Category Archives: sci-fi

Skip’s Quips: Sorry, But the New ‘Star Wars’ Trailer Looks Blah

~

Blog Sketch 082813Unfortunately,  we can’t go back in time to feel what it was like to experience the original Star Wars firsthand.

We can, however, watch the trailer to the forthcoming Star Wars Episode VII – The Force Awakens, and after doing so, I have to say that I’m not impressed.

I wasn’t too happy with director J.J. Abrams’ work on Star Trek Into Darkness, which I felt was a lot of posturing. Tedious, sloppy filmmaking, in my opinion. Now’s he’s getting his hands on the Star Wars franchise, and I’m cautiously pessimistic. The trailer to the 2015-destined new installment suggests it’s very special-effects-heavy – nothing new for this series. But I have a bigger problem. Why add more to a story that’s already ended … and in a satisfying way, to boot?

You won’t get a more iconic villain in this franchise than Darth Vader, and I don’t know if Abrams will try for that. Part of the reason the original worked, however, was due to the strength of the mythology behind Vader and his minions. They were bad. They were evil. And they had James Earl Jones’ voice leading them.

You’re not going to get the same effect in the latest sequel, and I’m worried it’ll fail because of that.

The Star Wars fan base is sizable. I’m sure this will make a lot of money. And putting out a teaser trailer now for a film that’s slated for a late-next-year debut is a good marketing strategy.

I just hope it’s not all for naught. Given the many problems with the prequels, this isn’t a new hope.

Unfortunately.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Not Feeling It With ‘Jurassic World’

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Enough already with the Jurassic Park reworkings.

I liked the original 1993 movie very much. It was thrilling, scary, often funny – despite a few misguided lines here and there.

After seeing the trailer for the very similar-looking Jurassic World, I’m almost certain the latter flick’s gonna be less interesting.

We’ve been through this territory, haven’t we? Dinosaurs run amok at much-heralded theme park. How much of the same thing can we take?

The box-office results in 2015 should have the answer. I don’t yet; I’ve only seen the preview. But I suspect it won’t be anything original … or that interesting.

I guess Prehistoric Mammal Park doesn’t have the same ring, does it? Sigh.

Skip’s Quips: It’s High Time We Get a Remake of ‘The Illustrated Man’

~

Blog Sketch 082813I never thought Jack Smight’s adaptation of Ray Bradbury’s classic science-fiction short story collection The Illustrated Man measured up to the standards of the book, and I lament that.

The pace was plodding, the direction was uninspired. It didn’t work, despite a fine cast that included Rod Steiger and Claire Bloom.

Someone should remake it.

Yes, I do believe it could be a success if redone today. The technology exists to provide the kinds of special effects needed for some of the stories, which deserve a better treatment. Steven Spielberg, methinks, would be a great fit for this kind of project. So would Peter Jackson.

I don’t know if it’s the type of thing that would appeal to directors nowadays, but the tales that have dated more than others – like the one that take place in a rain-soaked landscape on Venus – could be avoided in favor of greater stories in the collection. The entire film could focus on, say, only about four or five pieces in all and still be successful. It might make a fun project.

We need more thoughtful, perceptive sci-fi pictures in theaters today. Hollywood has mined so much already … why not go after more of the classics to improve on previous iterations? I’d watch them. So would legions of Bradbury and genre fans.

Just an idea.

Skip’s Quips: Watching the Fur Fly in ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’

~

Blog Sketch 082813Let no one accuse me of not enjoying a bit of popular moviemaking now and then.

I did just that yesterday in Times Square during a showing of Guardians of the Galaxy, the hit sci-fi spectacular from Marvel about mismatched con-creatures battling a blue warlord who wants to take over the universe or something.

Yeah, that was about what it was about.

Honestly, part of the fun was not caring what it was about. This is a light, special effects-laden romp featuring, among others, a hulking tree-beast and a trash-talking raccoon, so you know it’s going to be snarky. Yet there was a good dose of sensible humor as well, plus a tender moment toward the end that nearly transcended the picture.

I wouldn’t say it’s a classic. Some of the flashy battle scenes moved slowly and were hard to follow … not that following them would’ve made a big difference. And I did feel the flick missed a few choice opportunities to be funnier, though the aforementioned raccoon was a splendid creation. Plus, it did feel incredibly derivative. It hadn’t exactly been where no one has gone before.

Still, it was diverting, and I enjoyed most of it. Would I see it again? Not sure. It was quite imaginative, however, and that’s a plus. In this day and age, you don’t always get that in the movies.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: I Like ‘Planet of the Apes,’ But …

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613… is there really a need for a new series of films based on the original sci-fi “what-if” movie?

Every now and then, Hollywood seems to revisit the old to put out something new … which brings up feelings of nostalgia among those who remember the old and thoughts of “what the heck is this?” among those who are too young to do so. Now I liked Rise of the Planet of the Apes when it came out a few years ago; it wasn’t a masterpiece like its 1968 progenitor, but it definitely did the trick.

I’m just not all that enthralled about the prospect of going back to the origins of this story. It’s not necessary. Plus, didn’t we already do that with the spate of flicks in the early 1970s? I mean, really. Been there, done that.

So now we have Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. Oy gevalt. When will this end? When will this … OK, I’ll stop whining. It’s just that I feel this isn’t new territory. Let’s explore another sci-fi landscape. Please. We’ve trodden over this one too much already.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Now I Can Die in Peace After Seeing ‘Godzilla’

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613It took me a while, but I finally watched Godzilla, King of the Monsters! all the way through last night.

I’d never seen it straight through before, so this was important. It’s surprisingly effective, despite the fact that special effects have come a long way since the days of destroying model sets. A little slowly paced, but for the most part it was well done. It also provided an interesting comment on Japanese and American post-war relations.

Of course, there was the creature Godzilla, too.

I think it’s easy to see why this flick was so influential. You do see the monster, but it’s almost always in shadow, so you never get a true close-up of all the scaly details. Leaving a little bit in the dark when it comes to monster movies is always a good idea, methinks. The mayhem was also well photographed, though I was a bit dismayed that Takashi Shimura was so underused. C’est la vie.

Good movie. I’m not gonna run to see it again, but I’m glad I have it under my belt.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: The Times They Are A-Spacin’

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613My father has an interesting story that he likes to tell about the original Star Wars movie.

Back in the late 1970s, after the flick came out, he went to see it in the theater. Once there, after the picture started, he fell asleep.

What? you say. Fell asleep during Star Wars?

Yea, verily, yea. Apparently, all the noise and flashing lights from those proletarian blasters combined with the dark theater put him right into slumberland.

Nowadays, that may seem bizarre, but it’s an interesting reflection of the times, I think. In those days, not everyone regarded Star Wars as the classic it’s thought of today. Even Alec Guinness, Obi-Wan Kenobi himself, reportedly didn’t think much of the script when he first read it. Since then, after repeated viewings, my father has come to like the film, but it took a while for that to happen. Like a fine wine (or perhaps, more appropriately, cheese) Star Wars gets better as it gets older. And it just goes to show you: Not everything good has immediate appeal.

See? Sometimes, to decide whether you like something, you just gotta sleep on it.

Skip’s Quips: ‘Sunshine’ Ain’t So Super, Man

~

Blog Sketch 082813Every so often when I see a movie, I get really, really disappointed that someone didn’t make it better.

That’s how I felt after viewing the Danny Boyle-directed Sunshine,  an ambitious sci-fi film that should’ve been excellent. It left me feeling dismayed at all the ticking clocks (the flick has something to do with a human space expedition to save our solar system’s dying sun, which seems to be capitulating at the very moment the picture is going on … a rather frustrating, action-movie-esque part of the plot), flashy cinematography and mumbled dialogue, despite the interesting story. We definitely need thoughtful, adventurous science-fiction films in our cinematic diet, so this one was especially problematic for me. A good idea that fell short.

I’m just wondering why director Boyle couldn’t have trusted the material more to avoid the pitfalls that race-against-time flicks often go through. There was a lot of breathlessness going ’round, and I would’ve preferred something more tranquil. Plus, the science seemed off … even to this completely unscientific movie critic. That’s an issue in science fiction, a genre in which a good movie achieves credibility however outlandish its foundations may be. In that regard, Sunshine left me cold.

Too bad. I wanted to like it. The flair, however, just wasn’t there.

Skip’s Quips: Reflections on ‘The Terminator’

~

Blog Sketch 082813I wish The Terminator were an enjoyable film.

Sure, it’s kinetic. Action-packed. Exciting. But enjoyable?

Frankly, I find flat, warm cream soda more appealing.

These ruminations popped up while I was watching the film recently on TV. And yes, I sat through the entire flick … which I hadn’t done in ages. I admired the snappy editing, the fierce car chases. Even the crisp dialogue seems tailored to speed things along. It’s a fast-moving, zippy movie.

But again: not enjoyable. Downbeat. Unpleasant. I guess that’s the point—it does, after all, concern the possibility of a post-apocalyptic future where unstoppable machines roam the earth killing humans. Yet there’s something dreary about the whole thing, even when you factor in the idea that it’s not completely hopeless … that those terminators can be beat. I don’t get that feeling while watching another seminal, dark sci-fi picture, Blade Runner, which has a more positive outlook. In that film, machines have a human side. They seek life, while the construct in The Terminator wants death.

That, in my opinion, is a big reason why I enjoy watching Blade Runner. The characters are more complex, and the antagonist isn’t evil. He, like Pinocchio, has humanity. The terminator doesn’t.

It’s easier, I think, to create film villains without nuance. You can drop sneering, classical music and other standard ingredients into the blender and mix. A three-dimensional villain, however, is a lot more difficult … but can add more flavor. Yes, that’s beside the point in The Terminator, but this missing ingredient makes it less entertaining.

And I just think of replicant Roy Batty’s final speech in Blade Runner to prove it.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Ah, Yes, I Remember It Poorly

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Why is it that some not-so-great movies stay in the memory and other, much better ones often don’t?

For example: The Omega Man. Sloppy, mediocre science fiction. Yet I recall the images from this Charlton Heston zombies-on-the-loose gloomfest more than anything from a seminal sci-fier I enjoyed more, The Day the Earth Stood Still.

It ain’t easy to forget a giant robot named Gort. Or the famous mantra “Klaatu barada nikto.” And I certainly haven’t forgotten them. But for some reason, they’re not as defined as all of the unpleasantness pervading TOM.

That includes the script, by the way … which could’ve been a lot better, given the source material (Richard Matheson’s book I Am Legend).

Perhaps that’s the root of the issue—that memory often focuses on “what ifs” over “done right,” deserting the positives for second guesses. At least, in my case. The idea of something close to quality may trump actual quality in the mind, presenting a puzzle that continues to disturb at the cost of remembering more important works.

TOM isn’t the only flick that does this. Nixon, Turnabout, The Adventures of Ford Fairlane—all of these horrid films I remember all too well, though I don’t want to do so. And they all could’ve been watchable, though each would’ve needed something more than a touch-up. (In Fairlane‘s case, a full cinematic makeover would’ve sufficed.)

So how do I clear my mind of these film fiascos and replace them with memories of David Lean, Satyajit Ray, François Truffaut and the like? I know of only one way.

Watch more of their movies. Put Gort in the DVD player. And maybe repeat the words “Klaatu barada nikto” in my brain until I get it.

A mind’s a terrible thing to waste … on bad movies. No reason, then, to keep them stored with all of those good memories.