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 It wasn’t bad, but I came away feeling like any of those actors could’ve been replaced by anyone else and it would’ve been just as good.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.

Sci Fi Top 100, #89: "Fantastic Voyage" (1966)

Movie Stats:
Released 1966 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Richard Fleischer
Stars - Stephen Boyd, Donald Pleasence, Arthur Kennedy, Raquel Welch, William Redfield

Plot Summary:
When a defector (they never say he’s a Soviet but it’s implied) is brain damaged in an attempt on his life - before he can reveal his secrets naturally - a crack team is assembled on a sub that is miniaturized and sent into the defector’s blood stream. Their mission? Repair the brain damage. Boyd stars as the team’s muscle, Grant; Pleasence as team leader/navigator Dr. Michaels; Kennedy as surgeon Dr. Duval; Welch as Duval’s assistant, Cora Peterson; and Redfield as the sub’s captain, Bill Owens.

Warnings:
Minor violence.

Bad Stuff:
Very slow start.

Boring.

[SPOILER-y]
I don’t like that the motivation of the traitor is never explored. The implication is that the person works for “the other side,” but why? How was that person recruited? Was he/she a traitor all along? It’s not discussed at all. Not even a, “Hey, what happened to that person?” when the rest of the crew returns without him/her.
[SPOILER]

Good Stuff:
It was clever. I particularly enjoyed the characters’ ability to problem solve, especially since, for the most part, people didn’t freak out. Problem arises, characters brainstorm how to overcome it. It was nice to see competency and resolve.

I liked how Grant was a reluctant hero. Here’s this very Bond-like character, and when he’s faced with the prospect of being miniaturized and injected into someone’s bloodstream, he’s like, “Can we not?” Amusing.

Pleasence’s performance is very compelling. There’s something about his mannerisms and voice that always gives me the creeps. Yet, I can’t look away.

The Verdict:
Mostly I think this movie is just really, really boring. There’s a whole half hour before they even get injected into the guy, but then once they’re in, it’s not exactly a thrill ride. I mean, stuff happens, but it all felt pretty tame to me. Although, they did avoid one of my biggest action movie pet peeves, the old “we have ten minutes to stop the bad thing from happening but it will take half an hour of the movie to show that.” They had 60 minutes to get in, fix the brain damage, and get out, and that portion of the film was approximately 60 minutes long. So I liked that. On the flip side, there was no resolution. [SPOILER-y] They accomplish their mission but does it do anything? Does the guy wake up and spill his secrets? We’ll never know. [SPOILER] Ultimately, I think this is another “meh” for me.

I give it 2.75 stars.

Music Love: "Something More Than Free" by Jason Isbell

I don't much care for country music, and what little of it I do like tends to be of the more old school variety (Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, Patsy Cline, etc.). However, a few years ago I used to listen to the podcast "Welcome to Nightvale," which features a song at the end of each episode. That was the first time I heard of Jason Isbell - specifically, his song "Cover Me Up."

I fell in love with that song & downloaded it. After that, I began to see him mentioned on several different forums that I read. Personally, I still only own two of his songs, but I like them both so much that I had a difficult time choosing which one to feature here. Ultimately, while I find "Cover Me Up" really beautiful & romantic, I decided it was too slow.

What I like most about Isbell is his voice. The word "smoky" comes to mind. I like how his music tends to be very simple, allowing his voice to shine. (While the above is a live concert, the studio version of the song is nearly as simplistic.)

Also, I really enjoy him thematically. I don't happen to be religious and yet this song has religious undertones. I don't mind it. I like the sentiment anyway:

And I don't think on why I'm here or where it hurts
I'm just lucky to have the work
Sunday morning I'm too tired to go to church
But I thank God for the work

It's a song about a man living his life, going to work, looking for meaning, and recognizing that he needs to be grateful for what he has, whatever that is. It has a hint of sadness, as most great country songs do, but it also rings true, and, in the end, it's hopeful. I think it's lovely.

Sci Fi Top 100, #90: "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension" (1984)

Movie Stats:
Released 1984 (USA)
American, in English
Director - W.D. Richter
Stars - Peter Weller, Lewis Smith, Jeff Goldblum, John Lithgow, and many others

Plot Summary:
After crossing over into the eighth dimension, surgeon/rock star/modern-day superhero Buckaroo Banzai (Weller) and his crew face an alien invasion. Smith co-stars as Buckaroo’s right-hand man, Perfect Tommy; Goldblum as fellow surgeon/crew member, New Jersey; and Lithgow as their antagonist, Doctor Emilio Lizardo.

Warnings:
Violence; very minor gore; minor blue language.

Bad Stuff:
It’s one of those movies that acts like there’s backstory that the viewer already knows, perhaps a previous film, or maybe a book or comic book series. So I spent the whole film feeling like I was missing out on something. I hate that. It made it very difficult to concentrate on what was going on; I kept wondering if I should hit pause and do a quick internet search to sate my curiosity. (Note: It’s a standalone story.)

It’s not exactly coherent.

It suffers terribly from 1980s soundtrack syndrome.

Good Stuff:
I like that it doesn’t take itself too seriously. It’s supposed to be weird and chaotic and light-hearted. It’s almost, but not quite, a satire.

I liked Buckaroo’s crew members, specifically Perfect Tommy, New Jersey, and Rawhide (Clancy Brown). Whenever something needed to be done, they got to business, cool as cucumbers.

It’s certainly not lacking inventive ideas.

The Verdict:
I really thought I was going to hate this one. Like, begrudgingly giving it any stars levels of hate. In the end, that’s not how I felt. While I wouldn’t say that I’m a fan, I admire its good qualities. It’s not selling a message or trying to break new ground. It’s just trying to entertain you. I don’t think I would recommend it to anyone - unless I knew the person liked super whacky comedies - but if someone told me they were going to watch it, I wouldn’t try to dissuade them, I’d probably say, “Let me know what you think.” So make of that what you will. Not a movie to loathe, but not one to love; what you feel about it would be entirely dependent upon your sense of humor.

I give it 2.75 stars.

Sci Fi Top 100, #91: "Attack the Block" (2011)

Movie Stats:
Released 2011 (USA)
British & French, in English
Director - Joe Cornish
Stars - John Boyega, Jodie Whittaker, and many others

Plot Summary:
An alien invasion lands near a council estate in South London, smack into the path of a group of teenaged hoodlums. Violence ensues. Boyega stars as Moses, the leader of the hoodlums, and Whittaker as Sam, the boys’ neighbor.

Warnings:
Unrelenting blue language; major violence; major gore; drug use.

Bad Stuff:
The long shots of the aliens, especially when they move, looked bad enough to make me cringe in embarrassment.

It doesn’t have much substance. It does try to shoehorn in a message about the boys seeing the error of their way, but it comes across feeling a bit after school special, and I didn’t find it particularly believable.

The scene where Brewis (Luke Treadway) postulates a theory on how/why the aliens ended up on earth had a very strong tone of “this makes sense to the character because it makes sense to the writer.” Like, I don’t think a real person in that situation would make those leaps in logic.

Good Stuff:
The boys aren’t “good,” the neighborhood that the aliens land in is rough, and the aliens aren’t mentally/technologically superior to humans. That gives the film a much different landscape than the vast majority of alien invasion stories. How the boys view the aliens and react to them is not the way most people in these sorts of films would react. It’s a nice change of pace.

I really liked the cinematography.

It’s got a lot of humor, particularly whenever trust-funder-trying-to-be-hardcore Brewis is on-screen. The conversation between him and pot dealer Ron (Nick Frost) about how difficult Brewis’s life is, during which Brewis is completely unaware of how ridiculous he sounds, had me rolling.

The Verdict:
I saw this when it came out in the theater. I remember being extremely excited to do so, having heard a lot of good things about it, and then coming away feeling slightly disappointed. I think I hyped myself up too much. I felt a lot more warm fuzzies about it this time, although I just saw that it gets boatloads of hate on IMDB (apparently IMDB reviewers aren’t hip to the idea of having unlikeable protagonists; they’re more friendly over on Rotten Tomatoes). Personally, I like that the heroes aren’t “good.” Life has nuance. Sometimes bad people do good things and good people do bad things. I thought the movie did well at humanizing the boys despite their flaws - I empathized with them. So to me, this is a fresh take on an old trope. It’s fun, mindless, funny, and, coming in just under an hour and a half, blessedly short.

I give it 3.75 stars.

Family Keepsakes Fun, Part 4

I've been through most of the boxes at this point, so I think this may be the last post in the series, unless I decide to post some of my (and my husband's) baby photos. All poetry, quotes, and pictures this time. Hope you enjoy!

This was on the front page of my grandma's 1932 scrapbook. I couldn't figure out if it came with this inscribed on it, or if she wrote it herself:

I thought this was a very odd collection of quotations. It was especially perplexing to see Gandhi and Al Capone quoted in the same article:

Most of the poems my grandma pasted in her scrapbooks are cringe-inducingly bad (lots of 1930s over-sentimentality), but I really liked this one:

I included this because I enjoy these men's old timey names, especially Streeter Stuart and Oral Clemens:

My whole life, until I opened up this box, I had no idea that my great aunt had a baby that died at 7 months. This was the great aunt I grew up with, the only one I ever really knew (she died in 2003). Ugh, I just found her obit online and she also lost an infant son. That's heartbreaking. (Note: she did have 3 children that lived.)

I gather that the baby was either born premature, or that she was somehow otherwise born underweight, because, as you can see below the obit, she was placed on an incubator 4 days after she was born. Poor thing never thrived. 

I'm going to assume that "Ruuth" is a typo and her name was actually Ruth. In my great grandmother's obituary, the same newspaper listed my grandma as "Lester" (her name was Esther), which made me feel awful for her. Obviously, I've edited out last names/street names in the below article to protect my privacy.

According to the hand writing on the back of this pic, these vaguely creepy little girls are my grandma (on the right) and her elder sister (not the same one as above, who was her younger sister).

I love, love, love this adorable photo of three friends who clearly adore one another, Swoosh, Pop & Boots. I believe Boots is my grandma. I wonder how all of them got their nicknames?

I also love this candid family shot. Other than my grandma, in the middle on the couch, and my uncle next to her, I don't recognize anyone, but everyone seems to be having such a great time. Also, it's like a time capsule of 1950s interior design.

Now for some super old timey pics! I'm guessing these are late 1800s/early 1900s. I don't know who any of them are.

I like how fantastically fresh-off-the-boat this guy looks. Also, his amazing unibrow.

This dapper gent is my favorite:

I included this because I liked the how the small, photo booth-like pictures were tucked into the frame. I wonder if they were all related or if whoever stuck the smaller photos in there did so arbitrarily?

Not so old timey. This is another great aunt, my grandpa's sister. I never met her because she lived in another state. Isn't she pretty? Also, I really like her blazer. Tucked in with this photo, I found a program to her college graduation in 1946. So that means I'm not the first female in my family to get a BA!

My mom, around eight months old. We had that swan rocking chair thingie around our house when I was a kid:

My mom at her high school graduation. I included this photo because I'm absolutely astounded by her hair. How did she get it to poof up so high? I have the same hair as her. My hair does NOT do that! Not that I want it to, but still, I'm fascinated. I wish she was still around to ask.

And here's little me! Unfortunately, it's horribly faded, in that way that only late 1970s/early 1980s film faded, so that it looks like we spent a decade surrounded by red air (Well, it was the Cold War!). I have a vague recollection that my mom was annoyed that I chuckled so hard. I think she thought it was a waste of a professional photo session.

Sci Fi Top 100, #92: "Solaris" (2002)

Movie Stats:
Released 2002 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Steven Soderbergh
Stars - George Clooney, Natacha McElhone, Viola Davis, Jeremy Davies

Plot Summary:
When a research station outside the distant planet of Solaris begins to experience strange goings-on, psychologist Chris Kelvin (Clooney) is asked to visit it. McElhone co-stars as Kelvin’s wife, Rheya; Davis as one of the station’s scientists, Dr. Gordon; and Davies as one of the other scientists, Snow.

Warnings:
Blue language; sexy times; male nudity (butt only); brief female nudity (breast and side butt); minor gore.

Bad Stuff:
It’s definitely not the most coherent or easy-to-follow film I’ve ever seen. I feel like a lot of sci fi writers/directors think that the only way for something to be mysterious is to wait forever to explain it (if they even explain it at all). At one point, two of the characters had a discussion that implied that they both understood what was going on and I turned to my husband, confused, and said, “Have they actually explained what’s going on?” and he said no.

Honestly, not much happens.

I don’t think I liked the ending.

Good Stuff:
The acting. I particularly enjoyed Clooney, Davis, and Davies. At the opening of the film, you can tell that Kelvin is grieving, even though you don’t know why, because Clooney emotes it with every fiber of his being. Davis is amazing at conveying a woman who is thoroughly freaked out, but determined to do something about it. And Davies, as always, makes a very good annoying-yet-lovable crazy person.

Not only have the special effects held up well, some of them are really impressive. For example, I love the way that they did Solaris.

I liked its exploration of memory, the (entirely accurate) idea that how we remember things and how they actually were are two different things. I don’t see that addressed much in film.

The Verdict:
I don’t think it’s a mind-blowing film, but I liked it a lot better than I expected to. The acting carries a lot of it. The ideas are interesting as well. IMO, it’s hampered by being a bit too artsy fartsy, and by trying too hard to be suspenseful. I was actually much more interested in the mystery itself - and the moral questions that it raised - than I was during the portion of the film when they were dancing around what the mystery was. I’m looking forward to seeing the earlier version of the film (also on the list) to see the differences between the two.

I give it 3.25 stars.