Movie Stats:
Released 1980 (USA)
American & British, in English
Director - Mike Hodges
Stars - Sam J. Jones, Melody Anderson, Haim Topol, Max von Sydow
Plot Summary:
Football star Flash Gordon (Jones) and his new gal pal Dale Arden (Anderson) are pulled by scientist Dr. Hans Zarkov (Topol) into a fight to save Earth. Von Sydow plays Emperor Ming, the bad guy they’re fighting.
Warnings:
Violence; minor gore; very, very minor blue language.
Bad Stuff:
It’s extremely cheesy. For example, in one early scene, Flash is trying to fight bad guys but is really bad at it until someone hands him something shaped like a football and then he kicks ass. I mean, come on.
More and more, I’m beginning to wish that action movies would stop shoehorning in love stories. It’s simply not believable. It’s also not interesting or necessary. I could not care less if Flash and Dale end up together. (I assume they’re together in the comic book but they didn’t have to try to cram it into the movie.)
A lot of the special effects have not aged well.
Good Stuff:
It’s got some great actors. I especially enjoyed the performances of Brian Blessed, as bird man Prince Vultan, and Timothy Dalton as Prince Barin.
Frankly, it’s far more coherent than I was expecting. The plot is fairly simple, but I like that. I like that Ming’s motivations are uncomplicated. Why destroy Earth? Because it amuses him. I enjoy pure evil villains.
It’s fun and it has a good heart. I like Flash’s can-do attitude.
The Verdict:
I was not looking forward to this one and I can’t say that I expected it to be any good. A cinematic masterpiece it definitely is not, but I’ve seen worse films. Yes, a lot of it is incredibly cheesy, and the romantic storylines made me roll my eyes, and the special effects are frequently lacking. However, I liked its positive spirit, the costuming & set design, and that it went big. You can tell it was a big-budget film (IMDB estimates 20 mill, which is about 61.5 mill in today’s dollars). It’s not a film I’m going to watch more than once, but I’m glad I ticked it off the “never seen” list.
I give it 3 stars.
Monday, October 24, 2016
Friday, October 21, 2016
Sci Fi Top 100, #75: "Return of the Jedi" (1983)
Movie Stats:
Released 1983 (USA)
American, in English (a bunch of made-up alien languages, some translated and some not)
Director - Richard Marquand
Stars - Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Harrison Ford, and many others
Plot Summary:
In the third installment of the original Star Wars trilogy, our Rebel heroes make the final push to defeat their evil Imperial foes. Hamill stars as Luke Skywalker; Fisher as Princess Leia; and Ford as Han Solo.
Warnings:
Violence; very minor gore.
Bad Stuff:
It’s definitely the goofiest of the original trilogy. I prefer my Star Wars on the serious side.
I think it’s a cop-out that the end objective of this film is that same end objective as “A New Hope” (and, let’s be honest, also the same end objective as the newest film, “The Force Awakens”).
On the one hand, it feels a little unfair to complain about this, but since the original versions of the movies are basically no longer available, I think it’s allowed. I absolutely hate that Lucas added scenes/effects to these films in the 1990s and now insists that they must only be released in this form. The added visual effects look terrible. They’re easily identifiable. Just look for the bad CGI. However, the worst of these additions is the “NOOOOO!” It ruined a scene where David Prowse (the actor who portrayed Darth Vader; James Earl Jones only did the voice) managed to perfectly convey what his character was thinking/feeling using only his body language.
Good Stuff:
The actors have such great chemistry. They really seem very fond of one another.
Great pacing.
If you ignore the bad tacked-on CGI, the visual effects are actually quite impressive. Most of it still looks good. I particularly enjoy the light saber battle. Also, the film is pretty to look at.
The Verdict:
First, a story. My mom didn’t approve of modern movies. She thought they were trash. So I didn’t go out to the theater much when I was a kid. “Jedi” is one of the few films I saw in the theater as a child. I always assumed that my brothers begged her to take us but when I told her that many years later, she said that it was me who pestered her into going. I can only imagine that everyone else in school had seen it and I didn’t want to be left out. Funny thing is, at that point, I hadn’t seen the other two (I recall watching an edited-for-TV version of “Empire” several years later; I can’t recall when I first saw “Hope”).
At any rate, I remember liking this when I was eight and I’ve seen it several times since then. I do like all of the original trilogy. I would say that “Hope” is my least favorite, “Jedi” is in the middle, and “Empire” is on top. While I’m of the opinion (also stated in my review of “Hope”) that these films are a little weak in general - or at the very least they’re not the grand masterpieces they’re often made out to be - I also think that they’re both important to and influential of the genre. Additionally, they’re immensely enjoyable. If you’ve somehow never seen the original trilogy, you should rectify that.
I give it 3.75 stars.
Released 1983 (USA)
American, in English (a bunch of made-up alien languages, some translated and some not)
Director - Richard Marquand
Stars - Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Harrison Ford, and many others
Plot Summary:
In the third installment of the original Star Wars trilogy, our Rebel heroes make the final push to defeat their evil Imperial foes. Hamill stars as Luke Skywalker; Fisher as Princess Leia; and Ford as Han Solo.
Warnings:
Violence; very minor gore.
Bad Stuff:
It’s definitely the goofiest of the original trilogy. I prefer my Star Wars on the serious side.
I think it’s a cop-out that the end objective of this film is that same end objective as “A New Hope” (and, let’s be honest, also the same end objective as the newest film, “The Force Awakens”).
On the one hand, it feels a little unfair to complain about this, but since the original versions of the movies are basically no longer available, I think it’s allowed. I absolutely hate that Lucas added scenes/effects to these films in the 1990s and now insists that they must only be released in this form. The added visual effects look terrible. They’re easily identifiable. Just look for the bad CGI. However, the worst of these additions is the “NOOOOO!” It ruined a scene where David Prowse (the actor who portrayed Darth Vader; James Earl Jones only did the voice) managed to perfectly convey what his character was thinking/feeling using only his body language.
Good Stuff:
The actors have such great chemistry. They really seem very fond of one another.
Great pacing.
If you ignore the bad tacked-on CGI, the visual effects are actually quite impressive. Most of it still looks good. I particularly enjoy the light saber battle. Also, the film is pretty to look at.
The Verdict:
First, a story. My mom didn’t approve of modern movies. She thought they were trash. So I didn’t go out to the theater much when I was a kid. “Jedi” is one of the few films I saw in the theater as a child. I always assumed that my brothers begged her to take us but when I told her that many years later, she said that it was me who pestered her into going. I can only imagine that everyone else in school had seen it and I didn’t want to be left out. Funny thing is, at that point, I hadn’t seen the other two (I recall watching an edited-for-TV version of “Empire” several years later; I can’t recall when I first saw “Hope”).
At any rate, I remember liking this when I was eight and I’ve seen it several times since then. I do like all of the original trilogy. I would say that “Hope” is my least favorite, “Jedi” is in the middle, and “Empire” is on top. While I’m of the opinion (also stated in my review of “Hope”) that these films are a little weak in general - or at the very least they’re not the grand masterpieces they’re often made out to be - I also think that they’re both important to and influential of the genre. Additionally, they’re immensely enjoyable. If you’ve somehow never seen the original trilogy, you should rectify that.
I give it 3.75 stars.
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
Woodland Enchantress Cross Stitch, Progress Report 2
Back in July, I did a post about my latest cross stitch project. Believe it or not, since it's been nearly 3 months, it's time for an update! First, let's start with a couple of reminders.
Here is what it's going to look like (in theory) when I'm finished:
Here's what it looked like at the time of my last post:
And now, here's what it currently looks like:
This represents 20.25 hours of work, spread out over 10 days. I didn't keep track of this, but I think those 10 days were fairly evenly split between working at my fiber arts group and working alone. I try to get to the project at least once week, although clearly I haven't achieved that yet.
I can't decide if it looks like I've made a lot of progress or not. You tell me!
Here is what it's going to look like (in theory) when I'm finished:
Here's what it looked like at the time of my last post:
And now, here's what it currently looks like:
This represents 20.25 hours of work, spread out over 10 days. I didn't keep track of this, but I think those 10 days were fairly evenly split between working at my fiber arts group and working alone. I try to get to the project at least once week, although clearly I haven't achieved that yet.
I can't decide if it looks like I've made a lot of progress or not. You tell me!
Monday, October 17, 2016
Sci Fi Top 100, #76: "The Truman Show" (1998)
Movie Stats:
Released 1998 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Peter Weir
Stars - Jim Carrey, Ed Harris, Laura Linney, Noah Emmerich
Plot Summary:
Unbeknownst to him, Truman Burbank (Carrey) has spent his whole life as the subject of a TV show that runs 24/7. Slowly, he begins to suspect that something is off about his world. Harris co-stars as Christof, the creator of the TV show; Linney as Meryl, the actress who portrays Truman’s wife; and Emmerich as Marlon, the actor who portrays Truman’s best friend.
Warnings:
Very minor violence; minor blue language; brief male child nudity (butt only).
Bad Stuff:
I find it a little too convenient that all these things go wrong at once (a falling set light, a malfunctioning rain spigot, etc.) in order to finally give Truman an inkling, after 20-odd years, that things aren’t as they seem.
The “romance” between Truman and Sylvia (Natascha McElhone) is ridiculously contrived.
At one point, Christof announces that he’s going to show the first consummation on live TV, by which I assume he means sex, which implies that Truman is a virgin. On the one hand, I don’t find it particularly believable that a married man in his 20s has never had sex. On the other hand, if he was having sex, that would mean that tens of millions of people would be watching this man get raped repeatedly. Ugh. Since the movie is PG, I think it would have been better not bring up the sex topic at all.
Good Stuff:
I love how deliciously f-ed up it is. The idea that they would take this man from birth and lie to and manipulate him his whole life is incredibly disturbing (especially the stuff related to his father). I always thought this was a feel-good movie, so I was pleasantly surprised by how dark it is.
The acting is really good. I particularly enjoyed the performances of Carrey, Harris, and Emmerich.
I think it’s a nice exploration of human behavior. I don’t want to write an essay here, so I guess I’ll just say that there was a lot of complexity in the characterization of the “extras” in Truman’s life.
The Verdict:
Well, I think calling this “sci fi” is an extreme stretch, but it’s still very enjoyable. It addresses quite a few serious topics both directly (i.e. lying to and manipulating people for profit) and obliquely (i.e. how people often feel like they’re missing out on something in life). I really didn’t expect it to be so deep. I thought it would trend more on the “Jim Carrey over-the-top goofy” side. While there is some of that, there’s more of his “Eternal Sunshine” side. Solid cast and acting, with a satisfyingly open ending. All in all, an excellent film.
I give it 4.25 stars.
Released 1998 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Peter Weir
Stars - Jim Carrey, Ed Harris, Laura Linney, Noah Emmerich
Plot Summary:
Unbeknownst to him, Truman Burbank (Carrey) has spent his whole life as the subject of a TV show that runs 24/7. Slowly, he begins to suspect that something is off about his world. Harris co-stars as Christof, the creator of the TV show; Linney as Meryl, the actress who portrays Truman’s wife; and Emmerich as Marlon, the actor who portrays Truman’s best friend.
Warnings:
Very minor violence; minor blue language; brief male child nudity (butt only).
Bad Stuff:
I find it a little too convenient that all these things go wrong at once (a falling set light, a malfunctioning rain spigot, etc.) in order to finally give Truman an inkling, after 20-odd years, that things aren’t as they seem.
The “romance” between Truman and Sylvia (Natascha McElhone) is ridiculously contrived.
At one point, Christof announces that he’s going to show the first consummation on live TV, by which I assume he means sex, which implies that Truman is a virgin. On the one hand, I don’t find it particularly believable that a married man in his 20s has never had sex. On the other hand, if he was having sex, that would mean that tens of millions of people would be watching this man get raped repeatedly. Ugh. Since the movie is PG, I think it would have been better not bring up the sex topic at all.
Good Stuff:
I love how deliciously f-ed up it is. The idea that they would take this man from birth and lie to and manipulate him his whole life is incredibly disturbing (especially the stuff related to his father). I always thought this was a feel-good movie, so I was pleasantly surprised by how dark it is.
The acting is really good. I particularly enjoyed the performances of Carrey, Harris, and Emmerich.
I think it’s a nice exploration of human behavior. I don’t want to write an essay here, so I guess I’ll just say that there was a lot of complexity in the characterization of the “extras” in Truman’s life.
The Verdict:
Well, I think calling this “sci fi” is an extreme stretch, but it’s still very enjoyable. It addresses quite a few serious topics both directly (i.e. lying to and manipulating people for profit) and obliquely (i.e. how people often feel like they’re missing out on something in life). I really didn’t expect it to be so deep. I thought it would trend more on the “Jim Carrey over-the-top goofy” side. While there is some of that, there’s more of his “Eternal Sunshine” side. Solid cast and acting, with a satisfyingly open ending. All in all, an excellent film.
I give it 4.25 stars.
Friday, October 14, 2016
Sci Fi Top 100, #77: "Avatar" (2009)
Movie Stats:
Released 2009 (UK)
American & British, in English (lots of a made-up alien language, some of it translated, some of it not; IMDB claims there was Spanish but I don’t recall hearing any)
Director - James Cameron
Stars - Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver
Plot Summary:
After the sudden death of his brother, soldier Jake Sully (Worthington) is tapped to take his position on a scientific team that’s trying to make diplomatic contact with an alien race on the planet Pandora. The problem? An Earthling corporation wants to take over Pandora in order to mine a rare ore. Weaver co-stars as Dr. Grace Augustine, the leader of the scientific team, and Saldana as Neytiri, an alien woman with whom Jake connects.
Warnings:
Violence; minor gore; blue language; implied sexy times.
Bad Stuff:
I’ve heard quite a bit of criticism about it leaning too far on the “white man saves hapless indigenous peoples” side. I think that criticism is fair.
In a similar vein, I wonder if indigenous people ever grow weary of being portrayed as one dimensional mystics with pure hearts. I know I’m pretty sick of this characterization.
And on that note, I thought all of the characters in general were fairly one-note.
Good Stuff:
Cameron (who also wrote the screenplay) did an excellent job of world building. The Na’vi culture was surprisingly rich and layered. I especially liked all the stuff about how they connected to the planet/that the planet was basically one giant brain.
I really liked the idea of the avatar program. It felt fresh and original.
It’s very pretty to look at.
The Verdict:
I avoided this movie for 7 years because I thought I would hate it. I never found the story particularly compelling; it seemed like a story that’s already been told multiple times with varying success (i.e. “Dances with Wolves, “Fern Gully,” etc.). I’d never even read much critique of it, except for that mentioned above, so there were a lot of surprises in store. For example, I didn’t know that Jake was paraplegic (it’s nearly the first thing the movie shows so I don’t consider it a spoiler). For me, that added a layer to the story. I also didn’t know how the avatar program worked. It was a lot cooler than I expected. And I didn’t know there’d be so much world building, which I think is the best part of the movie. They could’ve taken out the “evil corporation trying to take over” plot line and I might have enjoyed it even more. As it was, I liked it a lot more than I thought I would.
I give it 4 stars.
Released 2009 (UK)
American & British, in English (lots of a made-up alien language, some of it translated, some of it not; IMDB claims there was Spanish but I don’t recall hearing any)
Director - James Cameron
Stars - Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver
Plot Summary:
After the sudden death of his brother, soldier Jake Sully (Worthington) is tapped to take his position on a scientific team that’s trying to make diplomatic contact with an alien race on the planet Pandora. The problem? An Earthling corporation wants to take over Pandora in order to mine a rare ore. Weaver co-stars as Dr. Grace Augustine, the leader of the scientific team, and Saldana as Neytiri, an alien woman with whom Jake connects.
Warnings:
Violence; minor gore; blue language; implied sexy times.
Bad Stuff:
I’ve heard quite a bit of criticism about it leaning too far on the “white man saves hapless indigenous peoples” side. I think that criticism is fair.
In a similar vein, I wonder if indigenous people ever grow weary of being portrayed as one dimensional mystics with pure hearts. I know I’m pretty sick of this characterization.
And on that note, I thought all of the characters in general were fairly one-note.
Good Stuff:
Cameron (who also wrote the screenplay) did an excellent job of world building. The Na’vi culture was surprisingly rich and layered. I especially liked all the stuff about how they connected to the planet/that the planet was basically one giant brain.
I really liked the idea of the avatar program. It felt fresh and original.
It’s very pretty to look at.
The Verdict:
I avoided this movie for 7 years because I thought I would hate it. I never found the story particularly compelling; it seemed like a story that’s already been told multiple times with varying success (i.e. “Dances with Wolves, “Fern Gully,” etc.). I’d never even read much critique of it, except for that mentioned above, so there were a lot of surprises in store. For example, I didn’t know that Jake was paraplegic (it’s nearly the first thing the movie shows so I don’t consider it a spoiler). For me, that added a layer to the story. I also didn’t know how the avatar program worked. It was a lot cooler than I expected. And I didn’t know there’d be so much world building, which I think is the best part of the movie. They could’ve taken out the “evil corporation trying to take over” plot line and I might have enjoyed it even more. As it was, I liked it a lot more than I thought I would.
I give it 4 stars.
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Up with Geography: China
Country Name:
China
Capital:
Beijing
Continent:
Asia
Maps:
Neighbors:
Mongolia, Russia, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, Bhutan, Nepal, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan
Water Borders:
Yellow Sea, East China Sea, South China Sea
Total Area:
3,705,407 square miles
Five Largest Cities:
Shanghai, Beijing, Tianjin, Guangzhou, Shenzhen
Famous Geographical Point:
Yellow River
Famous Person:
Ip Man, Wing Chun master (teacher of Bruce Lee and many others)
I chose him in honor of my husband, who loves the Ip Man movies.
Book Set In/About:
Love in a Fallen City by Eileen Chang
Set during the 1940s, a young divorcee, shunned by her family, potentially finds love again. Told through a series of short stories and novellas, the tale closely resembles Chang's own life.
Movie Set In/About:
"Huo zhe (To Live)" (1994), directed by Yimou Zhang
A wealthy couple lose their fortune and struggle to survive/raise a family through decades of massive cultural upheaval. It's a great portrayal of both pre- and post-Cultural Revolution China. I chose this film because I love it. You Ge, who plays the male lead, gives a performance that the mere memory of can tear at my heartstrings.
Headline of the Day:
"Why China Really Thinks It Owns the South China Sea" on news.com.au.
China
Capital:
Beijing
Continent:
Asia
Maps:
 |
| Asian continent. China outlined in dark ink & shaded. |
 |
| A close-up of China & its neighbors. I think my placement of the Yellow River is faulty. |
Neighbors:
Mongolia, Russia, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, Bhutan, Nepal, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan
Water Borders:
Yellow Sea, East China Sea, South China Sea
Total Area:
3,705,407 square miles
Five Largest Cities:
Shanghai, Beijing, Tianjin, Guangzhou, Shenzhen
Famous Geographical Point:
Yellow River
Famous Person:
Ip Man, Wing Chun master (teacher of Bruce Lee and many others)
I chose him in honor of my husband, who loves the Ip Man movies.
Book Set In/About:
Love in a Fallen City by Eileen Chang
Set during the 1940s, a young divorcee, shunned by her family, potentially finds love again. Told through a series of short stories and novellas, the tale closely resembles Chang's own life.
Movie Set In/About:
"Huo zhe (To Live)" (1994), directed by Yimou Zhang
A wealthy couple lose their fortune and struggle to survive/raise a family through decades of massive cultural upheaval. It's a great portrayal of both pre- and post-Cultural Revolution China. I chose this film because I love it. You Ge, who plays the male lead, gives a performance that the mere memory of can tear at my heartstrings.
Headline of the Day:
"Why China Really Thinks It Owns the South China Sea" on news.com.au.
Monday, October 10, 2016
Sci Fi Top 100, #78: "World on a Wire" (1973)
Movie Stats:
Released 1973 (West Germany)
West German, in German (watched with English subtitles; there is a tiny amount of English in it)
Director - Rainer Werner Fassbinder
Stars - Klaus Loewitsch, Mascha Rabben, Karl Heinz Vosgerau
Plot Summary:
After the mysterious death of his predecessor, Fred Stiller (Loewitsch) is promoted into his position, in charge of a computer simulation program. Soon, strange things begin to happen. Vosgerau co-stars as Herbert Siskins, the CEO of the computer company, and Rabben as Eva Vollmer, the daughter of Stiller’s predecessor.
Warnings:
Violence; minor gore; minor blue language; implied sexy times; female nudity (extensive breasts, some butt, very brief hoo-ha).
Bad Stuff:
It’s too long (3.5 hours).
It’s really weird.
As usual, I didn’t care for all of the experimental camera angles.
The writing was not good. It felt very juvenile to me, just the way that people behaved and the way they spoke to one another. Also, there were a lot of inconsistencies. For example, Stiller calls Eva and asks her to pick him up at six. Then he goes out with someone else. Is it a different day or is Eva sitting there at six, wondering where he is? Or, Stiller leaves his car at Eva’s while on the run from the police, goes and does a bunch of stuff over an indeterminate amount of time (including going to a cabaret idk why) and then goes to a parking garage and his car is there. What? How did it get there? And so on.
Good Stuff:
I’m starting to sound like a broken record, but I liked the idea of it. It was a mind-bend, the layers on top of layers. I wonder if it informed both “The Matrix” and “Inception.”
It has a great feeling of menace and unease throughout. You never quite feel comfortable.
I enjoyed Vosgerau’s performance. He played an excellently charming psychopath.
The Verdict:
I didn’t care for it. It’s desperately in need of better editing. There’s so much in it that doesn’t add to the film and therefore doesn’t need to be there. Also, the poor writing was disappointing. It kept drawing me out of the story as I noticed the inconsistencies and puzzled over them. Most of the acting was passable, with a standout or two. I think what’s key about it, what earns it a place on this list, is the basic story, which seems to have informed several popular stories to come.
I give it 2.5 stars.
Released 1973 (West Germany)
West German, in German (watched with English subtitles; there is a tiny amount of English in it)
Director - Rainer Werner Fassbinder
Stars - Klaus Loewitsch, Mascha Rabben, Karl Heinz Vosgerau
Plot Summary:
After the mysterious death of his predecessor, Fred Stiller (Loewitsch) is promoted into his position, in charge of a computer simulation program. Soon, strange things begin to happen. Vosgerau co-stars as Herbert Siskins, the CEO of the computer company, and Rabben as Eva Vollmer, the daughter of Stiller’s predecessor.
Warnings:
Violence; minor gore; minor blue language; implied sexy times; female nudity (extensive breasts, some butt, very brief hoo-ha).
Bad Stuff:
It’s too long (3.5 hours).
It’s really weird.
As usual, I didn’t care for all of the experimental camera angles.
The writing was not good. It felt very juvenile to me, just the way that people behaved and the way they spoke to one another. Also, there were a lot of inconsistencies. For example, Stiller calls Eva and asks her to pick him up at six. Then he goes out with someone else. Is it a different day or is Eva sitting there at six, wondering where he is? Or, Stiller leaves his car at Eva’s while on the run from the police, goes and does a bunch of stuff over an indeterminate amount of time (including going to a cabaret idk why) and then goes to a parking garage and his car is there. What? How did it get there? And so on.
Good Stuff:
I’m starting to sound like a broken record, but I liked the idea of it. It was a mind-bend, the layers on top of layers. I wonder if it informed both “The Matrix” and “Inception.”
It has a great feeling of menace and unease throughout. You never quite feel comfortable.
I enjoyed Vosgerau’s performance. He played an excellently charming psychopath.
The Verdict:
I didn’t care for it. It’s desperately in need of better editing. There’s so much in it that doesn’t add to the film and therefore doesn’t need to be there. Also, the poor writing was disappointing. It kept drawing me out of the story as I noticed the inconsistencies and puzzled over them. Most of the acting was passable, with a standout or two. I think what’s key about it, what earns it a place on this list, is the basic story, which seems to have informed several popular stories to come.
I give it 2.5 stars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)