Project Hail Mary (2026)

It's been already slightly more than a week since I've watched "Project Hail Mary", and my memory is not that helpful lately, so I said it might worth an entry while I still can write something. After all, finding something that's good in the SciFi classic niche is less likely these days than a"close encounter of the -bear- kind".

The movie is an adaptation of a novel by Andy Weir, which got on the list of Hugo awards nominations several years ago. The story is centered around a molecular biology professor, who wakes up somewhere in the deep dark space with a retrograde amnesia, as the sole survivor of a starship's crew. In brief, after some flashbacks, we find out that we're on a mission to save the Sun, which is in danger of being.. consumed, or more accurately said, our teacher should find out how can some culprit microorganism be stopped on doing that. Also in brief, the Earth is not the only planet with such issue, and our solitary astronaut makes first contact with some other solitary astronaut, from some other species, brought by the same reason in the deep dark space . Further than this, we're reaching spoilers ground, so let's leave the story for the movie teathre.

Visually the movie looks really good, but I can't say it's a masterpiece. The audio is ok. Ryan Gosling plays a part that seemed much more fitting than the one in "Blade Runner". But, by far, what keeps the bar high in the movie from beginning 'til the end is the script, with a solid support from the editing. I didn't read the book, but Drew Goddard ("The Cabin in the Woods", "World War Z", "Bad Times at the El Royale") managed to pull out a narrative that takes you smoothly from fun to action surrounded by a bit of drama. Taken separately, probably these would still be at an ok level, but the mixture resulted from the way these are put together, and especially the interleaving of the flashbacks with the current timeline, is the part that probably backs up most of the emotional build-up, and some particular resulting impact. That + the chemistry between the tow main characters, which is also an output of the script.

I must admit that I had limited expectations from this, the trailers pointing more towards a classic linear development and several scenes featuring the alien also add a slightly childish tone. Add to that the fact that "The Martian" (same author and same screenwriter) didn't leave me with the best opinion about it, considering that was directed by Ridley Scott. I still remember that the proportion of eye-rolling there was on par with the praise of being a very credible SciFi (on this my opinion is that "The Expanse" keeps the top position). However, here, this part, however it might be, doesn't feel the need to be analysed. Once more, it's the proof that a carefully executed script, with plenty of witty insertions to balance a subject that's dramatic after all, result in some effect for which I can't find the proper words right now. It was fresh :)

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

17 + Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) + blog break

"The unknown future rolls toward us. I face it, for the first time, with a sense of hope. Because if a machine, a Terminator, can learn the value of human life, maybe we can too." This is how "Terminator 2: Judgment Day", ended in 1991, 33 years ago. Now, after these 33 it looks to me that the world is more worried about hypothetical scenarios, either like being wiped out by the AI like in the movie, or getting back to the dark ages when the demographics of a place didn't matter in face of any invaders, or other apocalyptic outcomes. The essence of the last phrase above is sort of lost, given that in the objective reality some die stupidly in overfinanced armed conflicts while others die stupidly in underfinanced hospitals. But when I started this blog, 17 years ago, I didn't do it for politics...

When I started this blog 17 years ago I did it with a personal top 5, and "T2" was just out of it at that time, after watching "The Jacket". I don't have a top 5 anymore, and I'd like to rewatch "The Jacket" because I don't remember it very well. But, by chance, I recently got to see a TV screening of "T2" that somehow came at a moment when I needed it. So, I thought it's the proper time to fix the issue of including this on my blog. I doubt, however, that it does make much sense to discuss the subject of very well known movie, so I'll just stick to a couple of ideas.

I had the privilege to watch "Terminator 2" for the first time in a movie theater, I think in 1992, when in Romania the distribution of made in Hollywood movies just started expanding, with some delay after the official release dates. I was either 9 or 10 years old, and my father decided to take the family out to see a movie, despite the fact that he never was too much into SciFi. The motivation were the visuals, which it was said they're over anything that was released to cinema until then. Re-watching the movie many times, and many years after, I can only say that from this perspective, it sticks to a very select category, maybe together with the first two in the "Alien" series and a few others, where the effects don't show much of their age. The visuals are complemented by one of the two scores (the other being "The Serpent and the Rainbow") that impress through their expressivity considering the specific minimalism of Brad Fiedel, a synth oriented composer, who wasn't used much in the Hollywood mainstream, given that the specific sound lost its trend afer the '80s.

I was saying above that my father was never much into SciFi, but "T2" somehow got to him. And probably it did because the script of "T2" is not one of a deep SciFi, like the "Matrix", which builds up on the same ground idea, but a script that's anchored in a real life context, and besides the credibility factor this creates as well an empathic factor. It's also using the concept of time travel in probably the most direct way, by making an effective journey to the past in order to change the future. But "T2" is not out of nuances, some of which I only see now. For instance, for somebody who watched the first movie in the series in chronological order before "T2" (not my case), at a first watch of this one, excluding spoilers, for a good part of the movie, you couldn't know that Arnold isn't still the evil character and not the positive hero. And there are others too.

Probably what makes "T2" detach from other movies directed by James Cameron, generally lacking depth, is the the contrast it brings at the end on this. A terminator cannot self-terminate, but it can pragmatically decide when it would be the proper time to end its existence, even though it understands the tears of the child who attached to it. In some sense... you could interpret this as not being our right to decide when it's the time to leave, but we could though pragmatically evaluate when it would be most "appropriate" to have an exit from this world, and if that's really the the case, we might get it from -somewhere- ... The problem is that I don't really know who has the right to evalueate this, and maybe sometime it must be considered that a sequel is needed ( "T3" wasn't that bad :) ). Well... it's a way too look at it, a movie is a movie, life is life, and I'm not very objective these days...

It's the first time in the history of this blog when I'm going to close the entries for this year at a number of one digit only, so I'm going to make a wish of "Happy Hollidays!" in advance. I've had blog breaks before, but now I think it's the moment to say stop for longer time. Still, as pragmatic I could see an exit at an anniversary moment, a sequel might be needed someday. So, depending on how -somewhere- it will be decided or on how I will decide, "I'll be back"

Rating: 5 out of 5 ( I said I must fix leaving this out in 2007 ;) )

Dune: Part Two (2024)

Better late than never.. I know that it's probably not of much use an entry about "Dune: Part Two", now, at almost five months after its release, but this year I didn't have much time for movies, and even less to get to see one in cinema. So, finally reaching a couple of less busy days since a while ago, I'm trying to catch up on what I messed. And I'm trying to be selective.

I think there's not much to be said about the subject. Probably for who doesn't know already what's this about, the best recommendation would be to watch "Dune: Part One", or to go for a cliche line like: before "Game of Thrones"/"Star Wars"/"any other epic SciFi involving an empire and a twisted fight for power between rival factions" there was "Dune". At least since 1965, when the first volume written by Frank Herbert was released. Its latest adaptation is completed in the 2nd part, directed and partly written by Denis Villeneuve. The movie resumes the action from the exile of Paul Atreides joined by his mother in the desert along the indigenous fremens population, hunted by the raids of house Harkonnen, the established ruler of planet Arrakis.

I don't remember what I wrote exactly about the first part, but I think what impressed me most were the visuals and less the rest. The impact of the visuals holds here too. I have a major regret that I didn't manate to see this on big screen. As a complete mix of cinematography + art direction + video editing, it's probably the best SciFi I've seen since "Sunshine" (with a mention for "Inception" in this interval). And I didn't forget about "Avatar" or others, but for any visual appreciation there's a dose of subjectivity. In any case, here the camera work goes more deeply as meaning, as in the references before - it's enough to have a look at the contrast between the visual tone warmth of the desert scenes compared to the monochrome coldness of the fight in the arena under the sight of barron Harkonnen.

I stick to my opinion that both Paul Atreides as well as Chani didn't get benefit of the best character casting, and the previous "Dune" versions nailed this better. The rest of the cast compensates this, and I believe it delivers for all the new introduced characters this time. The part that surprised me most in a positive way though, is that the whole tone of the adaptation deviates less from the line I knew from the original "Dune". There are still elements that seem to be changed for no particular purpose, like the execution of baron Harkonnen, which made me to Google search to confirm which is the written version. But it's not something that changes that much a general feeling, like it was somehow expected after the first part. Maybe Denis Villeneuve heard some criticism about it and changed the course towards a more conservative approach concerning the original material. But besides that there's also a perfect way to handle the "mise en scene" of the written stuff. I think it's extremely difficult to find an optimal way to handle the complexity of "Dune" that doesn't seem too stretched or too brief. Here, in thi "Part Two", I think we can see the optimal way.

Maybe I'm either too old or nostalgic, but for me the most impactful overall adaptation of the "Dune" universe remains the "Children of Dune" mini-series, with all its liberties taken from the written part. From what I remember, there they tried compacting more than what's in the volumes corresponding to the title. The series is, however, the sequel for what we have in this movie, and the story has its role in the impact. So, it remains to be seen how "Dune: Messiah" will turn out, which seems to follow. For now, leaving aside the technical part that cannot be compared, what I can say is that among the adaptations of the original novel, Villeneuve managed with "Dune: Part Two" to provide the best, overcoming clearly the previous two versions. And what we have here it's probably going to stick as a reference SciFi for many years to come.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

The Creator (2023)

Since I lowered my frequency of blog entries, I'm trying for the few I'm posting to close these with a rating above average. This means finding a movie that deserves recommending. And this is the reason why I was very close this time to turn back again to a South-Korean title from the 2000's, but finally the "payback" urge for two hours lost with "The Creator" won. So...

What we have here is a SciFi set in a future where the Western world banned AI, apparently guilty for a nuclear blast that swiped Los Angeles. The Eastern World doesn't really agree with the general opinion that AI is bad, the result being some sort of war targeting an android population made in Asia, persecuted by the US army through incursions within the enemy territory. In all this context we have a romance between an US sergeant and the daughter of the main mysterious AI architect. Long story short (and it is short, because there's not much else), she dies in an attack, he gets back home, and after some years he's sent back to get "the weapon" - some device developed by the AI camp, which would be capable to disable the entire armed power of the West. As we find out from the trailers, the weapon is a child, and from here onwards we have a couple of predictable mini-twists, which I'll leave aside to keep something left for watching.

The humanity vs AI conflict is a SciFi theme since the notion of AI emerged, meaning decades. In cinema this theme catched traction mostly by positioning AI on the negative side: Terminator, Matrix, etc which is probably the simpler perspective = it's more natural for the average person watching a movie to empathize with the man than with the machine. "The Creator" wants the opposite, and probably attempts to build up on the ongoing trend where we have AI everywhere. I'm not saying that good AI vs bad people is something to be excluded, having elements of this kind in SciFis like "Blade Runner" or "I, Robot", or more precisely in the classic writings which these are based on, by P.K. Dick and Asimov, respectively. But there the story is much, much more nuanced than what we get here. What we receive in this movie is just some pale recycling of bits like the robotic laws where the android is not capable to commit murder, but that's something quite selective which we find out in the end. What we really do get in the movie is the Hollywood standard from the last years thrown over this shallow base of SciFi, transforming everything in a very politically correct class fight, where the AI become an actual social category ostracized by others and demanding its rights. Everything is one-side and black and white. It's probably enough for a public used to not bother anymore with thinking about the grey nuances in a story, preferring to get some shooting and explosions VFX instead. But well... maybe you can't expect from Gareth Edwards (director + screenwriter), who started from VFX in his career, to be an Asimov.

Probably someone could argue against the above, saying that we have the main character who's the good human, capable to understand that AI is not evil. Well, the problem is, if I would compare John David Washington with Arnold Schwarzenegger from the 30 years old Terminator 2, I don't think there's any doubt who of the two characters brings more balance. The acting doesn't help at all, and I really don't want to comment on what could be the reason behind the casting, but after all the script is still the root of all evil. The rigidity of T-800 that changes slowly over the course of Terminator 2 gives a much more human and credible side to the killing machine there, than the hysterical sergeant who moves here suddenly from extremes of threatening with a "shut down" to others with scenes drowned in tears. Add to this a terrible dosage of comic relief that's limited to the start of the movie followed by a continuous, totally opposed, tragedy feeling towards the end. The clip I added besides the trailer is relevant, despite the praising regarding the director's capacity of empathic infusion (didn't catch for me, sorry). All this is garnished with an editing including some flashbacks that are breaking the developing action thread and could've very well be placed in the normal chronological order. The only part that saves a bit what we get here are the visuals and the production desing, which indeed give a feeling alternating between a dystopic setting a la "Blade Runner" and bits of "Star Wars". Moreover, this looks like somehow trying to tell you, despite everything else, that if you had a different script and directing, the movie could've been actually good. But it's not.

Rating: 2 out of 5

Don't Worry Darling (2022)

I ignored for a while "Don't Worry Darling", simply for the reason it was bashed by critics + neither the scores on IMDb, RT, etc. didn't help it. I was wrong. Not that I wouldn't know that lately it's better to be skeptical about the aforementioned ratings.

The movie is set sometime close to the '50s, taking place in an isolated community - "Project Victory", somewhere in an oasis at the edge of the desert, where the life seems stuck to the typical American stereotype of the period = each couple has a home with a backyard and each housewife tends to the house chores for the entire day waiting for the beloved husband to return from work. The "work" seems to be a top secret engineering project coordinated by Frank, the community leader, which is developed at a couple miles away from the settlement, in a place more restricted than Area 51. The plot is centered on a couple formed by Alice and Jack, their idilic life starting to shake after she begins observing that some things are not as fine and well as they seemed to be. Beginning with another wife who miraculously survives an inexplicable suicide attempt to a plane dissapeared without a trace after an apparent crash that passes by ignored by everybody. The mystery advances with the rhythm of a psychological thriller, in which Alice slowly becomes the pariah of the community due to the unnecessary tension she creates around. Somewhere at around three quarters of the movie we get our answer for the whole thing. What I can say without spoiling anything is that I didn't expect "the twist" I got this time. My mind went more towards something like military experiments at the beginning of the Cold War. It's not that. Still, unfortunately, the answer the movie offers come either too early or too late - therefore, probably some reason for the harsh reviews it got.

Even if there are some parts that might disappoint a bit, these definitely aren't on the technical side where the movie is top notch - from camera work and production design that provide an excellent support for atmosphere of the middle 20th century to the soundtrack that mixed together with the rest gets you the vibe of an erie episode from "The Outer Limits". The actors are a bit overshadowed by Florence Pugh's performance in the title role, but still, you could say her role is already enough for what the movie needs. The ending is indeed unpolished. However, concerning the criticism on having nothing new in the main twist, I'd be curious to see which movie that turns towards SciFi really brings something new, especially counting probably less than 5 I've seen released for the big screen this year within the genre. And actually, I could say there is some originality even just for the psychedelic contrast placed on top of the retro look. To conclude, I don't know what did or who upset Olivia Wilde, also directing this besides having a side role, to get such an avalanche of bad reviews. For what I can say the movie's not a masterpiece, but definitely above average.

With that I'm also closing more-or-less metaphorically the year of 2022 in a note of "don't worry" :) = I can hope for a more "retro" careless time with a density of entries more close to the blog's origins. Obviously, I'm delusional.. Anyway, Happy Holidays! ;)

Rating: 4 out of 5

Lightyear (2022)

When I first watched the trailer of "Lightyear" I've asked myself how entangled can the subject be to get from "Toy Story" to a space oddisey. I've got my answer in the first 5 seconds of the film: “In 1995 Andy got a toy. That toy was based on a movie. This is that movie.” I must say I admire this as the simplest, elegant and most open way to create a spin-off that I've ever seen on screen. Unfortunately it's pretty much the only thing I can admire here.

I've never been to drawn into the "Toy Story" universe, and probably that's why the last iteration left me with the best opinion, contrary to the general appreciation. I guess that's also the reason why I had high expectations from something announcing itself quite different from the usual "Toy Story" contexts. In "Lightyear", Buzz - the guy on the poster - is an astronaut on a ship carrying several thousand people, apparently during an exploration mission meant to find a habitable planet. When stopping on a potential candidate that finally proves unfriendly due to the indigenous fauna, Buzz damages the ship so badly that discovering a new fuel is required for flying back to "infinity and beyond". Feeling guilty for the situation, our astronaut dedicates his time for testing diverse variations of space fuel. However, each flight of several minutes costs him several years on the planet time. And the life on the planet moves on, finally getting to a fully organized colony, where people moving to the next generation start forgetting that they want to leave. Exactly when, finally, the last tried formul for the space-propelling cocktail seems to be the right one. The problem gets more acute when Buzz, after the first successful test, lands back in the middle of an alien invasion led by the evil Zurg, who somehow seems strangely interested exactly in the newly found space fuel. Well, up to this point the movie was fine. From here onward, it's somehow predictable what happens = Mortal Kombat: Buzz vs Zurg - where finally - big spoiler, we find out that Zurg is actually an older Buzz who discovered also the time travel and wants to "fix the past", but ran out of gas. Even that is relatively fine in the economy of the story, nevermind my debatable and ethically questionable decision to support Zurg's side in this case. And on top of everything the whole SciFi universe created by Pixar, despite the logical flaws, is actually really immersive due to the amount of details. So, what's wrong with this picture?

Warning: my thoughts might get a bit off the rail from here on. The wrong part I've seen in this movie is the "dream team" that sticks to Buzz for helping him to get the planet free from Zurg. The team is formed of three characters who Buzz finds quickly after his last landing, apparently the only who escaped capture by the enemy, and also enrolled as cadets in the space rangers training programme. In brief, the three seem to be in a continuous competition on who's messing things up more often and showing how unprepared they are for their "job". And all this stuff is supposed to be funny. Well, it's not. Also, all this stuff should appear as having a minimum importance in reaching the obvious happy end - keeping the politically correct spirit of "anybody can be a space ranger" no matter of how persistent you are in doing the same mistakes. I might agree witht the first part, but only if you're striving to succeed. Here, at least for one of the characters, it's obvious that placing him under quarantine would considerably increase the probability that the rest of the team survives. But of course that won't be an acceptable course of action - the movie getting quite explicit in a scene where it teaches us that's intolerable to not tolerate the mistake. So... no matter how light the context is in an animation, and as weird as it may be that I'm giving so much importance, I find disturbing to see in a movie that finally targets mostly children that the idea of tolerable mistake is always valid and that "rocket science" could be your path in life, no restrictions set, even though you might be alergic to space dust - but well, let's not discriminate. Even the subliminal supports the same direction by changing the purpose of Lightyear's actions, finally giving up on the goal of fixing his initial mistake and preventing also Zurg to fix it, ending up accepting the planet as it is. I can understand the educational reasoning of introducing even in animations elements of equality and tolerance - concerning gender, race, human behavior, whatever. But it finally depends on where all this stops. Leading such "accept anything" policies so far that you get to prioritize an idea of equity over other aspects as competences, and presenting the triumph of mediocrity as a success... well, that's dangerous. And maybe I wouldn't have written so much about this, but I can spot this tendency too often lately... and sometime during a sunny day, it might bite back, and hard.

Rating: 3 out of 5 - because if you can ignore the last paragraph above, it's actually nice as a SciFi animation

Reminiscence (2021)

I've had enough "red flags" for "Reminiscence" to skip it, but I didn't do it. 46 on Metascore, 37 on RT and a puny 6.0 on IMDb didn't convince me. I thought that it couldn't be that bad with such a promising trailer. A SciFi packed with time travel, as it looked like, it already scored some winning points from start. But, finally yes, it is that bad...

First, we don't have any time travel. In a future that seems a prequel for "Waterworld" (we can add an extra red flag) = in a semi-flooded Miami sem, an advanced tech (pretty much the only advanced tech actually) allows re-living memories while some stasis is induced to the body. Nick Bannister (Hugh Jackman) is a private contractor that offers this kind of service, offering his experience accumulated during the latest war, when the memory machine was used for interogations. One day, Mae - "la femme fatale" - enters his shop as a client needing to figure out where she lost her keys, and from that point we also enter into a deeply entangled neo-noir romance, with even more deep plot holes. It's a waste of time to write more about it...

The most frustrating part is that the story in "Reminiscence" has potential. But it's ruined by the directing and the writing. It might look like something between "Inception" and "Blade Runner" but it doesn't get close to any of these two. Probably a more appropriate comparison would be with "Strange Days", an older, less known movie, but much much better than what we have here. The actors are struggling, but you can't do much with cliche lines or ridiculous parts of talking with yourself to tell the viewer what can be seen already on the screen. Besides this, the whole plot is bound weirdly as a whole - my feeling was of some series episodes that are shortened and just edited together to rush out a two hour movie without much polishing. Add to that also a sound mixing that normally doesn't stand out, or if it does it's in a positive way. Rarely it happened to watch a movie that catched my ear for how bad the tracks are mixed together, even if it happened in one or two scenes. The only part that's ok-ish are the visuals... and the trailer. Too bad for what it promised.

Rating: 1.75 out of 5 (with a reminiscence of 0.25 for what could've been)

The Orville

I've had "The Orville" on my "to watch" list for quite a while. There aren't many new SciFi series and it didn't have many episodes released, so I finally found some time for it. The verdict after is similar to most of the other opinions I found online - it's probably what you'd expect to see in a "Star Trek" series (well, at least if your "first contact" with ST was with TNG, DS9, Voyager, or even with Enterprise or the original series, and not with the more recent ones). I don't think that limits though the potential audience. And that's because "The Orville" has something of its own: the humor.

It stands clear from the first episode that "The Orville" starts as a parody of the classic recipe for a SciFi series, where we have an exploratory ship going bold into space "where no one has gone before". It's probably something to expect given that it's a series created + partially also written by Seth MacFarlane, in whose CV you won't find much stuff beyond the comic genre. Moreover, here he's also taking the part of captain Ed Mercer, leading a crew who seems more fit for a sequel of "Galaxy Quest" (another parody following the same pattern, for who still remembers it). It takes a while to get the interesting part, which gets more obvious as you advance in season 2 = the themes of the episodes start becoming more seriouse, even philosophical sometimes. If my first impression was of some easy comedy set in outer space, I definitely can't say that anymore after two seasons.

Indeed "The Orville" has its own specific humor, which you have to like. Otherwise, it might seem that it disregards some subjects. Actually, it's probably the perfect way to avoid getting into the area where life is seen either in white, or in black, sometimes derailing into some wannabe lessons of right and wrong. Unfortunately that seems to be a common trend lately, and "The Orville" has its own share of episodes trying to teach you some morals, but stil it doesn't dismiss the grey area. Even if sometimes it's present only as a discreet nuance, it's there, and the humor somehow helps keeping it.

Not long ago I wrote about the first season of "Star Trek: Picard" and I was saying it's much better than "Discovery" (at least compared to the first five episodes, because I couldn't handle more). Still, not even "Picard", for its first season at least, wasn't a Star Trek in it's "classic" sense, where the majority of the episodes were focused on a separate subject, even if we had elements of a global story arc. From that perspective "The Orville" is much closer to what Star Trek once was, possibly also due to including in the production team some ST veterans (Brannon Braga - one of the main writers from TNG to Enterprise, Jonathan Frakes - Riker from TNG, directing here some episodes, and others).

To conclude, I don't think I've seen a SciFi series structured like that since "Stargate: Atlantis" incoace, and even though in general I prefer a series that follows a more complex and continuous narrative line, which is obviously more engaging than stand-alone episodes, I still felt the need for something more "light". And what I can say until now is that "The Orville" seems to fill perfectly the place of that.

A Quiet Place Part II (2020)

The first thing to say after watching "A Quiet Place Part II" is that you need the first "A Quiet Place" to understand everything. You're offered some sort of a prequel intro, which is probably the minimum required to get the context: a totaly unfriendly alien invasion of some creatures relying exclusively on their hearing to decimate the human race. However, I don't think this minimum helps much somebody who would prefer skipping the first movie. I obviously didn't have time to re-watch it, but fortunately I still remembered enough of it to make sense of some references. And also to say that I think I like the sequel better.

The movie is quite short, especially if we're also cutting the intro I was mentioning. Basically, it follows where we were left with the four surviving Abbott's - a mother with three children (including a newborn), and presents us their path after abandoning the former shelter. We first get a scene where we're reminded the essential of the last movie = the hearing device of the older daughter is the ultimate weapon (and pretty much the only one) against the monsters, after which we're stopping at an abandoned factory where we meet Emmett, apparently a former neighbour from before the apocalypse. Then, the group splits. The girl runs away towards an island where she thinks there might be survivors being followed by Emmett sent to get her back, while the rest tries to resist somewhere in a basement providing some level of acoustic insulation. I think it's best to stop here with the details, otherwise there won't be much left to discover from the story.

The narrative is as it seems - very simple. What's to appreciate in the movie is how this narrative is "dressed". In brief, the production level is very good, both at technical level, and as well as the directing and the acting. I'll just detail more on the editing. We have two brief parts where the tension is on a growing path, one sometime at two thirds of the movie, and one at the ending. I won't spoil more besides that in both we have a critical development in each of the two locations - on the path to the island, respectively at the abandoned factory. For me it seems very hard to make a paralel cut such that you'll get a simultaneous development towards the climax - in each of the two places, without one of the sequences to "lose" in front of the other. I think I've seen attempts like that, which didn't end well - that's why I don't remember one in particular. Well, here it works - twice, with the "advantage" let's say that the second time, the climactic point is a common one ending the movie, but that makes it even better. Besides this, to finally give some light spoiler :), I can say that the ending leaves again plenty of room for a "Part III", but now we don't have so much to remember, so you don't need to wait for it ;)

Rating: 4 out of 5

Boss Level (2021)

It's been a while since a I posted at such short intervals, but that will compensate a longer pause following this entry. Besides, for some time the interval between watching the movie and writing about it got longer and longer, and I start forgetting what I want to say. "Boss Level" was also too "motivating" too lose it among the messed up neurons and lack of lecithin.

Roy is a guy in his 40s, an ex member of the special forces, with an ex wife working in a super-secret lab for another ex military. A dude who fits very well the arch-villain pattern with a wish for world domination. In all this context we have a phenomenon going on that resembles Groundhog Day = each morning Roy wakes up at the same time, in the same place, and spends his day with an army of assassins chasing him and trying to shorten his suffering of non-stop repeating the same activity. Obviously this happens just for Roy, who struggles to advance in his last 24 hours as much as to be able to understand how the visit he paid his ex wife a day before fits in all this story. And I won't say more about it. The trailer reveals already enough, and I was inspired not to watch it before the movie.

From start I probably had a positive subjective approach on this, knowing from the two lines describing it on IMDb (very underrated there by the way) that's a time travel movie, subgenre on which I have an obvious thing for. In a different context I might've been bothered by the lack of rigor, and I would've looked for loopholes. It's however obvious from the first scene that the movie doesn't take itself too seriously, and you shouldn't to it either. It's built as the title suggests, like it's video game adaptation, although it's not. It's very very fresh though, and the script construction is just simplistic in appearance. Indeed, it won't tell you much about the time technology behind the Osiris spindle that creates the phenomenon and which looks as a new Stargate. But it will take enough time to build a solid puzzle that Roy has to solve in order to reach the "boss level". And the twist there, which you might not feel as a twist, so I'll endulge myself a spoiler, is that the "boss level" it's actually a different one. "The secret level" :-) - for which Roy needs even more repeats to figure it out. Moment where the movie does what I was complaining last time that "Love and Monsters" doesn't - a short exit from the light area more towards drama, but with enough force here to feel it. Or, well, being about passed time, turning points, and what could you do with a time machine, I might be subjective again ;-)

Rating: 4 out of 5

Love and Monsters (2020)

I won't try getting too philosophical and extracting some hidden message from "Love and Monsters" to fit the late context, because I probably wouldn't agree with what message might send. I just simply took the movie as it is - a light SciFi with a consistent comedy part.

We have a dystopian context, where after humanity successfully avoided a cataclismic disaster by bombing an asteroid on its way to Earth, fount itself in a different problem = the radioactive waste landing on the planet created mutations causing various species to dangerously grow overnight. Lots of times I thought that we're lucky that pidgeons aren't 10-15 times bigger, otherwise we would be extinct. That's pretty much the conclusion the movie reaches, although I didn't see any pidgeon there, but we have others - the "monsters" in the title.

In this situation, pretty much everybody retired in various shelters, periodically going out for food. Some kind of "Zombieland", but with mutated creatures instead of zombies. In a group of survivors we find Joel, who after many years finds his former girlfriend, in some other shelter on the seaside at something like seven days of walking - and so we get the "love" in the title. That leads to the main part in the movie - the travel to meet her again. Only that Joel has a small big problem, zero experience in fighting what awaits him outside, or better said a "freeze panic" effect when encountering anything with more legs, tentacles, or other types of members, larger than himself.

Obviously the subject described above has lots of potential. The movie delivers withn an "ok" margin. I guess it could've been better, or better said I felt something missing. Maybe it was just the comic side and the drama exits from that don't have enough force to have the same effect as for example "Guardians of the Galaxy". Maybe there are some action threads that seemed unfinished. Or maybe I did expect too much. Anyway, bottom line, the movie was fun.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Starman (1984)

Out of everything John Carpenter directed, I didn't think I had anything left that's worth watching. With the mention that I don't know about anything "worth watching" to be directed by him since the '90s. What I knew about "Starman" was limited to a synopsis I read somewhere telling that the movie is about some romance between an alien and a woman on Earth. Because I generally avoid love stories, I obviously ignored the movie for some time. Luckily enough there's not much new to watch these days...

The synopsis I mentioned doesn't lie, but what we have here has Carpenter written all over it, enough to get the result more towards the type of romance we have in the same year's "Terminator", and not what you might think when reading the taglines of the movie. Indeed, we have an alien entity crashing nearby a farm in Wisonsin inhabited by a young widow, the alien taking the form of the late husband. What follows though, before getting into the romance part, is a road-trip, more like a road-thriller, where "the starman" forces the woman to drive him to Arizona in no less than three days, where he has a scheduled ride back to space. All this time we also have the US government following them with a table ready for dissection.

So, the romance actually gets its screen time towards the end. What Carpenter manages to accomplish is not to drop the movie into the cheesy zone you might expect it, creating altogether a pretty good mix between the action and the soft parts tempering frequently the tensed run we're watching. What Carpenter doesn't accomplish (so to speak) is to make the visuals durable enough. The age of the movie is obvious, especially comparing it with others around the same time that are much better on the VFX side. It compensates, however, with the cast. Even though Jeff Bridges got an Oscar nod for his role, I think "the starman" is literally eclipsed by Karen Allen, making a much better role here than in the first Indiana Jones (I don't remember seeing her in another place). Above all, even the parts where it somewhat fails, the movie is a decent production with a strong '80s feeling reminding me of "Firestarter", so if you have a weakness for that decade it's definitely worth watching.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

The Expanse

I didn't take to much advantage of the blogging vacation to gather new material. I was thinking to start the new year with "Tenet", and I could actually write enough about it. But not very positive stuff... So I decided for a subject on which I don't have so much to tell, but looks more promising: "The Expanse" a series where I didn't get far yet (I'm somewhere in the 2nd season of the 4 completed so far), sufficiently enough though to convince me.

Set somewhere in a future where mankind partially colonized the solar system, the action involves three power - the UN = Earth, Mars and OPA = Outer Planets Alliance = the asteroid belt. The first two are caught in a sort of cold war, and "the belt" gets the rebel part that doesn't get along with any of them but must serve both. In this context we have to narrative threads developing. One follows a crew of four that left a cargo ship to answer an emergency distress call, but soon they're the ones getting stranded in space. The other thread begins on Ceres, one of the belt stations, where a local cop gets a case of a missing girl, without any hope of actually solving it. Slowly the two paths merge, first towards the question of who and why is trying to start an interplanetary war.

The construction of the story might seem slow in the beginning, but was the most solid I've seen in a SciFi series in the last 10 years. Not that are many of these. "Killjoys" comes probably as the closest example, having there too an interplanetary conflict intrigue and (light spoiler) also an external enemy more dangerous than all it's known. Unfortunately "Killjoys" was completely buried by its last seasons, with an atrocious bad ending. For the political intrigue in "The Expanse", one of its good points, I've heard comparisons like "GoT in space", but I'd say that's actually even better than that = it slips less towards cheap soap. Moreover, within the limits of SciFi, which this is after all, it seemed to me very well grounded in the reality we know - e.g., the asteroids in the belt have their real shape, the gravity differs depending on where we're located in space, etc.

As I was saying, I didn't get too far with this, so as in any series case I don't know if I'll feel the same about it after the ending (I wrote a positive entry on "Killjoys" too in the beginning). As in GoT's case, this is also based on a series of novels, actually one awarded with a Hugo the year that just ended, which normally should offer a more solid guarantee for the story. Considering that the planned number of series is less than the number of published volumes, maybe this time we'll escape lame ending improvisations. We'll see...

Volition (2019)

 

Even though "Volition" starts with a handicap due to a low indie movie budget, which is noticeable in pretty much everything, from production design to casting, it manages to stay at a decent level, enough to give it a chance.

The story is somehow close to the probably more known "Next", inspired itself from a short story by P. K. Dick. James is a guy who experiences flashes of what the future brings. If in "Next" this was for the "next 2 minutes", in "Volition" the gift is more generous, but also not that well defined - the visions don't have a specific time setting and are also intertwined. It's the type of movie that constructs itself as a puzzle, returning often into its own previous development. The plot starts with a vision showing James his own death, after he gets hired by some shady character to find a buyer for a pouch of stolen diamonds. After we advance a bit, we're presented with a first twist, but such a bad one in respect to credibility that I'm gonna spoil it - James also gets "time travel" powers - physically speaking, not only in his mind. After you manage to get over the way this happens (let's not spoil everything), the script slowly redeems itself by tying together quite well all sorts of events in the story, which suddenly looks more complex than it initially seemed to be.

Unfortunately... when you're comfortable with the low-budget feeling, also accepted the dumb way to time-travel, when the actors don't look anymore like amateurs, and when you could actually say that the movie has some deeper meaning carefully put together... the last 30 seconds destroy the entire script. All I can say is that if you're looking for a happy-end, it delivers. But it could have done it differently. Well, one more spoiler, can't help it...

Rating: 2.5 out of 5

The Invisible Man (2020)

I missed the classic novel by H.G. Wells, having the same title as the current movie, "The Invisible Man", from my teenage readings. However, after seeing "Hollow Man" 20 years ago, I found out that the book is a gritty horror. Not that it has much in common with any of the two movies, although both are placed in the same genre by IMDb.

The subject, both in the movies, and from what I heard also in the book, has one common element = obviously, the invisible man, a researcher who manages following an experiment to reach that particular state of being. Unfortunately, he doesn't take advantage of the situation in a positive way, in all cases being corrupted by mental issues. In "Hollow Man", and again from what I heard in the book, the reason is not being able to reverse the experiment. I don't remember much more of the movie besides the fact that it had cool effects for that time and that I liked it, and about the book, as I said, I didn't read it. In the latest version of "Invisible Man" the story runs somehow different. The experiment is actually a suit created by a genius in the optical field, Adrian Griffin, suit that's obviously removable = the effect can be reversed. The optical genius however has another issue, more likely an obsession of total control over his wife, Cecilia. Obsession that manifests among others by installing cameras and security systems transforming the family residence into a jail. The result is that the desperate wife decides to escape one night, taking temporary shelter in cop's house, a friend of her sister. The trauma is deep enough though to keep her confined inside, frightened to make a step out until she finds out that her, now ex-husband, killed himself...

The trailer tells us how things evolve further. The movie has, if I counted well, something like three wannabe twists, out of which well... to be fair, one is not that predictable. Besides that, pretty much everything is predictable. Maybe except a couple actions that don't really connect. Fortunately, the movie is dynamic enough to not get you bored, but what saves it is especially the way it's made. Indeed, it builds a tense feeling that drives it towards horror, although I'd classify it more as a thriller - this effect is, however, rare enough to appreciate it (yes, I know that not longer than a month ago I had "The Guest" on my blog, exceptions happen). I'd also add a plus for avoiding excess violence. Pretty much all of it is what you see in the trailer, except one scene that's more bloody. One more thing to mention is the art direction/set decoration/location setting for the choice made regarding the Griffin residence. The large estate, placed somewhere on the sea shore, the interiors, even the fence, all together seem to get an actor's role at some point. I wouldn't go up to comparing with the Overlook Hotel in "The Shining", but it's still somewhere in top 10 estates to be noticed in movies.

Out of "Hollow Man" version 2000 and "The Invisible Man" version 2020, I finally think I'd go for "Memoirs of an Invisible Man" version 1992. Which is based on another book that mixes SciFi, action and comedy that doesn't have any connection with Wells' novel or the horror genre. Funny enough, it's directed by John Carpenter ("Halloween", "The Fog", "The Thing", etc.). But again, I don't remember much of it, besides the good impression it made to me when I've seen it. Maybe I'm nostalgic for more peaceful times... Although, if I look at the trailers, ignoring the aging effect. Well, judge for yourself...

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Archive (2020)

When "Ex Machina" (2014) was announced, it looked to me like a copy of "The Machine" (2013). Finally, it proved to have a different story, although both featured an AI named Ava. Another common part was that neither of the two movies impressed me enough to allocate time for a blog entry. That's why I wasn't expecting much from "Archive" either, which again, at a first sight seemed to be an "Ex Machina" v2.0. Only at the first sight...

There are two things in common: we have again a female AI and a robotics engineer somewhere in a secluded lab. That's where the resemblance ends. The story in "Archive" goes like this: year 2048 - George Almore is sent alone to a ultra-secured facility in Japan's forest by his company, in order to conduct some ultra-secret research in the area of robotics. This comes after escaping a car accident. Unfortunately not also the case of his wife, Jules, but fortunately in this future we have Archive. Archive is another company dealing with immediately saving the conscience of those close to clinical death, keeping up some limited means of communicating with them. The problem is that it's not a definitive save, each call getting it closer to the moment when Jules will be lost forever. Reason why, instead of dealing with what the company wants from him, George starts his own private project: the android model J-01, followed by model J-02, and the movie finds us at model J-03. Guess what's J for in these? ;)

"Archive" is slow-paced, and some might find it boring. For me it gave a sort of.. "serenity" feeling I'd say. I found the rhythm perfect - helped a lot by the technical part, which is flawless: both the sound, but mostly the visuals, meaning everything that gets into set decoration + VFX + cinematography + editing, where we have a frequent change between the lab setting and the natural environment. I've seen "Moon" more than 10 years ago, but I still remember enough to spot some similarity. Gavin Rothery - director and writer here was part of the art department ad "head of graphic design" there. And the visuals aren't the only resemblance, if we look at the whole idea of a SciFi movie with slow pacing, one actor, talking AI, and a final twist.

More than what's in common with "Moon", a core element from "Archive" comes clearly from some other place. The idea of "archive" as presented here is not new. I don't know for sure where this originates, but what we see in the movie is terribly close to the concept of "moratorium" in "Ubik". "Ubik" is a novel written by Philip K. Dick that appeared in 1969 - IMHO, or at least for my taste, the best SciFi novel ever written. The real significance of the word which is suspending something until a deadline was translated there pretty much as we have it here - a "moratorium" was a sort of a private bank keeping the conscience of the dead in cold-storage, available for communication until becoming exhausted with time. We don't have more from "Ubik" here ( although... but better no spoilers ;) ). The context is completely different, but since other movies (best example "Inception") took some stuff from there, it was hard to move over without noticing it. And it's not something bad, but I still hope to see an actual "Ubik" movie sometime :) Until then, small pieces are fine too...

Rating: 4.5 out of 5 (maybe I'm a bit subjective, but I find the movie underrated - it's definitely better than "Ex Machina" at least)

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)

T6 aka "Dark Fate" is indeed dark. Despite not being shot in 3D, the luminosity coefficient in some scenes makes you wonder if you should remove some invisible stereoscopic glasses. But that's not the biggest problem. Sorry, spoilers will follow...

All the "Terminator" series, except "Salvation", has pretty much the same story. We have a terminator sent back in time to terminate somebody, and somebody else struggling to stop the killing machine. And despite the repetition factor, the story works. How? Well, we have variation. The first one is man vs machine, the second is machine vs machine where the good machine = the bad machine from the first, the third is Kristanna Loken vs machine, etc, and so on. But variation moves forward than what vs. who/what. We do have a story. And even in this last part we have some story, until we realize it's a bit too much... the same. Linda Hamilton returns from T2, the target is a new Linda as in T1, on the good side we have a sort of a female terminator like in T3, which is actually an enhanced human, almost like in T4, and Schwarzenegger is an aging terminator who started developing something close to feeling (almost) like in T5, and we wrap up with an ending which wants to be a sort of reboot of the metal melting onw in T2 using this time some EMP and electrical discharges, totally stupid and inspiring a feeling of cheap copy - after more than 20 years of VFX evolution. So, we don't have much innovation in the story.

Even so, it wouldn't have been that bad if the production level would've been decent. But we have piles of cliche lines in the script, we have a lot of bad acting/overacting, we have poor camera work, we have an excess of VFX to supplement the lack of narrative material, we have the first situation when the screenwriters were actually lazy to try finding a connection point that would make some sense in relation with the previous production, and they've cut the story and resumed it immediately after T2. Which purpose is canceled from start - John Connor dies, so Skynet would win, but well.. Skynet is not Skynet in the future anymore, it's Legion, and we don't know why Skynet is Legion since John Connor died, but there's no problem, we'll just turn the public's attention to deadly fights in depressurized planes. The idea of an enhanced human protector brings though some original elements, and also Rev. 9 - the evil terminator model, comes with a doppelganger mode, completely inexplicable and not explained, but which looks cool. And of course, there's the old T-800 announcing that this time he'll "not be back" ( pfff... what a way out... :( ).

Rating: 3 out of 5 (= 2+1 - I'm nostalgic and subjective, but the review was objective ;)...)

Ad Astra (2019)

As I was saying last time I didn't get to watch "Ad Astra" in the weekend, but I did get, or better said I decided to get to see it on Monday. And I prefer to also not postpone anymore neither the blog entry because I already started forgetting some fresh impressions it left with. Which might make the following very subjective, but I guess it would be hard not to be anyway, so...

I heard before watching the movie that it's slow & boring. Debatable = I won't lie, for the first half I checked my watch a couple times... I also heard either that it gets close to "Gravity", either that it gets close to "Interstellar". I'd say it's more SciFi than the first, but a bit less SciFi than the second. In any case it has definitely much more substance than "Gravity" (to which I'll stick to the opinion of not being more than a simple recipe of a disaster movie set in space + extra VFX bling-bling), which, adding the slow development it has, would make it indeed more close to "Interstellar". But let's leave out the comparisons and move into the subject.

In the future the humanity established colonies on the Moon, on Mars and managed to send an expedition on Neptun's orbit. The space ship is led by Dr. H. Clifford McBride, having the mission to try a contact with other intelligent species. Only that the status of the expedition seems to have reached a sort of "lost in space" = nobody knows anything about them for as long as almost 30 years. Meanwhile, Dr. McBride was labeled as a space here that took the Earth civilization where no man has gone before. We just end up one day with some periodical surges coming from outer space strong enough to endanger the life in the Solar system. The department of space defense (or something like that) suspects that the cause of origin lies on the lost ship, or more precisely with its captain who is suspected to still be alive. As solution it's decided that Roy McBride, the son, also an astronaut, to be sent to the farthest still functional outpost - on Mars, with the purpose of dispatching a peace message. Only that, predictable enough, the final destination will be a bit more far than that...

That was the story, now the philosophy :) Warning: this is not an action movie - go see Alien for that ;) There's lots of philosophy in the movie, and sometimes it seems it tries to be even more than it is. At least that's the feeling it left me with by its half-time. After that it starts making more sense. Roy McBride is a lonely guy, divorced in order to remove the stress from his family on him getting also lost in space one day (at least that's what he says), very pragmatic and cool enough in panic situations, subjecting to rules and to the orders he gets, the perfect candidate for a critical mission. There are plenty of fine-grained aspects throughout the entire slow development in the first part, which have as purpose exactly the build-up of such a very complex character. Who, in brief, can be labeled as a smarter than average guy, but who knows his place or better said knows not to leave that place. In a total contradiction of character, McBride the father, another smarter than average guy, but for whom moving forward in the goal to find another civilization, or generalizing to surpass the achievements of a normal life, is important enough to sacrifice everything in a normal life: family, coming home, the life of his crew. There's some point towards the end where the movie seems very biased in the comparison of the two: the positive character and the negative character, in the sense of better stay put, be fine with all it's asked, take care of the ones near you, and do your job than dreaming on achieving something that's not there, and step on corpses for that goal. But it's too black and white...

Fortunately, the entire movie is spread with McBride junior monologues, which bring some grey into the picture, even though not very obvious. I don't remember the lines exactly but at some moment we have one saying something like only in the end "I'll find happyness in my loneliness/solitude" + some other, more precise this time (thanks to Google): "I see myself on the outside, smile, present a side. It’s a performance, with my eye on the exit. Always on the exit.", which speculating a bit would say that also the son knows that he could achieve more but it's an accepted choice to not pass some limits, limits that will go away, mentally at least when the life will end. Speculation that's strengthen by the ending monologue (again thanks to Google) delivered as part of a psychological evaluation when finally returning to Earth: "I am focused on the essentials, to the exclusion of all else. I’m unsure of the future, but I’m not concerned. I will rely on those closest to me, and I will share their burdens, as they share mine. I will live and I will love. Submit.". Let's say I completely agree with all this "conclusion" that's delivered in a pretty optimistic note as a happy-end. After all this should count first for a human being. What irritated me, however, is the positive light subliminally put on all this acceptation of conformism for the good of everybody, and the negative light thrown on trying to force a bit your daily life to reach the stars - or to quote also some other source “Non est ad astra mollis e terris via" - "There is no easy way from the earth to the stars” (Seneca). What's even more behind than this subliminal, as I said above it softens this, but that's pure speculation - something like after all you know you won't be happy with your decisions. But even with this hidden meaning, the big part of the grey between the black and white is missing in this movie... Maybe there's a middle way to share their burdens and also get concerned of the future, i.e., to try to reach the stars. Why exclude that completely? At least let the hope live! :) I told that I'm subjective ;) No more. Too much philosophy.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Prospect (2018)

I intended to go watch "Ad Astra" in cinema this weekend, but I didn't find time for it, so I turned to another SciFi that I found easier to get to = "Prospect". Not that bad, just that I'm not sure the SciFi tag is fit for it...

Somewhere in the future, on a far away planet with a toxic atmosphere, a guy and his daughter try a "prospecting" operation (to quote the title), more precisely the harvesting of some sort of gems grown by an indigenous plant. Something like the production of pearls, just with an extra acid ingredient thrown in to make the operation highly difficult. Up to this point, yes, we have a SciFi. Further, we find out that the prospectors are not alone searching for a fortune on the planet, and (light spoiler) the wish of getting rich fast doesn't bring a good end to the guy. Even more, the shuttle for leaving breaks, the oxygen filters run off, and the girl left alone is sort of forced to team up to escape with a rival prospector. Well, we're already at half the movie :) So let's leave the rest to be seen...

As I was telling, although thinking back now there are actually quite a few SciFi elements in it, the feeling you have at the end it's a of sort of action/thriller that could as well take place somewhere in the Amazonian jungle. The story is pretty simple and linear, but somehow the movie doesn't bore. There's some gun with one shot and obviously you need more, there's some oxygen filter running out, there's some need for an ointment for infected wounds, there's some indigenous settler with hidden intentions, there's some other mercs looking for fortune. In brief, there's sort of a ride of one hour and a half in a totally unfriendly environment, with small, but not big surprises. Which is still catchy :)...

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

The Faculty (1998)

Yet again... I didn't get to see much else in the last weeks besides bad HK movies for getting me to sleep and some TWD episodes. Randomly changing TV channels while spending the night in a hotel in Prague (while missing my bad HK movies), I also stumbled on "The Faculty" and watched its last half. Which makes it probably the best option for a short entry....

I'm not sure if "The Faculty" is sufficiently known to be considered a "classic", but it's probably a reference movie for a niche somewhere between teen movies and light horror/comedy, which gained a bit of momentum in the '90s - early 2000, but sort of faded away after. In brief, a high school in a small city somewhere in Ohio is invaded by an alien creature that multiplies itself by corrupting human hosts. A sort of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", which is actually referred in the movie. In its first half (that I didn't see for more than 10 years I guess) we're introduced with something like six students, each with problems of his/her own, and we're getting to see the beginning of the invasion. In the second half the six students group forms a sort of rescue team after discovering that the creature has a fatal allergy to a home made drug, prepared in his garage and distributed by the high school's bad boy, who happens to also be a genius in organic chemistry.

I have to admit that when re-watching it now, the movie seemed to me more cheesy and exaggerated than I was remembering. On the other hand... well, what could you expect from something directed by Robert Rodriguez ("Spy Kids" & "Machete"). All things apart, it keeps a certain charm. Maybe it's the cast - many known names in early roles, maybe I'm nostalgic...

Rating: 3.5 out of 5