Prometheus

Directed by: Ridley Scott

Written by: Jon Spaihts, Damon Lindelof










The debate surrounding the different interpretations of "Prometheus" can be very simply summed up:

Thinker or stinker?

I've gone back and forth between both sides, and am now firmly in the "thinker" camp.

There are many reasons why.  One, put very well by a friend whose opinion on films I take very seriously, is that the reviews that hail "Prometheus" as great tend to be very well thought out essays while the reviews that dismiss it tend to be very poorly written.  Granted, this is not a very scientific analysis, but it does reveal something significant.  Those viewers with very analytical minds were able to find a lot to appreciate in the movie, while those who were looking for a cheap thrill on a big screen were sorely disappointed.

And I initially understood their disappointment.  I felt it myself.  Watching the trailers, I was hoping for a full-on "Alien" reboot with lots of chests exploding and people blowing things up.  When those things weren't there (actually they were, but more on that in a minute), I was left shaking and scratching my  head.  I had a bitter taste in my mouth, and spent some time wondering why I didn't see all the awesome things I was hoping to see.  Then it hit me: those things I wanted to see were there, but I hadn't seen them because they weren't quite what I had anticipated.

Take, for example, the chest explosions that the original "Alien" movies made famous.  There was really only one (maybe two?) of those in "Prometheus."  But, stepping back, the essence of the chest explosions - life bursting forth mysteriously from something else - is littered throughout "Prometheus."  It happens several times, (the alien squid baby being the most notable and memorable for reasons obvious to anyone who has seen the film).  Numerous times something or someone thought dead, lifeless, devoid is revealed to be much more than they appear.  It happens over and over again, but most of us weren't able to see it.

The biggest key to the movie is to stop thinking of it as part of the "Alien" series of films.  Its connection to that series is significant, but incredibly thin.  I've found the best way to think of it is as an episode of "Lost" (where writer Damon Lindelof made his fame).  In "Prometheus" as in "Lost" there are clues, references, fleeting moments which point to something larger.  Themes, images, symbols are repeated but never explained, leaving the viewer to ponder their meaning, if any (which, in turn, has led to some absolutely wonderful discussions).  The film's ambiguity - its unwillingness to even hint at answers to its biggest questions - is what makes it a movie worth discussing.

Does the movie have some flaws?  Sure.  Some big ones, too.  Characters do things that don't make any sense.  Contradictions, like the planet being totally habitable except for those massive storms which will rip humans to shreds, are plenty.

But ultimately, the fact that there are so many discussions - and heated ones - tells me that there's something to "Prometheus" which makes it more than B-level sci-fi fodder.  See it, ponder on it, reflect on it, and tell me how anyone can argue it isn't a "thinker."

The Rum Diary

Directed by: Bruce Robinson

Written by: Bruce Robinson (screenplay); Hunter S. Thompson (novel)










Before he became famous for his "gonzo" journalism, Hunter S. Thompson wanted to be the next F. Scott Fitzgerald.  His first and only novel "The Rum Dairy" has floated around for many years, waiting to be adapted into a film.  Thanks to the spearheading work of Johnny Depp, it finally got made (for better or for worse).

To simplify the plot: Paul Kemp (Depp) arrives in Puerto Rico as an aspiring journalist.  Massive amounts of alcohol are consumed, as well as some drugs, and general anarchy ensues.  (There's also a conflict involving Aaron Eckhart and his girlfriend, but it's basically just filler.)

In all honesty, "The Rum Diary" was not great material to begin with, and there wasn't a whole lot that could have been done to salvage this bomb.  I love Hunter S. Thompson, but fiction was not his strength.

Giovanni Ribisi's performance is one of the few highlights of the film.  I'd almost say that the film is worth seeing just for him.  But it's not.

Unfortunately, "The Rum Diary" is the type of movie in which all the best clips are thrown at you in the trailer.  There simply isn't a whole lot driving this film forward.  It meanders.  It wobbles.  The talent in the film - Depp, Eckhart, etc - don't shine in their usual way.

I hate to say it, but "The Rum Diary" simply fizzled.

Ulysses and Us

"Ulysses and Us: The Art of Everyday Life in Joyce's Masterpiece"

Written by: Declan Kiberd










This book arrived with some critical acclaim, which originally drew my attention.  The fact that it was written about James Joyce's "Ulysses" made it a must-have.  But from there, it sat on my shelf for over a year, until around Bloomsday I decided to give it a read.

The basic thesis is that academics have stolen "Ulysses" from the rest of the world, though Joyce originally intended it to be read by everyone.  (I agree and disagree with the thesis; more on that later.)  From there, a significant portion of the book is dedicated to a chapter-by-chapter breakdown of the book, focusing on the "everyday" elements of the novel.  It then wraps up with several chapters focusing on some major themes and motifs in the book, including the father-son relationship and Shakespeare.

I agree that not enough "everyday" people read "Ulysses."  I disagree with Kiberd's assertion that the book has essentially been hijacked by the academic world.  In fact, I would argue that, without the professors and grad students who devour the book like a formal steak-and-salmon dinner, "Ulysses" would have gone out of print a long time ago.  I will not dispute that Joyce included many banalities of everyday life, nor that Joyce originally intended the novel to be read by as many people as possible.  But "Ulysses" is not an easy read, even for a semi-intelligent person such as myself.  Try getting through a chapter like "Oxen of the Sun" or "Circe" without an annotated guide, and you'll be lost in the woods.

I would argue that Joyce merged the "everyday" with the "academic," though he may have tipped the scales in favor of the academic in a few cases (again, see "Oxen of the Sun," "Circe").  There are many details from common life included on every page.  He intended to make the novel as realistic as possible - including physical vulgarities which had never previously been hinted at in literature.  But Joyce also had a masterful control of the language, and he used his abilities to create a multi-layered novel which could be appreciated in several ways.  To claim that the academics have unfairly taken control of the book is to ignore the fact that Joyce (sometimes tongue-in-cheek) also included complex features for academics to savor.

There is also a bit of irony that, at points, Kiberd made arguments - such as the Bloom-as-Christ point - that would only be supported by an academic reading of the novel.  Instead, that serves to show that the everyday and the academic were joined by Joyce to create what is, indisputably, the best novel off all time.

X-Men: First Class - Revisited

Every once in a while, I'll watch a movie again.  (Shocking, I know.)  I've created a little "Revisited" label to use for occasions like this when, after a second viewing, I have something to add to my previous comments.

First up on my "Revisited" trek: "X-Men: First Class"

What struck me most about "X-Men: First Class" this time around was the way the whole film seemed to feel like a comic book.

Obviously (and I mentioned it last time), the montage sequence used several film panels, which  provided a comic book effect.

The staging and framing of several scenes mimicked the way it might have played out in a comic.  One scene that stands out for me that fits this motif is early in the film, when Xavier is flirting with the college girl at the bar.  I could almost see his lines in a dialogue bubble above his head.  When Raven interrupts him, her entrance into the scene was perfectly framed for a comic book panel.

Another key sequence which shot-for-shot felt more like a comic book panel was the climax, when Magneto kills Shaw.  The way the camera panned from left to right (like someone reading), following the coin through Shaw's skull while also cutting to shots of Xavier panning at the same speed - awesome!

The movie did have a lot of fluff.  Too many characters were developed, only to be killed off or pushed into the background.  The movie was paced out with enough action and plot development to keep it from feeling too long (which it was, to an extent).

Here's to hoping, like Christopher Nolan's "Batman Begins," that "X-Men: First Class" is merely the beginning of an epic series.

The Terminator

Directed by: James Cameron

Written by: James Cameron, Gale Anne Hurd; William Wisher Jr. (additional dialogue)









This is it: the film that launched the "Terminator" mini-empire.

Apparently, in the future, humans are at war with machines (and we're losing, I might add).  Our only hope is a man named John Connor, who is leading the resistance.  The machines decide to send a Terminator (Schwarzenegger) back in time to kill Connor's mother Sarah (Hamilton).  Connor sends his right-hand-man Kyle Reese (Biehn) back to ensure his mother's survival, with some interesting consequences.

Aside from the prominence of the 1980's clothing and hair styles, this movie has held up pretty darn well.

The Terminator - especially once stripped of his fleshy exterior - is still a terrifying image.  The pre-CGI stop motion animation of the skeletal robot is a little clunky at certain moments, but is mostly seamless as the jerky motion fits well with the movement of the machine.

The action is paced out well to keep the film moving without reducing the film to a mere chase film (which, at its essence, it is).  The beginning of the film strings the viewer along, tugging us toward the inevitable convergence of Reese, Connor, and the machine.  Even after that, there are enough breaks in the action, including some flashback / flashforward sequences, that the movie doesn't feel like one long pursuit.

For the most part, this is a pretty straight-forward sci-fi flick.  Perhaps the hardest part to wrap your head around is the time-travel element, which only occurs twice but plays a massive role in the long-term Terminator mythology.  Why did John Connor choose to send Kyle Reese back in time?  (Spoiler ahead.)  Because Kyle Reese is John Connor's father.  Think too much about this, and there's a major paradox waiting to explode, especially if you ascribe to the time-is-linear way of thinking.  How did Reese end up in 1984, if John Connor didn't send him back until the 2000's?  Unless Reese always existed as a time-traveller in 1984, meaning that John Connor's existence was inevitable and that time is not able to be altered.  Except, if time cannot be altered, then the Terminaor's attempt to, ahem, terminate Sarah Connor was futile?  Wait, what?  Yes, exactly.  It's the stuff like that which makes science fiction so fun.

This film is a little more brutal and violent than the typical sci-fi fare.  Perhaps not more violent, but definitely more brutal and visceral.  First time viewers be warned.

Come with me if you want to live...

The Miracle Worker

Directed by: Arthur Penn

Written by: William Gibson










We all, somewhere, somehow, have heard the story of Helen Keller and Annie Sullivan.  We know how Helen was deaf and blind, and that Annie unlocked the world so that Helen could communicate with her.  But, let's face it, how many of us have actually watched the movie?

It's actually a pretty good movie.  It manages to keep things exciting despite the fact that we all know how things are going to turn out.  The film adaptation managed to effectively incorporate much of the dramatic direction of the play without limiting itself to merely the original stage directions.

Bancroft and Duke give stunning performances as the protagonists Sullivan and Keller, respectively.  (OK, Bancroft's vaguely Irish accent was a bit of a distraction at times.)  Duke completely sold herself as blind and deaf, making it seem totally realistic, as though we were actually seeing Helen Keller.

There's not a whole lot to say about this film.  It's an inspiring story and worth seeing, even if you think you already know what happens.  This film breaks the mold by making the story about the journey, not the destination.

The Avengers

Directed by: Joss Whedon

Written by: Zak Penn, Joss Whedon










I have to admit, I was very late to the "Let's all go see 'The Avengers!'" bandwagon.  Like, a month and a half late.  I've had the problem lately that I get extremely excited about an upcoming blockbuster, but then lose almost all of the will to see it when the movie is finally showing in theaters.

The plot of "The Avengers," is pretty standard fare for a superhero flick.  Bad guy Loki (Hiddleston) decides to align himself with some nasty aliens to take over the earth.  Nick Fury (Jackson) decides to bring together a group of otherwise-unconnected heroes to fight off the evil onslaught.  The heroes must realize that their concern for the survival of humanity trumps their individual personality conflicts.  Action ensues; heroes win.  (And sorry for that last spoiler.)

I've got to say that this movie was 100% what I expected it to be.  Unfortunately, that was also it's biggest weakness.  "The Avengers" played out pretty much exactly how I imagined it would, with a few inconsequential variables.  There was never a moment where I thought, "Hey!  I didn't see that coming!"  The dialogue was sharp, as is expected from a Joss Whedon script, but the plot didn't deviate at all from the simple hero archetype.

Now, that being said, the movie was awesome.  The effects were phenomenal.  The actors really brought the characters to life.  The action scenes were pretty fantastic.  It hit every mark with flying colors.

A friend asked me what grade I'd give the movie.  I said I'd give it a solid A.  I'm just bummed there wasn't that extra-special moment to push it up to an A+.

Starship Troopers

Directed by: Paul Verhoeven

Written by: Edward Neumeier (screenplay); Robert A. Heinlein (novel)










Streaming this movie was a major flashback for me.  I had originally seen it back in the theaters and originally simply enjoyed the action and gore.  I loved the whole "newsflash" style of narration.  And I caught a glimpse of the politically charged subtext of the film, even if I didn't quite understand to make of it.

According to the story, humans are at war with an alien race known only as the bugs.  Little is known about the bugs except that they want to destroy humanity and humanity wants to wipe them out.  A group of friends join the military to contribute to humanity's survival.  The chaos of war ensues, with lots of shooting and bugs getting blasted.

This film has, undeniably, some of the best battle sequences in science-fiction film.  The bugs - especially the arachnids - are some of the most unique and unforgettable aliens I've ever seen.  The sequence in the fortress on "Planet P" is absolutely fantastic.

The acting is hammy.  Terribly hammy.  But there's not a moment of self-consciousness in the entire film, so the ham works.  If the movie had, even for a moment, acknowledged its own campiness, then the illusion would have been shattered.  Instead, everyone is so earnest that the characters seem real in their own world, even if it's a slightly distorted mirror of our own world.

The gore manages to be totally excessive without losing its edge.  At points (like the brain bug sequence) it becomes almost cartoonish.  But, again, it works because it takes itself so seriously.  It forces the viewer to take it seriously too.

In regards to the political subtext: it's there if you look for it.  But the meaning is not necessarily clear.  There are some throw-away lines which reveal a lot about the society in which the characters live, as well as some bigger-picture themes which say a lot.  That kind of stuff is great fodder for discussion, but I'll let you interpret it your own way.

I'm not going to say this is a great film.  But it is definitely better than it deserves to be (if that makes any sense).  Save it for a sci-fi night, and let the battle begin.

Would you like to know more?  *click*

Drive

Directed by: Nicolas Winding Refn

Written by: Hossein Amini (screenplay); James Sallis (book)










This film came highly recommended from several friends and critics, and when one friend told me it was on Netflix Instant, I immediately made the time to see it.  I was not disappointed.

The main character, forever unnamed (Gosling), is a getaway car driver who spends his days working as a mechanic.  Unfortunately, his boss (Cranston) has some ties to the mob (Brooks, Perlman) that he can't quite get away from.  Meanwhile, the driver has begun courting his neighbor (Mulligan) while her husband is in jail.  When the husband gets out, the driver agrees to help him on a heist.  The robbery is a bust and the husband is killed, and the driver is left to tie all the pieces together before it's too late.

Rarely do action-flicks have any sense of art.  Simultaneously, art house movies rarely have a good grasp of action.  "Drive" is that rare film that has an excellent balance of cinematic art and hard action.

The actors really make the characters come to life in "Drive."  Gosling breaks from his usual "handsome guy" mold for this character.  (OK, he's still handsome, but he's also incredibly violent.)  Albert Brooks, so often the funny guy recently, reveals perhaps his darkest character.  Bryan Cranston is absolutely believable as the man who is always a day late and down on his luck.  Even the hammy Ron Perlman and over-played Carey Mulligan manage to shed their stereotypical roles for a while.

This movie doesn't have a lot of dialogue.  Mainly because it doesn't have to.  In this, it's masterful at telling an entire story in only a few words.  It trusts that the audience can make inferences about things that are only referred to as tangents.

There is some shocking violence, but it's not gratuitous or unnecessary.  Rather, it's used as another medium of through which things are revealed about the characters.  (When you see it, think about which characters use which weapons and what that might say about them.  Come on, folks!  This isn't rocket science!)

If you haven't seen "Drive" yet, I'd definitely recommend it.

The Hunger Games

Directed by: Gary Ross

Written by: Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins, Billy Ray (screenplay); Suzanne Collins (novel)









An adaptation of the hit YA distopian novel, featuring just about as many stars (and up-and-coming stars) as could be crammed into a modern feature-length film.

Overall, it was a pretty well-made adaptation.  In fact, some of the criticism has been that it was too close of an adaptation and lacked any originality.  I agree, to an extent.  The visual-effects were very loyal to the way everything was described in the novel, revealing things basically the way everyone imagined them.  It might have been nice to see a little creative license taken with some of the way things were presented or perhaps in the way the story unfolded.

There were a few kinks in the novel-to-film transition: mainly, a few things were glossed over or awkwardly inserted.  The stand-out example of this was the "tracker-jacker" explanation - the regular narrative stopped, pulled back to a sports commentary style to explain what the insects were, and then returned back into the regular narrative.

I enjoyed this movie very much.  But I'm not sure if I actually enjoyed it, or if I liked the original "Hunger Games" concept.