This movie was previously reviewed as part of my AFI Top 100 Project. Below is the pertinent information about it: the movie stats, plot summary, and the rating I gave it. You can read the full text of my review HERE.
Movie Stats:
Released 1931 (USA)
American, in English
Director - James Whale
Stars - Colin Clive, Boris Karloff, Mae Clarke
Plot Summary:
It’s the classic tale of Frankenstein (Clive), a doctor who builds a man (Karloff) out of spare body parts and animates him. Clarke co-stars as Frankenstein’s fiancee, Elizabeth.
Rating:
3.75 stars
Friday, September 16, 2016
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
Sci Fi Top 100, #85: "The Andromeda Strain" (1971)
Movie Stats:
Released 1971 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Robert Wise
Stars - Arthur Hill, David Wayne, James Olson, Kate Reid
Plot Summary:
When an alien disease threatens humanity, four scientists race against time to uncover its secrets. Hill co-stars as Dr. Jeremy Stone; Wayne as Dr. Charles Dutton; Olson as Dr. Mark Hall; and Reid as Dr. Ruth Leavitt.
Warnings:
Very minor violence; minor gore; minor blue language; brief nudity (male butt, female breasts).
Bad Stuff:
It’s about as exciting as watching paint dry. In the plot summary I say they “race” against time. It’s more like they “saunter casually” against time.
As usual, I wasn’t particularly keen on the fanciful camera work, although, thankfully, it was mostly confined to the beginning of the film.
Most of the soundtrack and sound effects were quite displeasing to my ears.
Good Stuff:
I really liked snarky Dr. Ruth Leavitt.
While watching a group of scientists do their thing wasn’t particularly enthralling, the conclusions they came to were interesting. That is to say, what the disease is, how it survives, and how it evolves, is pretty cool.
The details were quite thorough. I felt like the author (Michael Crichton) really thought things through, so it was a more complete film than most (no plot holes).
The Verdict:
I wanted to like this but I just thought it was boring. For me, it’s yet another sci fi that’s interesting in concept but not so interesting in execution. I wouldn’t change the plot if I were to remake it. Like, it’s not a film that needs explosions or sexual tension to improve it. But I do think about half an hour could be shaved off - fewer decontamination steps, for example - without losing anything in the narrative. If it was shorter, it would definitely feel like less of a chore. Okay, maybe I would also add in more Dr. Ruth Leavitt snark.
I give the film 2.75 stars.
Released 1971 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Robert Wise
Stars - Arthur Hill, David Wayne, James Olson, Kate Reid
Plot Summary:
When an alien disease threatens humanity, four scientists race against time to uncover its secrets. Hill co-stars as Dr. Jeremy Stone; Wayne as Dr. Charles Dutton; Olson as Dr. Mark Hall; and Reid as Dr. Ruth Leavitt.
Warnings:
Very minor violence; minor gore; minor blue language; brief nudity (male butt, female breasts).
Bad Stuff:
It’s about as exciting as watching paint dry. In the plot summary I say they “race” against time. It’s more like they “saunter casually” against time.
As usual, I wasn’t particularly keen on the fanciful camera work, although, thankfully, it was mostly confined to the beginning of the film.
Most of the soundtrack and sound effects were quite displeasing to my ears.
Good Stuff:
I really liked snarky Dr. Ruth Leavitt.
While watching a group of scientists do their thing wasn’t particularly enthralling, the conclusions they came to were interesting. That is to say, what the disease is, how it survives, and how it evolves, is pretty cool.
The details were quite thorough. I felt like the author (Michael Crichton) really thought things through, so it was a more complete film than most (no plot holes).
The Verdict:
I wanted to like this but I just thought it was boring. For me, it’s yet another sci fi that’s interesting in concept but not so interesting in execution. I wouldn’t change the plot if I were to remake it. Like, it’s not a film that needs explosions or sexual tension to improve it. But I do think about half an hour could be shaved off - fewer decontamination steps, for example - without losing anything in the narrative. If it was shorter, it would definitely feel like less of a chore. Okay, maybe I would also add in more Dr. Ruth Leavitt snark.
I give the film 2.75 stars.
Monday, September 12, 2016
Up with Geography: Chile
Country Name:
Chile
Capital:
Santiago
Continent:
South America
Maps:
Neighbors:
Peru, Bolivia, Argentina
Water Borders:
Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean (barely)
Total Area:
291,930 square miles
Five Largest Cities:
Santiago, Valparaiso, Concepcion, La Serena, Antofagasta
Famous Geographical Point:
Atacama Desert
Famous Person:
Carlos Sotomayor, painter
Book Set In/About:
Eva Luna by Isabel Allende
The story of a poor, young orphan girl who trades in the only currency she owns: stories. From the description, it sounds rich in details about South American culture.
Movie Set In/About:
"El Club (The Club)" (2015), directed by Pablo Larrain
At a secluded house near the Chilean seaside where disgraced Catholic priests are sent to sort themselves out, a special counselor arrives after an incident. I think this film sounds fascinating!
Headline of the Day:
"Chile Honors Allende on 43rd Anniversary of Coup That Toppled Him" on Fox News Latino.
Chile
Capital:
Santiago
Continent:
South America
Maps:
 |
| South American continent. Chile outlined in dark ink & shaded. |
 |
| A close-up of Chile & its neighbors. |
Neighbors:
Peru, Bolivia, Argentina
Water Borders:
Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean (barely)
Total Area:
291,930 square miles
Five Largest Cities:
Santiago, Valparaiso, Concepcion, La Serena, Antofagasta
Famous Geographical Point:
Atacama Desert
Famous Person:
Carlos Sotomayor, painter
Book Set In/About:
Eva Luna by Isabel Allende
The story of a poor, young orphan girl who trades in the only currency she owns: stories. From the description, it sounds rich in details about South American culture.
Movie Set In/About:
"El Club (The Club)" (2015), directed by Pablo Larrain
At a secluded house near the Chilean seaside where disgraced Catholic priests are sent to sort themselves out, a special counselor arrives after an incident. I think this film sounds fascinating!
Headline of the Day:
"Chile Honors Allende on 43rd Anniversary of Coup That Toppled Him" on Fox News Latino.
Friday, September 9, 2016
Sci Fi Top 100, #86: "Barbarella" (1968)
Movie Stats:
Released 1968 (USA)
French & Italian, in English (a minuscule amount of non-translated French; non-translated, made-up alien languages)
Director - Roger Vadim
Stars - Jane Fonda, Milo O’Shea, John Phillip Law, Anita Pallenberg
Plot Summary:
In the distant future, Barbarella (Fonda) is sent by her government to find missing scientist Durand Durand (O’Shea). Law co-stars as Barbarella’s new angel acquaintance, Pygar, and Pallenberg as the evil tyrant of an alien planet.
Warnings:
Extensive female nudity (mostly breasts, minor butt), violence, minor gore, heavily referenced sexy times.
Bad Stuff:
Oh look, another 1960s movie that requires drug use to enjoy.
Barbarella is a sexually naive character that is basically taught during the course of the film to use sex as a commodity, as in “I saved your life, therefore you should have sex with me.” That made me very uncomfortable.
Once the novelty wears off, it’s a little boring.
The soundtrack is terrible.
Good Stuff:
It’s kind of funny.
On the flip side of the sex stuff, I liked that Barbarella is a shamelessly sexual woman (one character does slut shame her but he’s the bad guy so fie on him).
Loved the costuming.
It had a lot of interesting ideas about the future.
The Verdict:
I actually saw this once before. I recalled it as silly and harmless, and was frankly surprised to find it on a list of top 100 films. I figured that, with multiple added years to my age since the last time I saw it, I would probably hate it this time around. I didn’t hate it. I don’t think it’s a great film, but there’s a lot of fun in it. I enjoyed the sexual freedom of it, and the ideas about love and peace. It was very 1960s. Also, there were quite a few sayings/scenes that I recognized, in that they’ve been used/referenced in popular culture these last 50ish years. I didn’t know that they came from this film. Clearly, it’s iconic, and that’s why it ended up on this list.
I give it 3 stars.
Released 1968 (USA)
French & Italian, in English (a minuscule amount of non-translated French; non-translated, made-up alien languages)
Director - Roger Vadim
Stars - Jane Fonda, Milo O’Shea, John Phillip Law, Anita Pallenberg
Plot Summary:
In the distant future, Barbarella (Fonda) is sent by her government to find missing scientist Durand Durand (O’Shea). Law co-stars as Barbarella’s new angel acquaintance, Pygar, and Pallenberg as the evil tyrant of an alien planet.
Warnings:
Extensive female nudity (mostly breasts, minor butt), violence, minor gore, heavily referenced sexy times.
Bad Stuff:
Oh look, another 1960s movie that requires drug use to enjoy.
Barbarella is a sexually naive character that is basically taught during the course of the film to use sex as a commodity, as in “I saved your life, therefore you should have sex with me.” That made me very uncomfortable.
Once the novelty wears off, it’s a little boring.
The soundtrack is terrible.
Good Stuff:
It’s kind of funny.
On the flip side of the sex stuff, I liked that Barbarella is a shamelessly sexual woman (one character does slut shame her but he’s the bad guy so fie on him).
Loved the costuming.
It had a lot of interesting ideas about the future.
The Verdict:
I actually saw this once before. I recalled it as silly and harmless, and was frankly surprised to find it on a list of top 100 films. I figured that, with multiple added years to my age since the last time I saw it, I would probably hate it this time around. I didn’t hate it. I don’t think it’s a great film, but there’s a lot of fun in it. I enjoyed the sexual freedom of it, and the ideas about love and peace. It was very 1960s. Also, there were quite a few sayings/scenes that I recognized, in that they’ve been used/referenced in popular culture these last 50ish years. I didn’t know that they came from this film. Clearly, it’s iconic, and that’s why it ended up on this list.
I give it 3 stars.
Wednesday, September 7, 2016
Sci Fi Top 100, #87: "The Damned" (1962)
Note: This movie was released in the U.S. under the name “These Are the Damned.”
Movie Stats:
Released 1962 (Australia)
British, in English
Director - Joseph Losey
Stars - Macdonald Carey, Shirley Anne Field, Oliver Reed
Plot Summary:
When Joan (Field), member of a beatnik motorcycle gang led by her brother King (Reed), takes up with American tourist Simon (Carey), the three of them stumble upon a government facility that houses a group of unusual children.
Warnings:
Violence; implied sexy times.
Bad Stuff:
It takes a while to find its feet/get to the point.
For most of the film, the character of Freya (Viveca Lindfors) seemed superfluous. Although I liked the actress and the character, I kept wondering what her storyline was doing there. It didn’t make much sense until the very end. I didn’t like that puzzling over it kept drawing me out of the film.
Good Stuff:
I know you probably read the plot summary and either thought, “Huh?” or “That sounds ridiculous” but it’s really not. It’s actually really interesting, and apart from the slow start, it’s paced well, with the layers and secrets peeling back slowly.
[Vaguely SPOILERish]
I loved how it was such a movie of its time, with the beatniks, the soundtrack, the anxiety about “youth gone wild,” and the Atomic fear mongering.
[SPOILER]
The acting is great. I liked everyone in it, but found myself particularly drawn to Reed. He had that charisma that all great actors have. He commands attention every time he’s on-screen.
The Verdict:
I seriously thought I was going to hate it. From the description, it sounded stupid and cheesy. I expected B-movie quality. What I got was a serious, well-crafted film with a surprisingly dark ending, a film that asks a lot of tough questions. At the time it was released, it must have felt incredibly relevant. Is it sci fi? I don’t think it really qualifies, but I also don’t much care. Without this project, I never would have seen it, and that would've been a shame. A hidden gem.
I give it 4.25 stars.
Movie Stats:
Released 1962 (Australia)
British, in English
Director - Joseph Losey
Stars - Macdonald Carey, Shirley Anne Field, Oliver Reed
Plot Summary:
When Joan (Field), member of a beatnik motorcycle gang led by her brother King (Reed), takes up with American tourist Simon (Carey), the three of them stumble upon a government facility that houses a group of unusual children.
Warnings:
Violence; implied sexy times.
Bad Stuff:
It takes a while to find its feet/get to the point.
For most of the film, the character of Freya (Viveca Lindfors) seemed superfluous. Although I liked the actress and the character, I kept wondering what her storyline was doing there. It didn’t make much sense until the very end. I didn’t like that puzzling over it kept drawing me out of the film.
Good Stuff:
I know you probably read the plot summary and either thought, “Huh?” or “That sounds ridiculous” but it’s really not. It’s actually really interesting, and apart from the slow start, it’s paced well, with the layers and secrets peeling back slowly.
[Vaguely SPOILERish]
I loved how it was such a movie of its time, with the beatniks, the soundtrack, the anxiety about “youth gone wild,” and the Atomic fear mongering.
[SPOILER]
The acting is great. I liked everyone in it, but found myself particularly drawn to Reed. He had that charisma that all great actors have. He commands attention every time he’s on-screen.
The Verdict:
I seriously thought I was going to hate it. From the description, it sounded stupid and cheesy. I expected B-movie quality. What I got was a serious, well-crafted film with a surprisingly dark ending, a film that asks a lot of tough questions. At the time it was released, it must have felt incredibly relevant. Is it sci fi? I don’t think it really qualifies, but I also don’t much care. Without this project, I never would have seen it, and that would've been a shame. A hidden gem.
I give it 4.25 stars.
Monday, September 5, 2016
Up with U.S. Geography: New York
State Name:
New York
Capital:
Albany
Date of Entry:
July 26, 1788
Maps:
Neighbors:
Canada, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania
Water Borders:
Lake Ontario, Saint Lawrence River, Lake Champlain, Long Island Sound, Atlantic Ocean, Lake Erie
Total Area:
54,555 square miles
Five Largest Cities:
New York City, Buffalo, Rochester, Yonkers, Syracuse
Famous Geographical Point:
Niagra Falls
State Nickname:
The Empire State. Legend says that the nickname dates all the way back to George Washington, who referred to the state as being "at present the seat of the Empire."
Famous Person:
Jay Z, rap artist, music mogul & entrepreneur
Book Set In/About:
The Golem and the Jinni by Helene Wecker
Two mythical creatures meet, and become unlikely companions, in turn-of-the-century NYC. It's the standard immigrant tale with a twist. I absolutely loved this book.
Movie Set In/About:
"Taxi Driver" (1976), directed by Martin Scorsese
An unstable Vietnam Vet, who works as a taxi driver, descends into madness. There were about a billion movies to choose from, many of them set in NYC. I chose this one because it's a very good film, and because it's a great time capsule of the 1970s. If I hadn't chosen The Golem and the Jinni for my book, I likely would've put "Brooklyn" here, another great film (it's an NYC immigrant tale, but without the twist).
Headline of the Day:
"NYS Fair Attendance 26,151 Ahead of Last Year's Attendance" on newyorkupstate.com.
New York
Capital:
Albany
Date of Entry:
July 26, 1788
Maps:
 |
| Map of USA. New York outlined in dark ink, shaded & with name written on it. |
 |
| A close up of New York & its neighbors. |
Neighbors:
Canada, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania
Water Borders:
Lake Ontario, Saint Lawrence River, Lake Champlain, Long Island Sound, Atlantic Ocean, Lake Erie
Total Area:
54,555 square miles
Five Largest Cities:
New York City, Buffalo, Rochester, Yonkers, Syracuse
Famous Geographical Point:
Niagra Falls
State Nickname:
The Empire State. Legend says that the nickname dates all the way back to George Washington, who referred to the state as being "at present the seat of the Empire."
Famous Person:
Jay Z, rap artist, music mogul & entrepreneur
Book Set In/About:
The Golem and the Jinni by Helene Wecker
Two mythical creatures meet, and become unlikely companions, in turn-of-the-century NYC. It's the standard immigrant tale with a twist. I absolutely loved this book.
Movie Set In/About:
"Taxi Driver" (1976), directed by Martin Scorsese
An unstable Vietnam Vet, who works as a taxi driver, descends into madness. There were about a billion movies to choose from, many of them set in NYC. I chose this one because it's a very good film, and because it's a great time capsule of the 1970s. If I hadn't chosen The Golem and the Jinni for my book, I likely would've put "Brooklyn" here, another great film (it's an NYC immigrant tale, but without the twist).
Headline of the Day:
"NYS Fair Attendance 26,151 Ahead of Last Year's Attendance" on newyorkupstate.com.
Friday, September 2, 2016
Sci Fi Top 100, #88: "Minority Report" (2002)
Movie Stats:
Released 2002 (USA)
American, in English (IMDB says there’s some Swedish. My subtitles said it was Russian. Sounded Russian to me as well. Whatever it was, it’s non-translated but unimportant to the plot.)
Director - Steven Spielberg
Stars - Tom Cruise, Colin Farrell, Max von Sydow, Samantha Morton
Plot Summary:
In the not-so-distant future, D.C. police are using people with psychic powers to stop crimes before they happen. When John Anderton (Cruise), chief of the pre-crime unit, is accused of a future murder, he goes on the run to prove his innocence. Farrell co-stars as federal agent Danny Witwer; von Sydow as Lamar Burgess, director of the pre-crime unit; and Morton as Agatha, one of the psychics.
Warnings:
Violence; gore; blue language; sexy times; drug use.
Bad Stuff:
It’s got a pretty slow start.
I wasn’t wowed by most of the acting. It wasn’t bad, but I came away feeling like any of those actors could’ve been replaced by anyone else and it would’ve been just as good. [SPOILER-y side note] And if you put Max von Sydow in the cast, I immediately know he’s the bad guy. That reveal was the furthest thing from a surprise. [SPOILER]
The soundtrack doesn’t fit AT ALL. It belongs in, say, an Indiana Jones movie, something with some amount of lightheartedness and fun. This film has neither of those things. I found the chase scene music especially puzzling. It took me completely out of the film.
Good Stuff:
I really liked the concept. I specifically liked the question it raised about the morality of arresting people for crimes they haven’t yet committed. Also, that it addressed that age-old dilemma of whether our fates are predetermined or if we have free will.
Most of the special effects have held up really well. I was quite surprised, given the age of the film.
It’s a pretty masterful blend of sci fi, action/adventure, and drama. I feel like it’s difficult for sci fi to hit the right note. Either it’s weird, or it’s wacky, or it’s boring, or it’s more horror than sci fi. This film avoided all of that. It was futuristic with a minimum of weirdness, it had plenty of action, no wackiness, and nothing lurking around any corners to jump out for a cheap scare. It was quite satisfying.
The Verdict:
Amongst my friends, it’s well known that I don’t like Tom Cruise. I’ve spent practically my whole life avoiding his movies, to the point where I haven’t seen most of his famous ones (including “Top Gun”). So I hadn’t seen this before, and I was frankly dreading it, although I figured I would probably like it in the end. I don’t think Cruise was terrible; I’d say he was serviceable. Actually, the only actor who stood out to me was Tim Blake Nelson, in a bit part as Gideon, the prison warden. But I liked almost everything else about it. It’s really a pretty good film.
I give it 3.75 stars.
Released 2002 (USA)
American, in English (IMDB says there’s some Swedish. My subtitles said it was Russian. Sounded Russian to me as well. Whatever it was, it’s non-translated but unimportant to the plot.)
Director - Steven Spielberg
Stars - Tom Cruise, Colin Farrell, Max von Sydow, Samantha Morton
Plot Summary:
In the not-so-distant future, D.C. police are using people with psychic powers to stop crimes before they happen. When John Anderton (Cruise), chief of the pre-crime unit, is accused of a future murder, he goes on the run to prove his innocence. Farrell co-stars as federal agent Danny Witwer; von Sydow as Lamar Burgess, director of the pre-crime unit; and Morton as Agatha, one of the psychics.
Warnings:
Violence; gore; blue language; sexy times; drug use.
Bad Stuff:
It’s got a pretty slow start.
I wasn’t wowed by most of the acting. It wasn’t bad, but I came away feeling like any of those actors could’ve been replaced by anyone else and it would’ve been just as good. [SPOILER-y side note] And if you put Max von Sydow in the cast, I immediately know he’s the bad guy. That reveal was the furthest thing from a surprise. [SPOILER]
The soundtrack doesn’t fit AT ALL. It belongs in, say, an Indiana Jones movie, something with some amount of lightheartedness and fun. This film has neither of those things. I found the chase scene music especially puzzling. It took me completely out of the film.
Good Stuff:
I really liked the concept. I specifically liked the question it raised about the morality of arresting people for crimes they haven’t yet committed. Also, that it addressed that age-old dilemma of whether our fates are predetermined or if we have free will.
Most of the special effects have held up really well. I was quite surprised, given the age of the film.
It’s a pretty masterful blend of sci fi, action/adventure, and drama. I feel like it’s difficult for sci fi to hit the right note. Either it’s weird, or it’s wacky, or it’s boring, or it’s more horror than sci fi. This film avoided all of that. It was futuristic with a minimum of weirdness, it had plenty of action, no wackiness, and nothing lurking around any corners to jump out for a cheap scare. It was quite satisfying.
The Verdict:
Amongst my friends, it’s well known that I don’t like Tom Cruise. I’ve spent practically my whole life avoiding his movies, to the point where I haven’t seen most of his famous ones (including “Top Gun”). So I hadn’t seen this before, and I was frankly dreading it, although I figured I would probably like it in the end. I don’t think Cruise was terrible; I’d say he was serviceable. Actually, the only actor who stood out to me was Tim Blake Nelson, in a bit part as Gideon, the prison warden. But I liked almost everything else about it. It’s really a pretty good film.
I give it 3.75 stars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)