Closet Sci-Fi Geek

Zombies on the brain

Zombie’s scare the bejesus out of me. I read in a dream book that Zombies represent a disconnection from feelings. If you are feeling numb, depressed, cold inside, or if you are completely consumed by a certain feeling, like hunger or fury, then you are the closest to being a zombie – at least according to dream symbolists. I think the loss of rational thought, that which makes us civilised human beings, is also what makes Zombies a terrifying prospect. You’re bog-standard, shambling, ‘brains’ groaning Zombie is a classic example, and made wonderfully chilling in the game, ‘Resident Evil’. The other, and I personally think scarier Zombie, is the ‘Rage Zombie’ portrayed in Danny Boyle’s ’28 Days Later’. That film, and ’28 Weeks Later’, have given me nightmares, and I still half expect when I look up at the glass sliders first thing in the morning, when it’s still twilight, to see a rage zombie, drooling blood, glaring at me with red eyes, just waiting to dive through the glass and eat my spleen.

[Shudder]

Lately I’ve watched Robert Rodriguez’s ‘Terror Planet’ and Johnathan King’s ‘Black Sheep’. Neither of these frightened me – in fact they made me laugh which was the creators’ intention I’m sure. ‘Black Sheep’ was particularly cool as I grew up on a sheep farm and my father always wanted me to write a story about mobs of rabid sheep revolting and running amok. Johnathan King got there before me, and Dad would have loved ‘Black Sheep’ had he lived to see it.

So there’s my thoughts on Zombies. What do you fullas and fullesses think about them?

If you woke up tomorrow with a different set of memories, would you still be you?

A while back I watched A Scanner Darkly. While this is a good enough film (and yet another cinematic adaptation of a Philip K Dick novel), it’s certainly not the best film I’ve seen about fractured identities and perspectives that are warped by drugs or technology. Total Recall has much more fun with the

topic. Based on “We Can Remember It for You Wholesale” by Philip K. Dick, it raises the fundamental question - do memories define character? If your memories tell you that you are a gun-slinging, ass-kicking spy; does that make you a gun-slinging, ass-kicking spy? Bladerunner (based on Philip K Dick’s, ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?) takes a more meditative approach to the topic. Is the film-noiresque hero, Deckard, real or not? Is he a human or is he a replicant who has forgotten that he is artificial. The random selection of antique photos on Deckard’s piano gives us a clue. Are they a record of Deckard’s past or are they a badly constructed history; a collation of tenuously linked memories. Then there’s the unicorn dream he keeps having. Again, is this his subconscious at work or another memory, implanted by Tyrell Corporation? Similarly, if you can hide memories, can you hide a personality? Take Talia Winters from Babylon 5. One minute she is a mild mannered telepath, minding her own business as best she can, the next minute her ’sleeper’ personality has been activated and she’s a cold-blooded killer. Ditto with The Long Kiss Goodnight. Amiable housewife becomes professional killer. There are many many many other examples. But just one question really. If you woke up tomorrow with a completely different set of memories, would you still be you?

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Just saw this on DVD….this is actually my favorite Harry Potter film! I have yet to read any of the Harry Potter books except for the first one, and so I did not miss any of the 800 or so pages cut out of the film. (I decided to wait until all the movies were done before reading the books, because the first film was sooo tedious to me since I knew the ending.) Continue reading Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix…

What Dreams May Come

I remember seeing the 1998 film What Dreams May Come when it first came out in the theater. I loved it then; the visuals were absolutely spectacular, especially by 1998 standards. It’s now 10 years later and I just watched it again at home. I’ve also since read the book (which the movie was based on).

What Dreams May Come, in case you missed it, is a film about the afterlife. Specifically, it’s about an afterlife where your thoughts create your reality. Thus, if you are a good person and in a good mental space, you may see an afterlife that is filled with beauty and lush scenery. If not, it’s off to your personal hell you go.

Robin Williams starred in the film as a man who dies and goes to heaven. Soon his wife commits suicide and is sent to hell. (She’s the one who has sent herself to hell.) Throughout all this, we get to see sappy flashbacks of their affluent life, before their kids died in a car crash and everything turned sour. Continue reading What Dreams May Come…

The Golden Compass - Please See, if Just to Counter the Boycott

The Golden Compass is a fine fantasy film in it’s own right…but now that certain crazy extreme Christian elements are boycotting it, I think it’s all that more important for sci-fi and fantasy lovers to go see it in the theater.

(For example, see Group to protest ‘Golden Compass’ - but beware of the massive spoiler for the trilogy at the end of the article.)

The irony here is that these so-called Christians (let’s not offend real Christians) are upset because they think the film and the books are trying to make children into atheists. At issue is the portrayal of an all-powerful religious organization patterned after the worst excesses of the Catholic Church in its power. The “Magisterium” suppresses scientific knowledge and wields dictatorial control over the populace.

Now. If you are a Catholic or Christian and upset about this movie, you are basically giving credence to the critique that Christianity (particularly Catholicism) became warped and was used for evil in the wrong hands. Think about it. Because if this is just a fictional portrayal of a religious sect out of control, why even care? (Or, are we trying to whitewash the past and pretend that the entire Inquisition never happened?)

And yet, here these so-called “Christians” are, acting just like the evil people in the film, by trying to suppress information and other ideas. Most of the people protesting haven’t even read the books or seen the film. They are just following the orders of their church leaders. How completely ironic.

The Movie Itself

Enough with the political commentary, on to the film. I have not read the books yet so went in with a fresh slate and no expectations. I found the film to be very enjoyable. The plot was a bit complex and moved a little fast, but still flowed well enough. There was constant action - it never got boring, especially once the basic story was outlined.

The casting was superb. The girl was terrific - she was well-cast and truly made the movie with her performance. Nicole Kidman was also super freaky as the evil Mrs. Coulter. Sam Elliott brought some much-needed levity and personality to the film about halfway through.

Visually, the film was stunning - the sets were absolutely fantastic and the mood created perfect. I just love this type of fantasy sci-fi, where there’s technology mixed with magic and everything is decked out like it’s the late 1800s. Gorgeous.

The film is a bit dark and as such may not be for young children but should appeal to teens and adults. The fight scene between the two polar bears is positively gruesome, but powerful.

In short, I truly do not have many complaints about this film. It is not high art but decent entertainment. If you sit back and enjoy the ride you will find much to appreciate in The Golden Compass.

Star Trek Generations

I’m digging through my VCR vault…and finally watching and donating my old VCR tapes. And what did I find? Star Trek Generations, the first of the “Next Generation” movies.

Watching it some 10 years later (yikes, has it been that long?), I’m a bit more forgiving. Maybe it’s the years of disappointing Trek on television, but Generations is actually a pretty decent movie, Trek-wise. (Never mind that it’s an odd-number Trek film!)

Highlights:

Captain Kirk (though we need to see more of him).
Some great lines from Scotty at the beginning of the film.
Data and his new emotion chip (nothing like a tricorder puppet to liven up an away team mission!).
Guinan looking incredibly worried with her big cool hat.
Gordi’s stupid-ass visor finally getting the obvious critique from Malcolm MacDowall’s character…and then being used as a security risk.
The Enterprise-D biting it in a fantastic, spectacular planetary wipe-out (I always hated that model).
Data’s big four-letter swear as the Enterprise-D is about to bite it.

Cons:

Not enough from the original cast, and no Uhura, Bones, or Sulu.
Yet another ridiculous time paradox that does not make any sense.
Kirk’s somewhat ignominious and controversial death.
A bit gloomy with the constant death talk.

Mostly, however, Star Trek Generations stands out as a good Trek movie because of Data. He steals the show. In case you forgot, here is the highlight of the film, Data singing his “tiny little lifeforms” song:

Gotta love it!

Ghost Rider…Ouch

Love Nicolas Cage…but what was up with that horrible movie Ghost Rider? That was downright embarrassing. It would have been much much worse without Cage in it though…hope there’s no sequel.

A New X-Files Movie!

Geez, it’s about time:

“X-Files” stars, crew reunite for secretive sequel

Eragon: Good for Kids of All Ages

Boy, I wish they had come out with Eragon when I was a kid. I would have loved it. Not only would I have fallen in love with the dragon, but I would have had girl-crushes on Eragon and all the other cute boys in the film. What a fantastic film for kids!

Now - that said, if you are a grown-up, and you are a fan of Eragon, the book, you might end up hating this movie. At least, that’s how a lot of book fans felt when they saw this. Well, I think they are being a bit harsh. No, the film Eragon is not a classic on par with The Lord of the Rings films, but it does what it does reasonably well.

My main complaint with this was the pacing - the story felt rushed at points, and obviously a lot of backstory was missing. Sometimes this led to strange continuity problems. For example, how on earth is a man on horseback going to follow a flying dragon across an entire countryside, to show up just at the right moment to save our hero? Impossible!

So if you want to ruin the film for yourself, you’ll focus on the problems instead of the good stuff. But the good stuff still wins out, in my opinion. Better to have fast pacing but a film that moves along at a good clip than a slow snooze-fest, for one thing.

The dragon itself took some getting used to. She starts off as a cute little baby dragon and then one day, flies up into the air into some storm clouds and flies back down as a full-grown dragon with an adult voice! When that happened, I thought for sure the film was ruined (I have bad memories of Sean Connery playing the voice of a dragon once, ouch!). Thankfully, once I got used to the idea of a telepathic dragon, it worked for me.

As for the CGI, Eragon’s dragon is probably one of the first full CGI creatures that actually felt like it had weight to me. The special effects on this were terrific. At times, things were happening a little too fast in some of the flying battles, but I felt like they were well done overall.

So what’s the big problem with this? Well, as I’ve said, it’s just not high art or cinema. It is a brief film adaptation of a story that is much longer and more complex. So if you want meat, you won’t get it here. But if you can let go and remember that kid inside you who loved fantasy growing up, then you’ll enjoy this.

I just wish adult fantasy fans could relax a bit and support these types of films more instead of ripping them to shreds. Fantasy readers, I have to tell you: Your expectations are way too high after Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson accomplished something that may never again be accomplished in our lifetimes. And don’t expect every fantasy film to be even as good as Harry Potter - Harry Potter already has a huge following. These films are expensive to make. Not all of them are going to be top-notch, but they can still be good.

So when you go and trash a fantasy film because it doesn’t match the book, you are killing the film genre for other fantasy films that don’t already have a huge audience like LOTR and Potter. So relax, please. An adaptation is an adaptation. If you don’t support these films, they won’t make more of them. Be happy that major studios are even making fantasy films now. I remember when Willow was a big deal and touted as the first major fantasy film for the big screen, and how much that flopped due to high expectations and lack of support from the fantasy community. (I liked Willow too, but then again, I was a kid when it came out.)

I think we adults sometimes forget that a main audience for these fantasy films are children. Children and teenagers. And we should support the making of films like Eragon, because they are wholesome adventures that you can take your 9-year-old to go see. Not once did anyone swear, have sex, or dance around a stripper pole in Eragon. Not to sound like a prude, but isn’t it time we started supporting more fantasy films that the whole family can enjoy?

It’s a shame this didn’t do better in the box office, since I would have liked to see another installment (and they certainly left it open for one). Oh well. Next time, try to be a little less brutal, book fans. A “bad” film adaptation is better than none at all.

A Scanner Darkly

Based on the novel by Philip K. Dick, A Scanner Darkly highlights a world “seven years in the future” where a highly addictive and lethal drug has taken a hold of 20% of the population.

The gimmick of this film is the computerized animation called “rotoscoping,” which is the film equivalent of running an expensive Photoshop filter over a picture. Because of this effect, it is obvious that “real actors” are guiding the movements of the so-called “animated” characters, giving the film a somewhat surreal effect. Some fans of the film loved this effect. Personally, I thought it was not only unnecessary, but implemented poorly. (At times, the “real world” surroundings underneath the animation were all too real, thus popping you out of the animated world.)

I’m a fan of animation but it must be done well. Poorly done animation is worse than poor cinematography. And while this wasn’t so bad as to be painful to watch, the animation was distracting and not captivating to me personally. If the film had been shot straight with top-notch cinematography, I feel that it would have enhanced the film greatly. I’ll hazard a guess that it would have made a huge difference in the success of the film, making it much more appealing to mainstream audiences, and giving it much more stature as a long-lasting cult sci-fi film.

So thus the film already has a strike against it (in my book) with the cheap, gimmicky animation effect. From there, director Richard Linklater’s screen adaptation is simply not as strong as it could be. Not having read the original book, I could still get a glimpse of probably what was originally a much better story. Linklater seems to be confused himself as to whether he’s directing a futuristic thriller, an underground humorous drug flick filled with meaningless clever banter meant to appeal to the hipster crowd, or a purposefully confusing arthouse piece meant to “make you think.”

The beginning, in particular, is a confused mish-mash as we begin with not the main character, but a secondary character who barely plays a role as the film goes on. He’s having an obviously bad drug trip and imagining bugs crawling all over his skin. We creep slowly from there to meet our hero/anti-hero played by Keanu Reeves, who is apparently some sort of undercover cop out to bust a drug ring.

Meandering to start and sometimes painful in dialogue and delivery, the film finally picks up a bit in the middle. Things get more entertaining, at least, with the introduction of Woody Harrelson’s character, who breaks up some of the confusion and monotony by being quite funny at times. He plays well off of Robert Downey, Jr. (Alas, it’s hard not to think Downey probably referred to his own coke-induced stupors as his inspiration in playing a druggie).

Fortunately, the momentum picks up and the film does have a satisfying ending. Still, I think this could have been much, much better. It’s a great concept and an important topic, so I hope another director will someday take a shot at Dick’s novel.

I give this a B-.