Science-Fiction films - 2014
| Snowpiercer | Under the Skin | The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 |
| Interstellar | Guardians of the Galaxy | Dawn of the Planet of the Apes |
| Edge Of Tomorrow | Transcendence | Divergent |
____________________
 |
Snowpiercer, is a South Korean science-fiction film based on a French graphic novel by Jacques Lob, Benjamin Legrand, and Jean-Marc Rochette. It was directed by Bong Joon-ho, who co-wrote the screenplay with Kelly Masterson. It features Chris Evans, Tilda Swinton, John Hurt, and Ed Harris.
In 2014, in an effort to reverse the effects of global warming, all of the countries on Earth participate in releasing a chemical into the atmosphere to cool things down. Unfortunately, this turns out to be a “killer cure” which works so well that the world is plunged into a lethally cold ice age. The only known survivors are the passengers of a train, the brainchild of a wealthy industrialist and train fanatic. His train runs on tracks that go nearly everywhere on the globe, making one complete trip per year. The train is self-sustaining, never needing to stop, and it was built to withstand the extremes of both desert heat and arctic cold. As civilization crumbled, it became the only refuge of the desperate remaining few.
But not all the passengers ride at the same level. Tickets had been sold. There were first class passengers, economy, and those who got on at the last possible moment but without tickets. And so, a class system was born: the elite few in the front of the train living in luxury, a middle class behind them living in relative comfort, and a larger impoverished class at the back. Since the poor only exist at the charity of the train’s builder, "Mr. Wilford," who lives at the engine, he does as he chooses with them including enslaving any that he deems useful.
Wilford: Everyone has their preordained position and everyone is in their place except you. Curtis: That’s what people in the best place say to people in the worst place.
The train and its inhabitants, are of course a metaphor for the world. Even after a catastrophe, we still see a society with “haves” and the “have-nots.” Sometimes it seems the world never ceases to have people who will try to convince you that you should be happy with less, while they have more. This is what revolutions are made of, as is the case here.
There is no shortage of action and suspense as our world-beater hero (Evans) battles his way from the back of the train to the front. But the story is mainly driven by the metaphor. Sure, a determined man may force his way to the top, but does he change the system at all or just assume a new role in it? Is the cycle of the accumulation of power, corruption, and revolution inevitable? Or can one choose to walk away?
Wilford: You’ve seen what people do without leadership. They devour one another.
Snowpiercer is worth seeing, if only to see Chris Evans (Captain America) in a somewhat different light, as a less-than-perfect hero. The social commentary is intriguing and the struggle between the characters is engaging.
Snowpiercer is currently showing on Netflix and also available at our store - VOD or Blu-ray
-JC
____________________
 |
Under the Skin is a British science-fiction film directed by Jonathan Glazer. It depicts an alien, disguised as a human female (Scarlett Johannson), preying on unsuspecting males in Scotland. The film has received widespread positive reviews and many critics have listed it among the best films of 2014. It has been nominated for and won several awards, mostly in recognition of the film itself, the director, the lead actress, and the score.
There is very little verbal exposition in this film. We observe aliens coming to Earth by vaguely defined lights in the sky. One of the aliens is clothed in the flesh of a human female, apparently one of a series, to lure human males to be digested in a pool of black goo. She is “handled” by another alien, clothed in the flesh of a human male. He travels around via a motorcycle and cleans up any loose ends the female leaves behind as she hunts. Later on, we see there are actually others like him. The aliens never converse out loud, so we are forced to deduce their intentions through observing their actions.
The first half of the film depicts the arrival of the female and her pursuit and capture of various men. Interestingly, some of Johannson's discourses with young Scottish men were actually unscripted and filmed with hidden cameras, giving the story an eerie tinge of credibility. But by the middle of the film, she begins to succumb to sensations coming from her human shell. As her detachment fades away, she begins to feel an appreciation for the beauty of the world around her and also begins to have feelings of sympathy towards the humans she is supposed to be hunting. Unfortunately, her new acquisition of feelings, combined with a lack of a full understanding of her own nature, lead to her undoing.
I found the aliens' behavior reminiscent of the behavior of insects or predatory plants or fish - one type of drone using an ability to mimic something its prey desires to lure it to its death and another “worker” drone enforcing compliance. Perhaps they didn't communicate verbally because they share a “hive mind,” which our female alien protagonist began to drift from. Individuality is perceived as a virus in a world of conformity. One simply can't know from watching exactly what's going on, but it's interesting to speculate about as the story unfolds.
For those who can appreciate science-fiction which makes one think and examines the human experience, this film will entrance and prove insightful. For those whose sci-fi tastes run more towards ray guns and monsters, this might not be for you. Please note: This film does contain adult themes and nudity.
Under the Skin - Amazon Video on Demand
-JC
____________________
 |
The latest installment in the Hunger Games series is a departure from its predecessors because it takes place entirely outside of the arena. Otherwise, however, the high stakes, moral dilemmas, and psychological warfare continue as a rebellion “catches fire” in Panem.
Jennifer Lawrence once again delivers a raw, believable performance as reluctant hero Katniss Everdeen, whose unwitting transformation into a symbol of the revolution reaches full fruition in the film. Forced to assume the central role in a conflict outside of her control, on behalf of a rebel faction whose character and intentions are sometimes uncomfortably ambiguous, Katniss walks a line between courageous defiance and utter traumatization. Also back in fine form is nemesis Coriolanus Snow, played to menacing perfection by Donald Sutherland. As the rebellion heats up, the two battle to dominate the mood in the Districts through a series of manipulative propaganda videos, alternately inspirational and fear-mongering. Other notable performances include Julianne Moore as the disconcertingly cool Alma Coin and Philip Seymour Hoffman as sly and savvy political strategist Plutarch Heavensbee. Fans of “Team Gale” will also be pleased to see a lot more of Liam Hemsworth as Katniss’s hunting partner and potential love interest.
As in the previous films, viewers are treated to some scenes absent from the book, as the camera is not limited to showing Katniss’s perspective. These include more depiction of rebellion in the Districts, along with exchanges between the larger political forces pulling the strings for Katniss and her friends: Presidents Snow, Coin, and advisors—specifically Heavensbee. While some fans have objected to similar previous departures from the books (such as the District 11 uprising in the first movie), this material provides additional action and, more importantly, insight into exactly what is happening in Panem and how the powers-that-be are struggling to maintain control.
As the final installment is divided into two parts, viewers looking for resolution will be sorely disappointed. If anything, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 ends on a more startling and suspenseful note than the second film. After a particularly strong showing from both Catching Fire and this latest movie, I look forward to seeing what director, Francis Lawrence, does with the final installment. Unfortunately, however, we will have to wait a year, as Mockingjay - Part 2 is not set to premiere until November 20 of next year.
-Kathryn Carty
____________________
 |
Earlier this year I noted that I admired Transcendence, another serious science fiction film, more for what it aspired to be than for its execution. Interstellar gives a similar impression. The Nolans, Christopher directing and assisting his brother Michael writing, specialize in psychological dramas, such as Insomnia and Memento. But when they try blending that too much with fantastical action and magic masquerading as science, as in The Prestige and Inception, they can stumble a bit. Interstellar is beautiful and the effects are very impressive, but it suffers from several plot points that I found completely unbelievable. It is one of those films where many people come out saying it made no sense to them and "knowing" friends saying, "oh, you just didn't understand it." Well, I understood it just fine. That is the trouble.
The plot, put simply, is that for vaguely alluded to reasons Earth is losing its ability to sustain life and the already dwindling population is faced with starvation and unbreathable air. But thanks to the unspeaking assistance of mysterious extra-dimensional beings (seriously), Earth's remaining version of NASA and its best remaining astronaut set out to find a new home for humanity on a handful of potential worlds in another galaxy. Matthew McConaughey portrays the astronaut-farmer who leaves his family - most notably his precocious 10-year-old daughter - behind to spearhead this mission to save our species.
I won't list all the leaps in logic of the film because it would gave away too much. But I will mention just a few to illustrate my point. First, if these mystical beings wanted to help us, why put the wormhole by Saturn, a two-year trip from the Earth? Would placing it near Jupiter or Mars be too obvious? Why are the best candidate worlds in such precarious proximity to a black hole? That seems insanely risky to me and causes plot complications later on. The story's resolution also relies on a time paradox that seems irreconcilable to me.
Hans Zimmer's score is good, of course, but it is practically omnipresent. There were several moments when characters were traversing barren landscapes or figuring out intricate puzzles when some silence would actually have been better employed.
In spite of my quibbles and a general wish that Nolan would stop trying to step into James Cameron's shoes, Interstellar is worth seeing. The visual and audio effects are spectacular, the action is riveting enough to keep you entertained for over 2 1/2 hours, and there is enough emotional content between the characters to make you care about them.
- JC
____________________
 |
I've heard it said there are no new ideas anymore. To an extent, Guardians of the Galaxy is an example of this. Take 1/4 cup Firefly, 1/4 cup Farscape, and add heaping tablespoons of Star Wars, Star Trek, Heavy Metal, and the Marvel space-spanning universe to taste. What you get is a really fun-to-watch space opera amalgam of a lot of the best sci-fi tropes.
In our story, Peter Quill, aka "Star Lord," (Chris Pratt) has become something of a space treasure-hunter after having been plucked from Earth by alien pirates when he was a boy. He is constantly listening to a mix-tape audio cassette his mother gave him with hits from the 70s and 80s - thus, much of the soundtrack of our film. (Daily play of this tape for 26 years would have destroyed it, but really - that is the thing you have to suspend your disbelief about?) Quill obtains possession of a powerful object (a standard Marvel MacGuffin) which brings him to the attention of the rest of our intriguing cast of characters - Rocket Racoon (voiced by Bradley Cooper), an intelligent, technically-proficient, wisecracking racoon; Groot (voiced by Vin Diesel), the man-like tree who is an odd combination of mercenary and gentle giant with a very limited vocabulary; Drax (Dave Bautista), the vengeful blue hack-and-smash muscleman who tends to take things literally; Gamorrah (Zoe Saldana), the beautiful, green assassin for Thanos, assigned to assist . . . ; Ronan (Lee Pace), a Kree villain who is seeking power by way of aligning himself with; Thanos (Josh Brolin), the bad guy from space who provided Loki with all the backing in The Avengers. Unlikely alliances are made. Mayhem ensues.
One must give a lot of credit to the director, James Gunn, the scriptwriters, Gunn and Nicole Perlman, and the principal actors. Guardians manages to give us a varied, interesting cast of unlikely heroes who all have just enough characteristics to make the audience care about them. They are pitted against adversaries they should have no chance against. Of course, that doesn't slow them down in the least.
There is a lot of action in this film. A LOT. But what makes it stand out is its humor. There were more laugh out loud moments in this film than in all the other movies I've seen all year. Most are due to the actions of the cgi actors - Rocket and Groot - but the humans don't do badly either. Chris Pratt does a good job of alternating between comic and heroic. And the sub-plot that weaves 70s and 80s top 40 into what could have been a very heavy space-opera score lightened the mood considerably and distinguished it from most sci-fi action flicks. In spite of the light mood, I was still aware that there is a fair amount of killing off of nameless or barely-named characters. It's probably no worse than one would see in any of the Star Wars films with their big battle scenes, but it does make it dark enough that I don't think you can quite say it's an out and out comedy.
All in all, Guardians allowed Marvel to round out their summer very well. As it stands at present (8/4/14), Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Amazing Spiderman 2, and X-Men: Days of Future Past, are all in the top five world-wide box-office leaders of 2014. Hopefully, Guardians will make its mark similarly well.
Oh. One more thing . . . Ooga-chaka ooga ooga, ooga-chaka ooga ooga . . . C'mon. You know you love it.
- JC
____________________
 |
If one asked what action was the impetus for the events of 2011's Rise of the Planet of the Apes, most would say it was giving a drug to an ape which increased his intelligence. More accurately, it seems, the drug gave the apes a more human thinking process and it is arguable that these two things are not necessarily one and the same. What good is intelligence if fear and prejudice consistently override our beliefs in peace and justice? Is intelligence only a survival advantage? just another way of achieving dominance over others? History suggests - all too often.
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes picks up 10 years after the events of Rise. The viral compound that gave the apes their human-like intelligence also turned out to be lethal to over 99% of the human population. As an ape culture begins to rise in the California woods, the remaining humans who are genetically immune to the "simian flu" band together to attempt to rebuild the world they lost. Each group is unaware of the other. The apes haven't seen a human in years and assume they somehow engineered their own demise. The humans are unaware of intelligent apes due to a coverup of the events surrounding their escape years past. When the two groups meet by chance, it triggers our story - What if a thriving community of intelligent apes was confronted with the survivors of a struggling human species? Do they allow them to rebuild their technology-reliant society or do they listen to their fears of a different culture that had subjugated them in the past?
This film had me thinking quite a bit as I watched. Director Matt Reeves (Cloverfield (2008), Let Me In (2010)) does a marvelous job of maintaining a sense of dramatic tension throughout the entire two-hour film. What will happen and how? Also, it's hard to know who to root for. With all the differing points of view represented in the film, one can sympathize with nearly all of them.
There is a common attitude among people that we owe no care or respect to creatures of other species. In our legal system, we can do pretty much whatever we want to animals, so long as we recognize the property rights other people may have in them, gaming season restrictions, and newer animal cruelty laws. There are also plenty of examples of what humans will do to other humans if there is no law or fear of reprisal to give them pause. So, let's turn the situation on its ear. What happens when these animals are as smart as we are and actually have the upper hand over us? Good luck at this point trying to defend your past "stewardship" of the Earth. Fantasy? It couldn't happen? Think about what genetic research is achieving every day and tell me it couldn't happen. All that we have done with our science has been to take that which exists in nature and recreate and manipulate it for our use. Why couldn't human intelligence be recreated in other animals? But be careful what you wish for. In Deep Blue Sea (1999), the scientists gave sharks larger brains so they could harvest more chemicals from them. As a side effect, the sharks became smarter. As one of the characters summarizes, ". . . what you've done is taken God's oldest killing machine and given it will and desire. What you've done is knocked us all the way to the bottom of the *&%# food chain."
But Dawn is less about the humans and more about the apes. I was surprised at how well this film has us accepting and sympathizing with non-human characters. It is a testament to the quality of the visual effects in this film that you forget that what you're watching isn't real. Andy Serkis' portrayl of the ape leader Caesar shines through the advanced performance capture technology as does that of the other ape characters. But really, though they have been made to look like apes, they make choices, interact, and feel things just as we do. So, seeing past appearances, the humans are us, but so are the apes. Should they choose to co-exist in peace, both sides win. If they choose fear and selfishness, one side loses and the other bears the guilt of their subjugation. Seems like a no-brainer right? Yeah.
This film is admirably made. The portrayls by both the human and non-human characters are believable and affecting. There is plenty of action, but it is emotionally-driven. Every fight has meaning. It's disappointing in a way, because as stories go, this is a tragedy. But it keeps one thinking about the problems and the mistakes made long after leaving the theater. Let's hope the tragedies of fiction can help us avoid making similar mistakes in life.
- JC
____________________
 |
The idea in most video games is that one plays a character who fights against numerous enemy forces in various environments. Their abilities escalate until you finally encounter the "big bad" and put him down. Doing this on the first try is virtually unheard of, especially with an inexperienced player. How does anyone ever win? Through the magic of infinite lives - infinite do-overs. Edge of Tomorrow brings this to life (or the movies anyway) with the dubious tool of time travel.
Tom Cruise plays Major William Cage, an Army officer who is more of a publicist than a soldier. He's also not that likeable of a guy. Risk and work, he feels, are for other people. Circumstances and his own poor choices hurl him into an intense combat situation against alien invaders where he is quickly killed, though he manages to take a large alien with him. This is where things become interesting. Every time Cage dies from then on he is thrown back to the morning before the battle. As he attempts to tell people around him, avoid danger, and so on, we are reminded of other noteable films - Groundhog Day, Next. When he saves the life of elite fighter Sergeant Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt) he is drafted into using his ability to fight back.
I just gave a mini-rant about time-travel used as a device in stories in my X-Men: Days of Future Past review. (1) It's more of a fantasy concept than a sci-fi one. (2) Writers use it too much to get by with things. Much of the sci-fi in Edge of Tomorrow is weak and not well thought through. It doesn't appear to be drawn from science as much as from other science-fiction. The aliens are fierce, animalistic, with multiple tentacles, glowing eyes and mouths. They attack in shrieking, leaping physical assaults. They fly ships, but don't use guns or other weapons. They are somewhat reminiscent of the alien bugs in Starship Troopers. They use time-looping as a weapon. But it's a natural ability, not through technology. OK . . . Fortunately, the pace of the film doesn't really allow one to ponder these things too much while watching. All this being said, there is still a lot to recommend this film.
Every story has a point to it. The point in this one is similar to the one in Groundhog Day. Take a selfish, valueless character and force him to live the same day over and over again until he gets it right. In both stories, an essential element is to start caring about someone besides yourself. It's a great message if the story is told well and this one actually is.
Many things stand out in this film. The action visuals are spectacular and very well done. Director Doug Liman (The Bourne Identity) does good work balancing story, plot, humour, and mayhem.
Many people don't like Tom Cruise, but I'm becoming a fan. He was very likeable as the hero in Oblivion and Jack Reacher. And after Minority Report, Oblivion, and this film, he has become the current go-to guy for science-fiction action films. I had the joking theory a few years ago that when he wasn't invited to be in The Expendables he did Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. Say what you want about his personal relationships and the Scientology thing (outside the scope of this site), the man always lends guts and intensity to his portrayls. I'm still waiting for the day he "phones in" a performance. I also like his more recent performances, since he seems to have abandoned a lot of the cocky kid persona for that of someone less self-absorbed and with a bit more depth.
Emily Blunt (The Adjustment Bureau, Looper) is very good in this. She has a talent for portraying strong, yet human. She somehow manages to be both convincing and appealing either sitting quietly or wacking a bad guy. Bill Paxton (Aliens, Twister) gives a nice turn as Cage's folksy, but no-nonsense army sergeant.
If you like an action story with fantastic elements and good characters - largely what this site is all about - you should enjoy this movie.
- JC
____________________
 |
The concept of artificial intelligence in films isn't a new one, nor is the notion of it being a threat. In Colossus: the Forbin Project, a scientist struggles against his own AI which seizes control of the world's nuclear arsenal. In the Terminator franchise, machines decide to wipe out humanity for the good of the world. In the Matrix films, intelligent machines subjugate humanity as a power source to keep themselves running. In all of these instances, a "higher intelligence" decides the world is better off under its guidance. Humanity's continued existence is either optional or outright undesirable.
In Transcendence, we are presented with another higher form of intelligence as the mind of a scientist is merged into an already powerful AI, and over the course of time begins to expand both the depth and breadth of its scope to the point it has spread itself globally and can achieve things that push the boundaries of what we could possibly do if we simply knew enough. Interesting ideas are presented. What defines sentience? What couldn't nano-technology do? If a person can be defined and replicated electronically, to what extent is it them? If we could extend our lives with technology, should we? even to the point of immortality? Is it OK for one to "improve" the world without asking for permission? What if someone else wanted to be transcendant and had a different vision for the world? The questions go on and on.
The plot concerns artificial intelligence and another old notion - power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is also an emotional story here, that of a husband and wife who don't want to let go of each other. In this story AI plays a role that magic might have played in some other tale. Suppose your mate was brought back by bringing a statue to life. Would it still be them? How could you know? Would you want to know? If you deluded yourself into buying into the illusion, how long would that last?
Transcendence touches on these issues but it suffers in the presentation. There are so many tantalizing intellectual issues and emotional threads but the director seems mostly concerned about how the special effects look. The film also suffers from something that may have hurt Oblivion. It may be unwise to cast big stars in cutting edge sci-fi. In Oblivion, it was hard to forget that the hero was Tom Cruise. In Transcendance, it's distracting that our digitized scientist is Johnny Depp. On the other hand, neither film would have received as much attention or box office without them. (Interesting coincidence that Morgan Freeman appeared in both films.)
This could have been a much better film. More could have been made of the AI's distancing itself from anything like human thought and his wife's slow and horrific realization that this is a perversion of what her husband had been. More could have been made of the global scope of the AI's expanding reach, what it could do, and the perceived consequences. Considering the impulse to stop it against wondering if it should be stopped. Potentially great scenes between husband/AI and wife/human were missed. Thought provoking discussions between scientists and governmental figures were wasted.
Reviewers weren't kind to this film. But I think the performances given by Rebecca Hall and Paul Bettany stand out admirably. Johnny Depp, on the other hand, underplayed his role a bit too much. I also appreciated the irony that the part of the techno-humanist was played by the voice of "Jarvis," the AI from the Avengers films (Bettany). Even if the presentation of the thought-provoking ideas got muddled with cgi and gunfire, it's nice to at least see them out there.
- JC
____________________
 |
At first glance, Divergent seems like a gimmicky attempt to capitalize on recent trends. Bestselling young adult novels have been adapted into quite a few blockbuster movies over the past several years. The precedent-setting Harry Potter series started it all, and the Twilight and Hunger Games films have continued the trend—complete with final installments split into two parts to satisfy fans and boost ticket sales. In keeping with the trends, Divergent is an adaptation of a highly popular YA series. Like The Hunger Games, the film takes place in a dystopia, and like both The Hunger Games and Twilight, it centers on a teenage female protagonist. Additionally, the premise seems to cherry pick ideas from other highly popular YA series: Essentially, the author invites us to imagine life in a dystopian future where a coming-of-age ceremony a la Harry Potter’s Sorting Hat divides young people into five personality-based “factions” that they will remain in for the rest of their lives.
At the outset of the movie, we witness our heroine, along with her brother and a number of other teens, going through this rite. First, they take a test, but ultimately, they decide to enter one of five houses factions, which include:
- Gryffind—Err, Dauntless – The suicidally brave and daring faction that our noble protagonist has always admired
- Ravencl—Ahem, Erudite – The wise and learned faction that has lately become critical of the ruling faction, known as…
- Abnegation – The modest, meek, and selfless faction into which our heroine is originally born, which has somehow established itself as the governing faction
- Candor – A faction full of unpleasantly honest and blunt people
- Amity – A cheerful farming faction that we see and hear practically nothing about over the course of the film
As seen in The Hunger Games, the unfortunate ritual upon which our story centers arose out of a previous civil war. However, in this case, the reason that an elaborate sorting ritual was necessary to resolve the problem and restabilize society is left frustratingly vague. Similarly, the reason that “divergent” individuals like our heroine are so threatening is never fully explained—in spite of several lengthy villainous rants attempting to do so. Ultimately, we’re simply left with an unsupported assertion that difference and choice make it difficult for society to run smoothly, an argument that would be much more effective if even vaguely accompanied by evidence that this was what led to society’s collapse in the first place.
With all that said, David Edelstein hit the nail on the head when he wrote that “If you can forget what it’s saying, Divergent is fairly entertaining.” It’s packed with adrenaline-pumping action scenes. Characters face perilous puzzles, terrifying traps, and a variety of physical challenges in both virtual and actual reality. The beginning of the movie follows the Dauntless faction through grueling and competitive physical training, involving hand-to-hand combat, knife throwing, leaping into dark caverns, and jumping on and off of moving trains for no reason whatsoever. (Seriously, there seems to be a prohibition on Dauntless people waiting for trains to stop.) Predictably, the second part of the film puts this training to use with a series of fights and futuristic high stakes shoot ’em up standoffs.
Shailene Woodley gives an admirable performance as heroine Tris, bringing much-needed emotion and complexity to a clichéd and somewhat confusing film. And, while seeming both implausibly handsome and far too old for her, Theo James does a nice job as her complex and mysterious love interest, Four. Supporting performances from Kate Winslet, Ashley Judd, and Tony Goldwyn are certainly acceptable (and perhaps nice additions for parents dragged to the movie), but each of them have done better work with better scripts.
While action-packed and passably entertaining, Divergent is by no means groundbreaking. For the most part, it retreads ideas that we have already seen in other films— and a bit sloppily at that. However, some decent performances and action scenes spare the movie from total failure. So, if you’re curious, it’s worth a peek or a rental, but with reasonable expectations.
- Kathryn Carty