Tag Archives: science fiction

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.

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.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Whatever Happened to Sword and Sorcery?

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Not too long ago (only about 30-odd years), it looked like the epic would be replaced in Hollywood by fantasy pictures. It wasn’t just Conan the Barbarian that we were seeing, but also stuff like The Beastmaster, Krull and The Sword and the Sorceror. The genre was going to conquer the world.

OK, what happened?

I guess a good fantasy film is really, REALLY hard to find. Especially nowadays … as the generally awful 2011 remake of Conan suggests. Have we grown up and/or out of this genre? Are we gravitating toward sci-fi more than fantasy?

Or are we putting them together, with hybrid works such as Avatar?

I’d like to think the standard sword-and-sorcery flick isn’t dead. It’s kind of a fun breed, despite a portfolio lacking in, well, high quality … something we can’t say about science fiction. To tell you the truth, I miss those silly old ’80s adventures. We don’t get so many of them today.

And it’s not as if there isn’t enough literature to support them.

I’m not saying we need something scriptless, with just a muscle-bound hero slicing his way through the reels. But I do think we could use something that brings back that 30-year-old spirit, the energetic aura that infused so many of those violent, magic-filled pictures. We could still use a dose of that, no? Or are we too old and wise to enjoy it?

Speaking for myself, old I may be. But too wise? Nah.

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.

Skip’s Quips: Slamming the State of Serious ’70s Sci-Fi

~

Blog Sketch 082813Gosh, Rollerball is a mediocre movie.

I came to this realization after giving the Norman Jewison-helmed sci-fi flick yet another chance on Turner Classic Movies last night. It confirmed all my previous assessments: that it’s pretentious, tiresome and not as introspective as it thinks it is. The blame can partly fall on the script–which documents a future society in which corporations rule the world and sanction the violent, eponymous arena game–but it also features a lethargic performance by the usually reliable James Caan, slow-paced direction by Jewison (no, shots of people turning their heads to stare at the protagonist menacingly are not a substitute for character development) and dubious social commentary … most lamentably evidenced by a scene in which a posse of doltish partygoers representing, I assume, our worst inner voices, commit arboricide with the help of a rather powerful gun.

OK, I get it. Humans are bad. We like wars and killing trees. Fine.

We also like quality filmmaking–and Rollerball doesn’t cut it. The main problem, however, is that it could’ve been so much better, like so many other serious 1970s sci-fi flicks. Logan’s Run, A Boy and His Dog, Soylent Green … science fiction really had a lot to say in that era, but a scarce few films then aced the sniff test. I wish the folks behind them had taken the time to streamline the scripts, make the messaging less heavy-handed, kept the preaching to a minimum. Forbidden Planet‘s a benchmark. So is Paul Verhoeven’s Total Recall. Spare, concise screenplays, quick-flowing dialogue, tense direction. That’s all you want in a good sci-fi movie, and you don’t find that a lot in the “golden” age of the 1970s. Ideas are almost commonplace. Execution isn’t.

So why is that? I know that period heralded an age of cinematic risks, and many of the non-sci-fi films then exemplified that. Yet with the exception of pictures such as Fantastic Planet and A Clockwork Orange, many of these flicks don’t live up to their expectations. Yes, I know the 1970s also saw the debuts of Alien and Star Wars, but those are less like “message” movies than old-fashioned, leave-your-thinking-at-the-door entertainment.

Rollerball, at its core, is a message movie. And it doesn’t work. Does that mean sci-fi should be devoid of messages altogether–that it should stick to what it does best? (Read: lasers.)

I don’t think so. But it’s something I’ll ponder next time I watch one of these futuristic “man-must” movies. Man must do this, man must do that.

Man must make better science fiction films, methinks.