fun of it. Unless you are like them and love bad movies, I wouldn’t see it.

**** 4/10 (without Liev Shreiber it would have been a 2 or 3)

Avatar

Title: Avatar (2009)
Director: James Cameron
Genre: Adventure, Sci-fi
Lead Actor(s): Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana
Rating: PG-13
162 minutes

Well, I figured it was about time I wrote about the “highest-grossing” movie of all-time. Firstly, I am overjoyed that it did not win Best Picture. Okay on to the review

There is no argument that this film is gorgeously created and technically precise. All of the CGI Na’vi are remarkably realistic. Using the motion-capture suits on the actors was very effective in replicating natural movements. The environment James Cameron created on Pandora is utterly breathtaking. The animals and the flora are all hugely imaginative. The 3-D envelops the viewer in the world of Pandora. It really is a striking movie.

Unfortunately, this is where the compliments really end. The story is unoriginal and stilted. Cameron had 10 years to refine and better his script, but instead it seems like it was written in a month. After having seen the movie in December, I can still recall two instances of dues ex machina. I do not find the development of any of the characters particularly believable. The dialog at time borders on absurd. I think the development of the culture of the Na’vi is also strongly lacking. Cameron was able to develop an entire language for them, but don’t give them any real history.

With the exception of Zoe Saldana and Sigourney Weaver, the acting is below par. Sam Worthington is unbelievable as ex-marine, current paraplegic Jake Sully. He tries, but I always felt aware I was watching an actor. This feeling even bled into his parts when he is in the avatar. Several of the voices for the Na’vi seem stiff and uncomfortable. I think a lot of this is due to the relative newness of the actors to the type of technology used in filming.

I don’t feel that James Cameron was an effective director in this movie. He was unable to elicit that connection between the actors and characters that is essential in a good, convincing movie. I think that the only reason the movie was nominated for Best Picture and has garnered so much money is because of the amazing effects that compose most of the movie. If it were examined on writing, directing, and acting (the movie holy trinity in my opinion), it would definitely have been excluded from the nominees. That being said, this movie is worth seeing once just for the visual aspect. If it weren’t so striking visually, it would probably receive a 3 or 4 from me.

***** 5/10

#3 of top 10 of ’09

I swear I don’t just watch sci-fi movies, despite the fact that 3 of my top 10 this year are from the genre. This has just, in my opinion, been an excellent year for science fiction.

Title: District 9 (2009)
Director: Neill Blomkamp
Genre: Drama, Sci-fi
Lead Actor(s): Sharlto Copely
Rating: R
112 minutes

This is the first full-length movie to be directed by Neill Blomkamp and the first ever movie in which Sharlto Copely performed. These facts would never have been known based on the strength of this movie. This movie can be dissected just as much as the aliens in the movie. There is the obvious metaphor of the aliens’ treatment and apartheid, which the director grew up during and based his short and screenplay on, but there is also the psychology of your body changing into something you detest, the mistrust that can be placed in the government, the financial abuses of the poor or disadvantaged, etc. It is an incredibly intelligent film.

There are times where it can be hard to watch, especially during Wikus’s transformation. There are also emotionally taxing scenes depicting the environment the “Prawns” are forced to live in. There are also some cool line ’em up, blow ’em up scenes. This has just about everything a movie could have, but it doesn’t feel awkward or over-loaded. Everything seems balanced.

Sharlto Copely does surprisingly well, especially for a new comer, in a very confusing and taxing role. He handles the paranoia and fear that would accompany such a transition with particular skill and ability. Wikus Van De Merwe goes from government stooge to Prawn leader in less than two hours, but the transition seems natural and fluid.

The aliens themselves are intricate creatures. They seem more intelligent than the government thinks. Their CGI construction is phenomenal. The language is intricate and seems fairly nuanced. All the aliens are voiced by one man, Jason Cope. His portrayal of Christopher Johnson, the main Prawn, and his son is particularly impressive given this fact.

This movie is a beautiful example of what can happen with the right director, script, and actors. The realism in it is because due to a relatively small budget, much of which had to go to the aliens’ CGI, much of it was real. All the slums were real, aside from Christopher Johnson’s. Most of the background in the slums, including the animals, was already there. Even if you aren’t a fan of science fiction, I beg of you to see this movie. It is just as emotional as Hotel Rwanda, just as intricate as Se7en, and just as well done as Blade Runner. All this being said, I hope, probably in vain, that a sequel is not made. I think in a way it would cheapen the film. The ending definitely leaves it open for a sequel, but it isn’t needed. The story is told and nothing more really needs to be said. I think a sequel would most likely be missing several of the things I adore. I could be wrong and a sequel, hopefully not named District 10, could be better than this movie, but the odds seem against it. Still I beg of you see this movie, not just because it is thought-provoking, but because it is an amazing movie.

********** 10/10