Science-Fiction films - 2016
| Passengers | Rogue One | Arrival |
| Star Trek Beyond | Independence Day: Resurgence | 10 Cloverfield Lane |
| Allegiant |
____________________
 |
Depending on what you’re expecting from this film, Passengers will either entertain you in a non-cerebral, popcorn-film sort of way or completely disappoint you. I fall in to the latter category and it seems as if most audiences agree.
The biggest selling point of this movie, at least initially, was the likeability of its co-stars. Chris Pratt (Guardians of the Galaxy, Jurassic World) has risen to A-list status in recent years and Jennifer Lawrence (the X-Men franchise, the Hunger Games series) has a devoted following and an increasingly legitimate resume (including an Oscar for best actress). Additionally, when it was reported that this movie contained love scenes so steamy that they caused JLaw to have panic attacks on set, I think the studio believed everyone would flock to see this film. Unfortunately, even the chemistry between (arguably) two of the most beautiful young people in Hollywood falls flat in this film. Perhaps the disturbing nature of the characters’ budding relationship is part of the reason their romance is so hard to stomach.
The nature of that relationship is what I found so disappointing about this movie. I’ve read feminist critiques of Passengers that malign Pratt’s character, rightfully so, for the actions he undertakes to propel their romance forward. And while all of those criticisms are completely legitimate, what I found so disappointing about it was not the character’s actions, but the timing and ways in which his actions are revealed to the audience.
[Warning: Spoilers Follow]
The big reveal of the movie is that Jim, Pratt’s character, is responsible for Lawrence’s Aurora being woken from hypersleep 90 years too early. He is lonely, becomes infatuated with Aurora’s beauty, and because he doesn’t want to live out the rest of his days alone, wakes Aurora from suspended animation in order to court her. In the original script, I’m told, this is revealed to the audience in the third act as the answer to a mystery that Aurora and the audience have been pondering throughout the film. In the final script, however, Jim’s culpability is revealed in Act 1, which completely removes the mystery element from the film and blunts the impact of the reveal (for us, at least) when Aurora finds out in Act 3. This change also means Jim is never a likeable protagonist and his relationship with Aurora is never something we’re rooting for. It’s an unfortunate choice made by the director and one that completely changes the tone of the movie.
All of that being said, there are a few things to like about Passengers. It’s beautifully shot, the CGI effects are cool and seamless, and the score by Thomas Newman is accommodating. Michael Sheen turns in a solid supporting performance and Jennifer Lawrence, for as bad as the script is, does her best with what she is given.
In summation, Passengers is a beautiful movie with an intriguing premise that is unfortunately spoiled by its script. I would love to see a recut version of this movie that keeps the reveal secret from the audience until the third act. Until the DVD comes out and someone recuts the film and posts it on YouTube, I’d recommend not wasting your time on this stinker.
- Michael Trainor
____________________
 |
Rogue One, in my opinion is the truest test, so far, of the viability of the Star Wars franchise post-George Lucas. For all of the conscious efforts made on the part of Disney to update, modernize, and inject much-needed change into the Star Wars universe, The Force Awakens still felt very safe. The same things that critics maligned as being “too like the original” may also have helped garner fan acceptance of the film (it was also incredibly fun!). But this isn’t a review of The Force Awakens.
The first thing fans will notice about Rogue One is how unlike the other Star Wars films it is. There’s no opening crawl, there’s no John Williams score, there are no camera wipes, and the cutesy factor has been drastically dialed down. That being said, the story, the characters and the familiar settings firmly plant Rogue One within the Star Wars universe while its tone, cinematography, and the weight of its stakes make Rogue One very unique.
What worked: An immediately likeable, diverse cast of characters continues the modernization efforts that were kicked off in The Force Awakens.
What didn’t work: While the technology is getting better, the CGI versions of Grand Moff Tarkin and [Redacted for Spoilers] are somewhat distracting. While the latter has a satisfying cameo that passes by too quickly to cause much ire, the former is a major character in the story and every scene with him is somewhat hard to watch.
What worked: The Force is treated more three-dimensionally as a religion that non-Jedis can be a part of. In earlier films, the Force has either been treated as a vague energy that connects all living things (the original trilogy) or as a pseudoscientific power that a select few can tap into with the right genetics (the prequels). In this movie, we get a more well-rounded, concrete view of the Force.
What didn’t work: Maybe time prevented the writers from fully fleshing out the character of Saw Gerrera, played by Forest Whitaker, but early reviews have not been kind to his inclusion in the story. Forest Whitaker, in my opinion, is often hit or miss when he chooses to play characters and in this instance, his portrayal of the extreme among the extreme is an unfortunate misstep.
What worked: It has been argued for decades (albeit, jokingly) that the existence of such a catastrophic defect in the Death Star’s design (the exhaust port) strains credulity. How could such a huge (and convenient) oversight, capable of dismantling years of work go unnoticed by so many? Rogue One seeks to address this question, doing so in a way that makes the Rogue One characters fundamentally integral to the Star Wars story.
What didn’t work: The first half of the movie suffers from some story and structural problems. Certain plot elements are either breezed by too quickly or lingered on for too long. It makes the movie’s first half feel very choppy and inconsistent.
What worked: By the second half of the movie, if you’re not entirely invested to the story, its weight, and its characters’ futures, then you’re a completely heartless human being. The back half of this movie is so satisfying that you completely forgive the movie’s shaky start. I’ve never been more emotionally moved by a Star Wars movie. It’s incredible.
I’m not sure how best to describe the amazingness of the movie’s second half without getting into massive spoilers, but suffice it to say that Rogue One delivers a strong addition to the Star Wars canon. It resurrects the word “prequel” from the ashes of Mustafar and redeems Darth Vader as a force (pun intended) to be reckoned with. It also expands the definition of what a Star Wars movie can be and sets the bar high for future films.
As a final note, I encourage all of you, upon completing your viewing of Rogue One, to go back and watch the opening crawl and boarding scene of the original movie Star Wars. Your minds will be blown.
- Michael Trainor
____________________
 |
When we discuss science-fiction on our site, we judge it by certain characteristics. Is the story, even though seeming far-fetched, within the realm of theoretical possibility? Is there an element of mystery, regarding what is happening or why? And finally, does it show us something about the human condition? This film satisfies all of these requirements and gives us something to think about.
Arrival, directed by Denis Villeneuve (Sicario), tells the story of humans attempting to communicate with alien life which has arrived in several locations around the Earth. Our main character, Dr. Louise Banks (Amy Adams), is the linguist enlisted to find a way to bridge the gap between the species and discover why they have come.
Villeneuve's skill at directing gritty, realistic films is useful here, since even though there are many fantastic elements in this film, it always looks like something authentic. Adams is excellent as the seeker of truth who leads us through the story and we are shown that she is haunted by heartbreaks from her life that find a place in the story. Jeremy Renner is also good as a scientist working with her who lends occasional levity and the perspective of someone who isn't a linguistics expert to help the audience follow along.
Arrival has received considerable critical acclaim, but this doesn't mean it's a blockbuster sci-fi film. Though the special effects of the alien ships and the aliens themselves are impressive, this is something of a small, thoughtful film. It's affecting. It reminded me of Cloud Atlas in this way. There is less of an overarching message or plot and more of a feeling one leaves with. In Arrival, the feeling one leaves with is the realization that the duration of our lives is a tapestry, complete from beginning to end, though we are only at one place in it from moment to moment. But we always own it all. Our past is a part of us and so is our future. Arrival is worth including in your viewing tapestry.
- JC
____________________
 |
Star Trek Beyond, the 13th Star Trek film, celebrates Trek’s 50th Anniversary by picking up where the original TV series left off. What do I mean? Read on.
Star Trek Beyond, directed by Justin Lin (Fast and Furious 3-6), is the third of the films released since J.J. Abrams made his somewhat controversial reboot of the series in an altered timeline. The first two films, Star Trek and even Star Trek Into Darkness, showed Kirk and his crew as new to the star-trekking adventure gig, but Beyond shows them nearly three years into their legendary five-year mission of exploration – coincidentally where Kirk and crew would have been when the original TV series ended its three year run.
In Beyond, the action occurs in the context of both Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) and First Officer Spock (Zachary Quinto) seriously pondering leaving the Enterprise to pursue other paths. While visiting a space station for rest and restocking, the Enterprise is called into a rescue mission which turns out to be more than they bargained for. Unfortunately, it’s nearly impossible to say much more without spoiling the plot.
Good points: Star Trek seems to be charmed with a knack for attracting and assembling excellent ensemble casts that work together well and it shows here. It was also nice seeing the characters acting as if they have an established history and seeing Chris Pine as a world-weary Kirk instead of as the brash, green version we’ve been given up until now. This film gives us our first good portrayal of the Spock-McCoy dynamic since the reboot and Quinto and Carl Urban, as McCoy, give entertaining performances.
Quibbles: As is often the case, the too-bad-to-be-true villain, Krall (Idris Elba), is somewhat ill-defined, though this is corrected somewhat later in the film. The backstory of his army and his weapons are mostly unexplained. Characterizations and action are important, but some of us like for our stories to make sense.
Star Trek Beyond has entertaining action and it’s always a pleasure to revisit these characters. Not every story has to keep mining content from the original films and I’m glad they chose original territory here. A fourth film seems likely. For my own part, some more thoughtful science-fiction elements would be nice and maybe a Klingon or a Romulan or three.
- JC
____________________
 |
Roland Emmerich, the Producer/Director/Writer who brought us numerous big-screen sci-fi oriented spectacles of the past – Stargate (1994), Independence Day (1996), Godzilla (1998), The Day After Tomorrow (2004) – returns with Independence Day: Resurgence.
The original – Independence Day – told the story of multiple people from both the government and the citizenry as they struggle to survive a massive, deadly invasion of malevolent aliens. Grossing over $800 million, it was the highest grossing film of the year, and even 20 years and several blockbusters later, it still ranks just out of the top 50 biggest moneymakers of all time. This film picks up that story 20 years later as the aliens return.
When I learned of this film’s release, my first thought was – Is it really too late for a sequel to Independence Day? First, there is the logical story problem – Would the aliens really wait 20 years to retaliate for the loss of their Earth invasion force? Did it take 20 years for them to invent antivirus or firewall software? Then there are the practical business questions: In the 20 years since Independence Day we have seen the entire Harry Potter film saga and the rise of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Will audiences still be captivated by these characters, their world, and these adversaries?
The plot is a bit of a mess. Lots of characters are introduced – some old, from the first film, and many new. We see an Earth where humans have been dealing with the aftermath of the 1996 devastation and embracing new technologies for 20 years. While day-to-day life in this world seems similar to our world, one also sees a lot more flying objects and fusion power seems commonplace. A united humanity has bases on Earth’s moon, Mars, and one of Saturn’s moons.
The aliens return in a ship the size of a continent and set it down on the Earth (which I’m pretty sure should have killed everyone on the planet all by itself). Our heroes from the first film, President Whitmore (Bill Pullman) and David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum), are joined by the now grown-up kids, Whitmore’s daughter Patricia (Maika Monroe) and Steven Hiller’s (Will Smith) step-son Dylan (Jessie Usher). Liam Hemsworth plays a charming rogue pilot and lots of additional characters (too many?) provide comic relief and romantic interests. If that appraisal sounds a bit cynical . . . I’m sorry. It couldn’t be helped.
So, yes. It was really too late to make this movie. Apparently Emmerich has been working towards a sequel since 2004. A ten year gap might have been OK, though Will Smith was rumored to be too expensive to get back then. (You would think they could have coaxed him into doing this film instead of Suicide Squad.) Resurgence does a fair amount of killing off characters from the first film. I suppose this was to cut expenses and account for actors who may have not been that interested in staying in the series. (What became of Constance?) But the implication is that the storytellers want to sweep away most of the old characters in favor of pretty new ones.
One of the appealing aspects of the original film was that it depicted how an alien attack might be handled by our world – not the Star Trek or Star Wars worlds - but our own. In Resurgence, this is something of a foreign world to us. Given the technological and political differences and adding in the two-dimensional characters, it actually reminded me a bit of Starship Troopers.
I had hoped to like this movie more. But it’s simply not nearly as good as the first. The ending obviously points towards another film, but I have to wonder if movie goers will really be clamoring for it.
- JC
____________________
 |
10 Cloverfield Lane is a bit of a puzzler for our site, because of our categories. Is it horror? Is it sci-fi (because of the Cloverfield name)? Strictly speaking, I would lean towards putting it under "suspense." But, as the name suggests, it's one of J.J. Abrams' Cloverfield films, so . . .
The story: Our heroine, Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), after a fight with her fiancé, decides to leave the city. Driving late at night, she is struck by another vehicle and blacks out. She awakens, chained to a wall in a cell. She learns she was brought there by a large, older man, Howard (John Goodman), who claimed he found her and brought her into his underground bunker to save her life after some kind of deadly attack by an unknown enemy. Howard claims the world outside is toxic and that everyone she knew is dead. While Michelle is skeptical, she learns from another refugee, Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), that he had witnessed the attack and had come to Howard for safety, so it appears that Howard is actually telling the truth. However, as time passes, Michelle and Emmett realize that life in Howard's little world is no picnic and soon they are wondering how bad the world outside can truly be.
Good points: John Goodman, as the oppressive and temperamental Howard, nearly steals the show. He is essentially a narcissistic child in the body of a buffalo. He is sometimes sympathetic, sometimes funny, but he has little regard for the feelings of others and can go from mild to wild bull menacing in seconds. It is as if Michelle and Emmett were "rescued" with imprisonment with an unstable, abusive parent. It's amazing to think that this is the same actor who has played so many gentle giants on TV and as Sulley in Pixar's Monsters films.
It was also nice that Mary Elizabeth Winstead had a chance to shine as a heroine who, in her backstory, had always had trouble fighting back, tending to run or freeze instead. Many fans of this site will recognize her from supporting roles in the 4th and 5th DieHard films, Death Proof, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, and various horror movies. She has always seemed like a likeable, talented actress just waiting for a good part. Hopefully this film will give her the boost she deserves.
Quibbles: There seems to be some disagreement between the producer, J.J. Abrams, and the director, Dan Trachtenburg, as to whether 10 Cloverfield Lane is at all related to Cloverfield, a found-footage monster movie from 2008. By putting the Cloverfield name on it (and tacking on some sci-fi elements at the end) it seems they are making it part of the Cloverfield franchise. However, Trachtenburg was quoted as saying the two stories didn't exist in the same fictional universe. My highly cynical suspicion is that Abrams saw a quality suspense film that would get more attention and make more money by appending it to the Cloverfield franchise. They just had to add a scene and a mailbox.
Winstead and Goodman's performances and Trachtenburg's skillful building of suspense make this film worth seeing. Just don’t waste too much energy on figuring out the ending. And if you're going to carry around scotch in your car, the cheap stuff might work just as well as the Glenlivet.
- JC
____________________
 |
People are tired of the Divergent series. That much is apparent from Allegiant’s ten percent “fresh” rating on Rotten Tomatoes and the abysmal box office numbers that the film is suffering from. However, after dragging myself to the theater for the first part of the series finale, I was pleasantly surprised to find that — contrary to popular expectations — my eyeballs didn’t bleed from the strain of watching and my brain did not fall out of my head. Instead, I found that the third installment in the Divergent tetralogy, while definitely mediocre and unnecessary, is actually a small step up from the last edition, Insurgent.
After the convoluted, dream sequence packed events of the first two installments, we finally get a change of scenery in the second half of the story, as Tris and company venture beyond the Chicago city walls, learning that the isolated city and its faction system are actually part of an elaborate experiment designed by The Bureau of Genetic Welfare in an effort to solve the problems of its own post-apocalyptic world. And with a name like “The Bureau of Genetic Welfare,” how could they have anything but the best intentions at heart? Conflict eventually ensues, along with more of the well-choreographed action sequences that are the prime highlight of the series.
Since this installment lacks its predecessor’s heavy reliance on virtual reality and hallucinations, there are fewer Matrix-like surreal effects. However, the film mostly makes up for this with completely unrealistic fight scenes that are actually reasonably enjoyable if you can suspend your disbelief long enough to accept Theo James’s Four singlehandedly overpowering and massacring units of five to twenty highly trained, heavily armed men with his bare hands (while simultaneously escaping plane crashes, explosions, and heavy gunfire) repeatedly throughout the film. Unfortunately, Shailene Woodley’s Tris and her other friends have far less to do in terms of action, with our central protagonist spending most of the movie wearing a pristine white sheath dress and discussing the Bureau’s clearly innocent plans with Jeff Daniels’ nefarious David.
Overall, you can expect more of the same low-substance, high style underwhelming material from Allegiant that we witnessed in the first two films. The plot is confusing and the characterization is shallow, but the action sequences look cool and poor Shailene Woodley and the supporting cast continue to give the script a better performance than it deserves. Fans of Theo James’s Four should also be pleased to see him heavily featured in this movie, kicking even more tush than usual and looking beautiful while doing it. Was it brilliant? No. Was it even good? Not really. But is it really worse than the previous installments? Nope. So, if you’ve been watching thus far and actually care to see what happens next, ignore the critics and just see the silly flick.
- Kathryn Carty