SF Signal

Star "Twweeaakk" The Coming of Khan!

Tue, 21 May 2013 01:06:46 +0000

J.J. Abrams made quite a splash when he released 2009’s “Star Trek”. I suppose it was the right approach to revitalize the franchise, by creating a re-boot that gave him all the needed loop holes to do such things. His first “Star Trek“ flick left the ‘space opera‘ feeling and instead went for something that feels more like an action-adventure which was arguably needed. It was a fun, energetic visual feast that moved fast that it never lost its forward momentum. It pleased fans of the franchise with a feeling of both freshness and nostalgia. Now 4 years since Abrams’ last “Star Trek” film, is what he had created back then will still be able to hold up without the feeling of novelty (which it really wasn’t) since it was a really a straight-forward action flick with gorgeous visuals?



2013’s “Star Trek Into Darkness” is the sequel that takes us on a ride with the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise. The film begins with the crew in an unknown planet due for volcanic destruction and Jim Kirk (Chris Pine) makes a decision that goes against established directives in Starfleet. This ends up with Kirk being in a load of trouble that it resulted with him losing command of his vessel. Just as soon as things begin to slow down, a unspeakable new threat has risen and this threat comes from within the ranks of Starfleet. Kirk requests Starfleet command to reinstate him get his crew back together, along with Spock (Zachary Quinto), just so they can sanction the man called John Harrison (Benedict Cumberback). But when the manhunt reveals certain secrets within Starfleet command, and the voyage brings Kirk and his crew to a danger zone, the truth behind the former Commander Harrison is set to shake the foundations of the federation itself.





The screenplay instantly moves fast and tries to establish its footing with a sequence that gives it the ‘grab and go’ feeling just so the viewer could see exactly what he is in for; a fun, energetic action adventure wrapped around its sci-fi elements. Abrams was obviously trying to go fast and strong before he slowed things down when the crew gets back to Earth. Here, the script serves up some minor plot and character developments that aids the viewer in looking inside the walls of Starfleet. How the fleet works and just how Kirk’s attitude often differs from Spock and that of Starfleet. Abrams and company made every effort to give the viewer a feeling of continuity as the return of supporting characters such as Admiral Pike (Bruce Greenwood) and the introduction of new ones such as Starfleet commander Marcus (Peter Weller) aid in setting its groundwork. The viewer also quickly gets an idea just how the crew is getting along, and glimpses of their personal lives are seen.

See, Abrams knew that he had to keep the film moving and knows how to cover up flaws because of his style of direction and editing. True to what had been established in the first film, the screenplay follows through very well. I would not say that the characters in this film are very interesting, since Kirk has been reduced to a staple that we’ve all seen before in action flicks, Spock is one of the more interesting characters in the first film, but really, the two worked better as the film brings them into a kind of ‘bromance’. These characters are mere staples of what we have seen before, but it is the way the characters worked together in a group dynamic that made them compelling if not acceptable. With some subtle touches of humor and clever delivery of its dialogue, it was easy for the cast to establish a sense of solid chemistry. Zoe Saldana (she is hotter than ever), Keith Urban, Simon Pegg and Anton Yelchin aid in the script’s flow, despite some issues that I had with Alice Eve (sure she was also hot) being a little misplaced in her character as a science officer. It was a welcome sight to see this new Spock talk to the old Spock (Leonard Nimoy) that certainly would give a ‘trekkie’ goose bumps.





All these things would work really well as long as we have an interesting villain for the crew of the Enterprise. As much as I thought that Benedict Cumberback was a worthy villain to later be revealed as Khan, and sure, there were a lot of nods to the past TV series and “Wrath of Khan”, but I thought in the end, the villain and the links to Starfleet was very underwhelming. While I enjoyed the way the film tried to introduce certain devices that sort of made the concept of an alternate timeline resembling the old one and yet different, I thought the film took a turn for the predictable. The twists and turns which were introduced in its runtime were intended to create a reaction, and yet they failed. The surprises weren’t really that effective in making an impact in its narrative.

Luckily, while the storyline wasn’t strong and showed its weaknesses too early, the action sequences were good enough to keep up its momentum. The film looked gorgeous, the cinematography was impressive, the CGI effects were stellar that you could truly hear and see the crunch of metal on metal, the explosions generated a lot of intensity and light effects were indeed grand. The film was truly an achievement visually, and if this was Abrams’ goal, then he had truly achieved it. The film was really impressive in 3D, as there were times that the 3D effects and the sound really made me part of its visuals that I felt as if I was there.



“Star Trek Into Darkness” is the kind of sequel that follows an original made solid because of a feeling of freshness, but sadly, while this film is certainly entertaining, it sure wasn’t fresh. It just felt that it was the kind of film that we’ve all seen many times before. It does not merely reference but it just borrows entire plot points from the originals. I just wasn’t at all impressed or moved by its narrative despite accepting its intentions. The villain just wasn’t threatening, and so the film loses a lot of intended ‘bang’. I do have to admit that the visuals were really impressive, the group dynamics worked and the comedic touches aided its flow. It is a lot of fun to watch that I am certain that ‘Trekkies” will have a ball watching it over and over again. I guess I am just a little tired of the old ‘clichéd story, lot’sa flash and action. It is a film meant for its fans but a RENTAL for Everybody else [3+ Out of 5 Stars]


　

　

An Excellent Follow-up, Keep Them Coming!

Mon, 20 May 2013 13:02:17 +0000

I don't know what the critics were saying in their preliminary reviews. I loved this film from start to finish and am looking forward to the next installment. As the whole universe changed when Nero attacked Kirk's father's ship in the first film and that Vulcan was wiped out, one cannot expect that these movies should follow anything that the original series and movies did. And because of the way Spock felt his race die, he will certainly have more "human" emotional outbursts at times. It is only "logical."

When the movie starts, the Enterprise is on one of their first missions and two things go wrong. Namely Spock needs rescuing and in doing so the Enterprise makes itself visible to a primitive group of people. This violates the Prime Directive of non-interference in developing cultures (when was this ever a big deal in the original series? All they did was interfere). Kirk does not record anything in the ship's log but Spock does, because he can't lie. (If you remember Taggart in the Beverly Hills Cop movie you will have an idea how this will play out later).

Kirk is briefly demoted and told to report back to Starfleet Academy for remedial training (I was wondering if he was going to meet up with Finnegan). This lasts until a terrorist attack on London wipes out a bunch of senior Starfleet officers. Kirk is told to get the terrorist (Harrison who goes by another name that us oldtimers know well) who has hidden himself in the Vulcan sector of space by Admiral Marcus.

The movie moves at breakneck speed as the Enterprise goes to bring back "Harrison," despite the lovers spat that is going on between Spock and Uhura. Mr. Scott seems to be on the "out" with Kirk and after an argument, quits the Enterprise and Mr. Chekov has to get Engineering up to speed.

The character that steals the movie is McCoy. The new McCoy goes overboard with spewing cliches that would make DeForest Kelly proud to the point of getting on Kirk's nerves. He is also worried about Kirk's health and will pick the "wrong" times to examine him.

Note possible spoiler - there is a brief mention of having to take care of Mudd's ship, so of course we will see a familiar furry friend make an appearence.

I really hope that Abrams will continue with a third installment of this film. If this film is any indication, then the Star Wars franchise is in good hands!

Despite Flaws, I Really Enjoyed It

Fri, 17 May 2013 08:57:36 +0000

I'm taking a risk in saying I actually liked Star Trek into Darkness. On a website such as Lunch.com where liking just about any damn mainstream movie (let alone J.J. Abrams) is considered not so good, it's a wonder how much I've come to embrace things. And while I understand liking Mainstream movies or even praising them is not particularly "cool" with the Lunch.com crowd, I'll take my chances anyway. See, I've always believed that there is an art to reviewing and that part of the art is that you review in the essence that you know WHAT you're reviewing and keep in the mind the audience that you're reviewing for. The reason I say that it's probably not cool to like Star Trek here on Lunch.com is because everyone got my ass about giving J.J. Abrams the smallest ounce of praise. On a website where liking anything "popular" is considered taboo I'm pretty certain this will be my last review because I'm simply tired of it nowadays. So I'll leave this one with a glowing five. Not because it deserves a five, but because I'm tired of this idea that I can't particularly enjoy mainstream movies or anything "popular" without some jackass deciding that I shouldn't because, "Mainstream cinema sucks compared to indie or foreign cinema," from some jackass who seems to think that just because something is indie makes it better. Who cares? I'm concerned about other things. I'm in my mid twenties now and I'm passed that moment of trying to always distance myself from the crowd. My grade school days are over and sometime just having a little bit of fun at the movies (especially in the summer) isn't such a bad thing.

So does it deserve a five? Definitely not. It's got some problems. Some bigger than others (and perhaps a glaring one or two) but really, I just don't give a shit as I write this review.

So to begin, I realize that J.J. Abrams isn't perfect. He's not the "next Spielberg," but he does have one thing in common with him: the fact that his popular success makes him one of the more hated film guys in the industry. (it was "bad" to like Spielberg at one point). Spielberg suffered from this for a while but because he's done so much and has so much under his belt his popular appeal manages to command respect. And while I don't believe J.J. Abrams will ever get THAT far, I do believe that he gets a lot more criticism than he deserves. Certainly he's got a lot of cheesy stuff in his films and they're predicable... but so is Joss Wheddon and that doesn't seem to stop anyone from praising the ever living shit out of him, and I happen to like Joss Wheddon a great deal, despite the fact that Whedoon, like Abrams dabbles in cliches and predictability so much that you might as well have just started the movie at the end and played it backwards.

Case in point: Star Trek Into Darkness is not a particularly unpredictable film... or original, but I think if you really believe in originality it's because you've spent the last one thousand years or so under the rock. It's not the idea that's important it's the execution of that idea, which is where Abrams falters just a tad, but it's also why he's actually quite good at what he does from time to time. The only thing I don't particularly like about Star Trek Into Darkness is how it was advertised. The idea of keeping so much secret. The last movie I saw where I can't recall actually knowing what was going to happen was probably The Dark Knight and that's only because it was so far against the conventional formula that I wasn't sure WHICH formula it was following... but that's primarily because it was inventing it's own. The Dark Knight has been so influential that THIS is why Into Darkness is a particularly predictable film because so much of what it does is dependent on whether or not you've seen The Dark Knight and Start Trek II: Wrath of Kahn.

So let's start with something simple: The story concerns Kirk and company trying to stop a volcano from erupting on a planet. And once it doesn't we understand what Into Darkness is about immediately. Life and Death. Spock is not particularly sure why Kirk saved him. Things change, however, when a mysterious agent (I use the term loosely) decides to create a one-man army against Star Fleet. When someone close to Kirk is lost then it becomes quite clear that they're not up against an ordinary man. Instead what they're really up against is someone who is far more clever than that. But there's more deception going on than Kirk could imagine and he and his crew are forced to deal with everything under the sun.

Certainly Star Trek Into Darkness has a simple story. Every movie does when you think about it. Although it's quite clear that Star Trek Into Darkness is more about the thrills. But it certainly borrows more from The Dark Knight formula, which is pretty much what every movie tries to do nowadays. That is to say that there is a criminal mastermind who plots to get himself captured and make the circumstances work for him. A lot of movies have been doing this lately. Particularly, The Avengers and Skyfall. And by far Skyfall did it much better than The Avengers, but for very different reasons. But Skyfall is also the only one I can think of where it was done particularly well. The Avengers, for as good as it is has far too much of its story focused on the idea of the characters trying to get along that the villain is so uninteresting that you just don't care that he got himself captured to destroy them from within. In Star Trek the formula is alive and well, although Abrams seems to make it work a little better. Not because of how the bad guy works (or because of who he is... and if you can't figure it out you weren't much for Star Trek to begin with) but because it's not actually the bad guy you need to be paying attention to during this particular moment in the film. It's why it works. It's not much of a change or a twist but it's one that's executed well, at least.

There are a lot of thrills and a lot of fun to be had with Star Trek Into Darkness. Most notably the action sequences are quite amazing, as well as some of the visuals. That's not to say there are no annoyances. Certainly that lens flare is going to get on your nerves. If I was to make a drinking game in which we took a shot every time that lens flare came up then I'd be dead of alcohol poisoning within the first ten minutes of the movie. I understand that some people don't mind this, but what I find stranger is why no one really finds it distracting. It doesn't add drama and in some ways actually obstructs the visual flare of the scene.

Now I'm not one of those stupid "CGI is killing movies," people because that's just the dumbest thing I've ever heard and shows that people understand dialog and character but not narrative. And indeed there is a lot of CGI in Star Trek and a lot of strange set pieces, but CGI doesn't kill movies. And if you think it does, you're a dumbass. Period. No, what's distracting about some of the CGI is that Star Trek just never feels like it's a world that's been lived in. One of the things Star Wars (the original trilogy) did so well was that you got the sense that the universe was inhabited. Here, as in real Sci-Fi fashion, everything looks slick and clean. So it's actually quite something when you realize J.J. Abrams isn't afraid to make the enterprise look like a floating piece of crap at some point when the characters get into some real danger. It's quite something and quite the spectacle to see. On the other hand, it's also quite distracting at times because the characters are not particularly that interesting. Now, I don't care what people thought of the original show, but those characters also sucked. They were devoid of most personality. When creating the reboot it's not as though there was a lot to draw from. This is why some of the characters are so close. The sixties was a campy time and regardless of what people think those particularly characters are nothing more than caricatures in 2013 because they were already devoid of any real character to begin with. They had personality (which is perfectly emulated here) but I never actually gave a shit. So here it's surprising that there are some moments when I do. It's just a shame that Abrams puts them in such artificial danger. Like so many movies Abrams can't bring himself to make it seem like the characters are in any real danger, even in moments where the ship around them is being destroyed. If there was one thing I think Abrams should've borrowed a page from Nolan about it's not being ashamed to put everything on the table. Anyone can die. And anyone should be able to be in the running for being killed. One of the most amusing aspects about The Dark Knight was that Nolan was willing to kill of a pretty major character just for the sake of proving a point. Star Trek takes no such risks. Like Iron Man 3 it's so over the top that you simply know your characters aren't in any actual danger. Like The Avengers it's also very boring when this realization comes to light.

On the other hand, at the very least the characters are actually actively involved in much of the plot. Despite knowing they're in no real danger, at least Abrams is willing to inconvenience them at any turn. The plans the characters hatch are always going wrong which is enough to keep you going through the movie. It's not the cleverest thing out there, but it's a farcry from the Star Wars prequels where everything is always anti-climactic at every goddamn turn.

There are a few funny moments in Star Trek Into Darkness, which continues the other trend of having the tone of a movie clash constantly. It's not as bad about it as The Amazing Spider-Man but again, Abrams failed to learn anything from Nolan (who he so clearly was trying to emulate in MANY moments). The humor in The Dark Knight is very twisted. The character committing most of it is the darkest character there. We know we shouldn't laugh at the Joker but we understand that this is what he's about. It's hard to go from crying to jubilation in an instant. Not that you'll cry much. Despite how much Star Trek ups the emotional ante, it's constantly trying to lighten the mood with strange humor at every turn. It would be like Alfred deciding to do standup at the moment Rachel died just because. It's not too annoying here, but it is enough to make you wonder why you wasted the last five minute feeling bad for a characters predicament only to laugh at it ten seconds later (in particular the scenes with Scotty are like this). The emotional moments are destroyed by Star Trek: Into Darkness constant moments to try to remind you how serious its supposed to be. Marvel sucks at this big time and Abrams isn't doing any better.

Yet for all its worth, Star Trek Into Darkness is actually a lot of fun. It's easy on the eyes and has quite a few twists and turns. Nothing actually surprising but as I've said, a movie hasn't "surprised" me in quite some time and I'm not one to care. Storytelling isn't about surprises, it's about execution. There are some things Abrams doesn't do so well. Not at the emotional core, but in making a big deal about much of what the movie is about. The villain, for instance, is exactly who you think it is. The fact that Abrams and company tried to keep this underwraps is surprising. The big twist at the end? Same thing. Very obvious (actually it's not... we're literally told halfway through what will happen). That's not to say there aren't some things you won't see coming. The other problem is that there is a lot of convenience in the plot. And while that's not necessarily a bad thing (EVERY movie has it) it is kind of annoying that some characters are put in one place or another for no apparent reason only for us to learn later that they just happened to be there. Scotty's predicament isn't so bad, but there's a particular female character that has absolutely no business being where she is and it doesn't actually make any logical sense, but lo and behold there she is.

That doesn't mean the movie isn't fun. I had a lot of fun with it. I was blown away by quite a bit of the movie because I was impressed with just how entertaining it was. I get that being "entertaining," isn't enough for the Lunch crowd and that I've sinned by liking a movie because of it's "entertainment" factor instead of its "intellectual" one, but again... you have to know the audience. And I've little problem with actually sitting down and just enjoying something. Sometimes a movie really works out better that way ("Raiders of the Lost Ark") while other movies are destroyed by being too all out pretentious about what they do ("Lions for Lambs," "The Art of Getting By,"). The point is that the movie is still fun as hell to watch and I'd probably go see it again because the ride was actually a very good one. It was entertaining and thrilling. I laughed (although I didn't cry) and I really believed that I saw something pretty darn good despite its flaws. Again, predictable, but as I said the last "unpredictable" movie I saw was five years ago and I don't think it's really such a bad thing if you do know what happens (everyone talks about the "big twist" in Iron Man 3 but I figured it out pretty soon into the film... so much so I didn't know it was actually a twist).

So yes, fellow Lunchers, I've committed the sin of enjoying a mainstream movie. I've committed the sin of liking J.J. Abrams and I've committed the scene of actually being entertained by something considerably mindless. But I just don't care anymore. I went to have some fun and I got my fun. This isn't a particularly bad movie. It has it's flaws and I'd never suggest any film is perfect (if a film is, you're an idiot). But I am particularly tired of this idea that mainstream=bad. That's just stupid. There are A LOT of Star Trek references to the original film and series, which may also be something that is kind of annoying. As I hated the television series (but was delighted to see Star Trek II, IV and VI... because the odd number movies suck) I was surprised I still caught onto so many references. This may actually be a bit of a problem. The story is not going to interest you unless you can pick up on these particular bits (in particular: Watch Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn). All of the best moments of Into Darkness are pretty pale and forgettable unless you actually do. And I'm not a fan of that sort of stuff. The movie-goer shouldn't be forced to do outside homework. And seeing as how the movie going crowd sucks at reading books and going anything beyond watching a goddamn movie I'm sure some people will miss a lot of references that'll fly over their head (or will they?). And it kind of sucks that Into Darkness relies so heavily on a movie from thirty years ago to create some of its biggest moments.

Anyway, it was not a bad movie. I'd highly recommend it for those looking to have some fun. Not to turn off their brain, but just to have fun and perhaps find themselves excited by some of the majesty of the movie itself. It's a fun movie and deserves your attention at least once.

"Captain, we have a copy of a similar mission in our DVD archives!"

Fri, 17 May 2013 08:55:04 +0000

Star Trek (2009) re-ignited the Trek world and set it on fire. Loved it or hated it, no one can deny what a reboot and shot in the arm it was for what was a tired series. The worst thing that it could be said about it was that it lacked the feeling of mankinds place in the galaxy which the older Treks at least attempted and it was just a colorful action blast.

Star Trek Into Darkness which is the follow up is certainly a sequel by the same minds with characters shouting over each other, flashy effects, the textrured uniforms, lens flares and cranks up the action at the cost of even more of it's smarts and elements that made the first movie more memorable. These two movies are very much akin to the new Robert Downey Jr Sherlock Holmes movies. The first one is fun and inventive, the second one more action and not quite the adventure the first was and even worse the second film is not going to win over people who didn't like the first.

The movie has Kirk and company interfering with a planets activities-interfering in a way that saved millions of lives on the planet but could affect the way the inhabitants will grow now knowing about the existance of other species in the galaxy. Right away this movie starts on a wrong foot with the Prime Directive argument. I have no idea why Star Trek started to make it sound like allowing mass murder was okay. "You had no right to save all those people, this is what was intended for them, to die horribly!"

ANYWAY, the incident gets Kirk in hot water with Admiral Pike who lectures Kirk about humility and integrity as far as following the rules goes. At this time, a mysterious man has just destroyed an archive and later an attack is led on Starfleet HQ which leaves several Officers dead. Kirk is enraged and volunteers to apprehend the man responsible who has escaped into Klingon space. Admiral Marcus agrees, but not before giving Kirk some questionable orders to follow once he gets there. En Route and with time to think Kirk realizes that more and more of what is going on is suspect. Getting his hands on the man responsible for the crimes on Earth, we learn that the man is more then Kirk realized and everything is just as suspect as Kirk thought.

NOW. A SPOILER: For the story and I do not want to give much away but Benedict Cumberbatch is the villain and he is reprising Khan and captures the passion of the character well. What doesn't mesh well is that Kirk and he work together, then apart, then again and apart. Kirk and Khan working together just felt SO wrong, alternate storylines or not. That however pales in comparison to what is absolutely shameless homages done with the favorite Wrath of Khan film. Nothing subtle at ALL. Kirk and Spock are seperated in one key scene, a countdown to doom, villian with his own ship, Enterprise attacked and in trouble and oh yes a famous yell in a scene I could only facepalm at.

Where the homages stop though, the most stupid moments happen in the film. Kirk is the only one who can pick up a rifle and fight back during the attack on Starfleet HQ no matter how many security men show up and there are no other Starfleet shuttles or fighters to help. The biggest one has to be Kirk facing down an enemy Dreadnaught with a faulty warp drive and Kirk decides to run away. Sure enough it doesn't work too well. You can say it plays into Kirks impulsive seat of his pants style, and I'll say it's still stupid. Very rarely am I able to pick apart a movie AS I'M watching it rather then take it in and have fun, but this movie wasn't enough fun and let me think too long. Holy hell a good chunk of the film is taken from the Wing Commander IV PC game, and that had Mark Hamill in it.

Highly illogical to remake The Wrath of Khan, especailly considering Star Trek tried a similar approach with Nemesis 10 years ago and that movie wasn't quite as shameless. Oh and Leonard Nimoy alert, he makes another appearance to kill a moment of the movie when the action is already rolling and is really lame and I can't believe I'm putting down a Leonard Nimoy appearance.

The good is the actors all came back and are still playing they're roles well and Benedict Cumberbatch has the most hissably evil voice for Khan. His job is to make Khan devious and a threat without parroting Ricardo Montalban's performance. Peter Weller sadly isn't so great as a warmongering Admiral who telegraphs being up to no good a lightyear away. Production is great and while the ship still looks like the iPod store, the lens flares are toned down and the beer brewery sets are mostly changed with more sets that would look like a spaceship.

Star Trek Into Darkness is a big buildup to a movie that we were already familiar with and have seen a better version of before. Sure it's flashy and fun but you've seen it before and not as stupid or illogical.

'Star Trek Into Darkness' Lots of Glitz...Not That Much Originality (Video)

Tue, 14 May 2013 03:53:44 +0000

By Joan Alperin Schwartz
The boys are back...Capt. Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto), Scotty (Simon Pegg), Chekov (Anton Yelchin), Bones (Karl Urban), Sulu (John Cho) and Uhura (Zoe Saldana)

The film opens with the USS Enterprise on a observation mission to Planet Nibiru...When they arrive at the planet, the crew finds a volcano on the verge of erupting and wiping out its primitive inhabitants. In the process of launching a dangerous mission to halt the eruption, Spock's life is jeopardized, forcing Kirk to break the 'Prime Directive' and reveal the Enterpise to the inhabitants...

Bad move: Not only is Spock pissed off at his BFF, Admiral Pike (Bruce Greenwood) relieves Kirk of his command and he takes over the Enterprise.

Not a good week for our Captain.

But wait...Things are about to get worse. Starfleet agent John Harrison aka Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch) bombs a secret Section 31' installation in London.

An emergency meeting of high ranking officers is called at Starfleet headquarters, which Kirk attends. NOTE' Little SPOILER coming up.

The meeting is attacked by a gunship piloted by Harrison, who winds up slaughtering most of the attendees, including Pike.

Of course Kirk is reinstated and Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) orders him to hunt down Harrison, who is now hiding out in the land of the Klingons, and kill him. This becomes problematic since Starfleet and the Klingon Empire are at war. Remember those days?

To say anymore would spoil the surprises and there are a couple...Unfortunately, even though I enjoyed the relationships between the crew members, especially the love connection of Spock and Uhura, I didn't find the plot all that original.

The film, directed by J.J. Abrams is very glitzy. Shot in 3D/IMAX, it's beautiful to look at. But for me the plot wasn't very original and it lacked the complexities and intensity of some of the other films in the Franchise. Personally, the 'Borg' films are my favorites..

It's for that reason I gave 'Star Trek Into Darkness' which opens in theatres, Thursday May 16, 2013 three bagels out of five.

Check out our video to see John's bagel score and of course for more of our witty banter.

Please SUBSCRIBE to our youtube channel and LIKE us on our Two Jews On Film facebook page.

Thanks everyone. Let us know what you think about this movie.

Cloud Atlas (2012 film) Quick Tip by Sharrie

Sun, 5 May 2013 07:47:11 +0000

It was on the plane and I switched the channel before the entire movie could developed further as there were just too many good movies this month on the flight!!! Slow start and I think it's probably best watched in the cinema!!!

Hated it the first time I saw it, I have watched it about 20 times since

Sat, 23 Mar 2013 03:28:50 +0000

What was your first impression? Very negative

Plot summary? A new cast of the characters having the same name is introduced with a new storyline. Kirk and Spock forge a friendship under fire.

What's the bottom line?

There are some bad moments that will turn off many long-term Star Trek fans but if that happens, watch it a few more times and concentrate on the relationships between the main characters.

Give Me the Lobotomy, I'd Rather Forget

Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:45:33 +0000

You may have noticed that recently, we've seen new movies from the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, and Bruce Willis. Things like this are usually coincidental, but after seeing the 2012 remake of Total Recall, I'm convinced that it was a result of all three of these iconic action stars also seeing that movie, getting fed up over the catatonic state of action movies today, and taking to the big screen once again to show today's pseudo-philosophical, overtly serious, shell-shocked action stars how it's done.

The 2012 version of Total Recall gave me a sense of two things I didn't ask for and never particularly wanted. The first was a sense of my own age. When I first started enlisting for consumer websites to write reviews, I was a 19-year-old recent high school grad who had only just picked up on the fact that he could turn a few clever phrases with a pen. Now I'm a 31-year-old student-to-be with a ton of real world experience under my belt who became a victim of the economy a couple of years ago. When I got serious about my writing, the first Total Recall was around for a decade and everyone thought they got it right that time. The second thing was a sense of just how bad action movies had gotten since Arnold Schwarzenegger - who starred in the original version - decided to go politicking in California. Since then, The Matrix introduced the most annoying and overused directorial fallback since the secret twist ending. Michael Bay became MICHAEL BAY. Movies became either too serious or too juvenile, and the stars too stoic or unbelievable.

Total Recall is a remake of the 1990 sci-fi classic with Arnold Schwarzenegger. It is NOT a revisioning of the old Philip K. Dick story. Neither of the movies were based on the Philip K. Dick story. They were merely inspired by it - a subtle idea on the outside, but it becomes supremely important when you really think about the difference between inspiration and homage. The original short story, called "We Can Remember it for You Wholesale," revolved only around the initial setoff sequence - that is to say, it went up to the scene where the main character went to get his mind hacked and was discovered by the spies. After escaping, he spent the rest of the story - only a handful of pages more - bargaining with them, successfully, for his life. There's your first clue that Total Recall 2012 had nothing to do with Philip K. Dick and everything to do with Arnold Schwarzenegger and original director Paul Verhoeven. Even so much as acknowledging the difference in the main character's name - in the short story, it was Quail as opposed to Quaid in both movies - would have given it some distance!

Total Recall 2012 the kind of crap we see when people who are obviously bereft of ideas want to make a point-by-point remake of the original while also trying to soften it for the audiences of today. It replaces much of the excitement of the original movie with slogging intensity while wimping out at all the worst possible times. Right from the very start, Total Recall gives itself away. Now, I'll grant that Colin Farrell, who plays Quaid, gives off a better everyman persona in the start than Arnold Schwarzenegger ever did. That's important, because Farrell is believable in the start when he learns what he is. Unfortunately, he never allows himself grow out of it, and he always seems to be carrying a look of shock even after performing all his superhuman stunts. I have to figure that after a shock, most people would continue to surprise themselves but generally just go with it. We really needed Arnold back. Sure he can't play an everyman, but that's so little of the movie that we don't even think about it, and when the action stuff begins, Arnold jumps right in as you would expect a secret agent to. Anyway, like the original, there's a dream sequence in the beginning. The dream features Jessica Biel, playing Melina. Then Quaid snaps awake and the girl in his bed clearly isn't Melina, but Kate Beckinsale as Lori. Although the original movie also featured a woman in the dream sequence, her character wasn't being clearly defined in it as it was in this one.

Every change writers Kurt Wimmer and Mark Bomback make to the original is for the worse. They apparently had a need to keep Lori around right up to the last scene in the movie, and for my life I can't figure out what that need is. This apparent mandate against killing Kate Beckinsale wasn't present in the first movie. Even though Lori was played by Sharon Stone, she was still knocked off when her usefulness wore out. She had a collective total of 15 minutes of screen time, which was more than enough. Beckinsale quits playing her part long before the movie ends, but since nobody has the guts to kill her off, she hangs around to be one of those stupid final menace killings in the end which try - and ALWAYS fail - to bring an extra element of danger into the main character's life. The "wake up" scene in the middle was given the worst alteration possible. In the original movie, it took place between only Quaid and a doctor who had shown up out of nowhere. He played an act, and he played it well to a character - and an audience - that had no idea whether he was being honest or trying to pull one over. In this version, the scene plays out in front of a Police brigade. Melina is with him the whole time, and the person doing the fast talking is Quaid's friend Harry. The scene is horrid because the suspense is now from two people screaming at each other, with the absurd reluctance of Melina to end it by shooting Harry - or vice versa, because Harry takes Melina's gun at one point, and instead of finishing, he GIVES IT BACK.

The setting change removes any sense of urgency. The original involved a corporate honcho on Mars actually cutting off the peoples' air supply to punish them. This Total Recall is set between the United Federation of Britain and The Colony (Australia). The rest of the planet is uninhabitable. Wimmer and Bomback could have easily made the original go into this vision, but instead they chose to stage it around an invasion. The original also fleshed out a lot of its minor characters to such an extent that we worried about their fate once the air ducts were closed and we saw them start suffocating. None of that here - not just because the invasion and prevalent air don't warrant it, but because the people in the cities just appear as faceless blobs. Although director Len Wiseman pays homage to the infamous three-breasted prostitute, she makes an appearance and disappears and, unlike the original, we never think of her again.

The action sequences are done pretty well, and are largely thought out well to boot. Even devoid of any humor, they serve to give Total Recall the precious little bit of life that exists in it. Unfortunately, the way the non-action scenes are done does this movie in. Wiseman tries to streamline the entire movie with a kind of intensity which didn't do much except remind me of how good the original was. In nearly every scene, Wiseman can't get around playing the bad parts of Alfred Hitchcock, and he directs every scene apparently trying to give off the impression that anything could happen at any second. It got to be tiresome after awhile, and the endless stoicism of the actors made it unbearable sometimes.

I'm glad Arnold Schwarzenegger returned to the theaters. If any kids of today want to know why we think action movies lost their way, take them to see The Last Stand, then take them to see the 2012 version of Total Recall. Then explain that Arnold Schwarzenegger was the star of Total Recall 22 years ago. Then if they're old enough, show that version to them, and they'll hopefully understand - that is, if Sam Worthington isn't yet their idea of a proper action star and they haven't completely warped into that way of thinking.

The End Game of Science Fiction

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 02:40:47 +0000

I just reread Ender's Game. It made sense to me since the movie was coming out soon and of course I would compare them. But I need to explain my perspective on the story.

When I started high school I was put into what was called "The Top Class". The kids who became the valedictorian and salutatorian came from this class. Some kids spent all 4 years there and some did not. That is where I learned to play chess. So we were expected to compete with each other intensely though it was not as insane as Battle School in Ender's Game. But I do wonder how many high school classes around the country took competition so seriously. I remember watching a kid cry in class because he got a B in math one grading period. He tried arguing with the teacher about it and the teacher slammed him verbally. At first I almost laughed but then I thought of the hundreds of hours of idiotic busy work he must have done to get straight A's in EveryThing and then to be shot down senior year. Maybe I would have cried too, but I got straight D's in religion freshman year. Agnostics are supposed to care about grades in religion? NOT!

So this colored my perspective of the fictional adults manipulating children in the tale of Ender Wiggen.

Plus Orson Scott Card created a problem for himself by trying to portray lots of super-smart kids. Isaac Asimov had an IQ of 160. How many writers can really create realistic characters that smart? How many human beings actually like people that smart? Card fails to pull it off with some of the characters. Bonzo doesn't really come across as a genius compared to normal people. I am willing to forgive that because it is such a good story regardless of the flaws and for the sake of the big picture being portrayed.

The kids in this story have wireless computers called "desks" which seem to be equivalent to today's tablets. Card also has a global "Net" on Earth where politics and presumably other important subjects are debated. It seems to be less random and have more influence than the Internet today but it is interesting considering that this story evolved from 1977 to 1985. There is nothing in the story to indicate that the "Net" in Ender's Game became as commercial as the Internet has become in the real world.

Ender's Game has become recommended reading for the U.S. Marine Corp. It is like the Honor Harrington series by David Weber in being recommended reading within the military. One of the most interesting things in the book is the conversation between Peter and Valentine when Peter is explaining how they can take over the world via the "Net". Peter is Ender's brother and Valentine his sister.

Ender's Game is a First Contact story though that is not what is most emphasized about this famous SF book. Ender is being trained with brutal techniques to become the commander of Earth's space fleet against aliens. Mankind had been attacked by insectoid aliens twice and had barely survived. This makes Ender's Game similar to Larry Niven's Man-Kzin Wars but this story focuses on one family while Niven has a more panoramic view of his war. In both universes the wars with aliens changed human culture but Ender's Game provides a more personal view.

This story raises questions about education and child psychology. But with the technological changes since 1985 we should wonder how the technology described in the story will be used for education. Card put gamification in the story which educational professionals are discussing today.

So this famous SF story provides lots of ideas to think about long after it has been read. This is real Science Fiction.

Star Wars Quick Tip by FreeDom4

Thu, 31 Jan 2013 07:21:24 +0000

Hi, for those interest in Star Wars and exploring the political and historical influences on the films, I have a new website, the , where I explore those issues. You can check out the as well.

Star Wars Trilogy Quick Tip by FreeDom4

Thu, 31 Jan 2013 07:20:46 +0000

Hi, for those interest in Star Wars and exploring the political and historical influences on the films, I have a new website, the Poli-Sci Jedi, where I explore those issues. You can check out the Facebook page as well.

South Korea Sees Plenty of 'Doom' In Our Future

Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:58:35 +0000

By their very nature, anthology films are a mixed bag. They’ll contain two or three or four smaller stories – essentially ‘shorts,’ cobbled together into one complete film – usually connected by one central theme. The upside is that, if the theme is flexible enough to support multiple interpretations, the audience is treated to an insightful exploration from different (and differing) perspectives. The downside? There can be several, not the least of which is the viewer ends up stuck in a loop supportive of that main idea where nothing all that original unfolds not once but twice, or thrice, or … well, however many installments the producers managed to cram in there!

(NOTE: the following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and characters. If you’re the kind of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last two paragraphs for my final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)

Since DOOMSDAY BOOK is a collection of three short films, I’ll break them down individually for clarity.

In the first chapter, “Brave New World,” a brand new virus incorporated into the food supply by way of food recycling brings the city of Seoul to the brink of social collapse by turning its victims into zombies. The short is bookended with the tale of two young people who find one another on their first date – once the chaos begins, they’re forced by circumstances to go their separate ways; as fate requires, true love will find a way, and our lovers are re-united in the segment’s closing moments. In between, the story develops its satirical themes, showing us in some rather comical fashion, how civic leaders de-evolve while the rest of the world looks on. Technically, it’s all very accomplished with some impressive effects, but, in the end, I found much of it fairly routine ‘stock’ for a zombie picture. On my five star scale, I’d give it a strong three stars.

The second chapter, “The Heavenly Creature,” a temple’s service robot supplied by the UR Corporation experiences an epiphany, leaving the monks to believe they’ve found the latest incarnation of Buddha. The narrative focus for the tale explores the confusion experienced by the service technician sent by the company to diagnose whether the android is reparable or needs a system recall. This segment – from start to finish – is nothing short of brilliant; it’s chocked full of exceptional, probing dialogue with questions by real people trying to understand these curious circumstances and what it means for mankind. Also, there’s a wonderful little bit involving a debutante and failed her mechanical dog that explores humanity at its most crass. Technically, it’s exceptionally staged and photographed with some images – the sight of the droid locked in prayer – that’ll stay with you long after the story ends. On my five star scale, this one easily earns the highest praise with a perfect score.

In the last chapter, “Happy Birthday,” a little girl hoping to please her father logs on to the web and orders him a new eight ball for his pool table. Two years later, an unidentified meteor is heading straight for a collision with the Earth, and, to her surprise, she learns what role she may’ve played in mankind’s impending demise. This installment is a weaker satire than the first chapter, mostly because there’s little substance to the grand ‘reveal’ (which I won’t spoil); instead, the story takes a rather serpentine route to deliver the audience to its destination, and it ends up being relatively routine. I do think, however, that “Happy Birthday” could’ve been stronger with more focus on the comic characters – it’s a family, and they all clearly love one another despite their respective quirks. In this anthology format, there just wasn’t enough time for it all to mean that much. On the five star scale, I’d give it a middling two stars at best.

The single greatest strength to DOOMSDAY BOOK in the three-story format is that the audience doesn’t spend too much time with the lesser sections, making most of it feel fairly benign. The weakness – as I prescribed in my first paragraph – is that the directors delivered three stories of vastly differing appeal. Yes, they’re all sci-fi, giving us a glance at possible (but not all that probable) futures, but when the first and the final chapters feel more than a bit incomplete, I come away not feeling I’ve seen the best these stories had to offer (with the exception of “The Heavenly Creature”).

Still, I’d strongly argue that each of these ideas had great foundation for fuller pictures completely on their own. Granted, a full 90 minutes dedicated to the eradication of mankind by a magic-8-ball (not the game, but a legitimate 8-ball from a pool table set) may not seem all that revelatory, but you have to take it in context. I would’ve loved to spend more time in each of these visions, especially one where a robot uncovers its desire to pray, and that’s something to think about.

DOOMSDAY BOOK is produced by Gio Entertainment and Timestory. DVD distribution (stateside) is being handled by Well Go USA Entertainment. As for the technical specifications, it all looks and sounds impressive, and each chapter boasts some very solid performances by all of the players. Also, I’d be remiss in my duties if I didn’t point out that the feature won the 2012 Fantasia Cheval Noir Award; and was an official selection of the 2012 Hawaii International Film Festival, the 2012 New York Asian Film Festival, and 2012 Fantastic Fest. Sadly, there are no special features to speak of.

RECOMMENDED. You like zombie films? Check! You like thoughtful heart-tugging science fiction flicks? Check! You like end-of-the-world tales told with more than a hint of irony? Check! Certainly, each piece of DOOMSDAY BOOK is solidly produced; but, as can happen all too often in anthology films, these stories end up wildly mixing influences and producing varying results. It’s safe to say that I would have rather seen each installment expanded and turned into its own feature – the zombie short had some solid ideas but methinks some of its dark humor was lost in translation, and the disaster from the heavens could’ve been elevated by more exploration of its decidedly quirky four main characters – because, in their present format, there just wasn’t enough. Only the middle chapter – the robot who found enlightenment – was strong enough to stand on its own, but I would’ve loved to have spent more time in that inspired, thought-provoking reality.

In the interests of fairness, I’m please to disclose that the fine folks at Well Go USA Entertainment provided me with a DVD screener of DOOMSDAY BOOK for the expressed purposes of completing this review.

Two Directors. Three Tales of the Future. One Story of Humanity's Self-Destruction

Thu, 17 Jan 2013 02:02:26 +0000

Often have I said that to understand and appreciate Asian cinema, one must be ready to ask for the motivation of a story or a scene. It operates differently than Hollywood movies when its narrative is especially kept in an allegoric manner. Well, the director of “Hansel and Gretel”, Im Pil-Seung and the director of two awesome-st films “A Tale of Two Sisters” and “I Saw The Devil”, Kim Ji-Woon have joined together in directing a trilogy of stories under the film “The Doomsday Book”. This film presents three unique stories of the potential for humanity’s self-destruction in this modern high-tech era. It sees the modern age as insusceptible and as a result, it seeks to present an alternative form of genuine humanity.

The first tale “Brave New World” follows a young man named Yoon Seok (Ryu Seung-Beom, Arahan) who is left behind in Korea while his family goes abroad. He cleans up and comes across a rotten apple which then finds it way to the food waste disposal system. Soon, Yoon-Seok and his date, Yoo-Min (Go Joon-Hee) discover that the world is under siege by an undead pandemic brought about by rotten trash?

Kim Ji-Woon brings in to the fold (also the director of Hollywood’s The Last Stand) “Heavenly Creature”. A tale that follows a young technician named Park Do-Won (Kim Kang-Woo) employed by the RU robotics company to check out a robot (Park Hae-Il) who had been employed in a Buddhist monastery. This robot called RU4 has become a Buddhist and many have claimed that it had reached enlightenment. Park gives the robot a clean bill of health, but his superiors (Song Young-Chang and Kim Seo-Hyung) see things differently...

The last story called “Happy Birthday” brings us a family who are trying to survive a destructive asteroid headed for Earth. Min-Seo (Jin Ji-Hee) with her parents and her uncle (Song Sae-Byok) set up in a basement that they have retrofitted to become a bomb shelter. But as the asteroid approaches Earth, Min-seo soon discovers that the huge asteroid may have something to do with a billiard “Eight Ball” she had thrown away years ago.

“The Doomsday Book” is a different undertaking created by two talented Korean directors. I do have to admit that it feels to be a different flavor, and it feels more like “Twilight Zone” episodes than a Korean movie. The three stories are heavy with symbolism immersed with several philosophical themes. All three tales fall under the themes of human neglect and carelessness, fear of the unknown and just how our own perceptions can limit us. The film certainly wanted to make an impact, and it does. Themes of spirituality and how over-reliance on technology can blind us to a truth. Things that we see and things we ignore bring about our own destruction.

Yes, this trilogy is all about different visions of an apocalypse, but it also brings forth a message that every end may be the beginning of something new. The film comes out swinging, and the two tales by Im may feel rather more light-hearted and subtly humorous, Kim Ji-Woon’s “Heavenly Creature” is darker and much more powerful in what it was trying to say. There is just something about a machine reaching a state of Nirvana, and a state that have eluded most humans. Kim’s direction was strong, and despite the fact that the robot called In-Myung looked uncannily similar to the robot designs of the American film “I-Robot”, I had no issues connecting with the story.

Im’s “Brave New World” and “Happy Birthday” are simple stories whose message comes across easily and yet the script itself felt a little cumbersome in its delivery. “Happy Birthday” moved more like a fairy tale with a message geared towards humanity while “Brave New World” feels more like a sci-fi horror movie until you reach its last act. Im also creates links to the media and just how politics can play a part in an apocalypse. People take advantage of any situation, and the media can definitely influence the people’s opinion.

All three tales of “The Doomsday Book” are superbly acted. The film is a very handsome undertaking, the set designs and the costumes are real neat, and the careful methodical use of its camerawork certainly spoke a lot of its quality. The one issue I may have is the fact that it may well be a little over-reaching with its intended themes, and limits itself with its own screen time. It strikes a chord and yet, it feels a little incomplete. Not to say that it was lacking, but it may feel a little too heavy-handed to the casual movie viewer and may come off as poignant for the experienced movie fan. I do feel that it may require multiple viewings to truly understand what it is trying to say. Yes, “The Doomsday Book” may not be a film that truly reached the plateau it aims for but it is a film worth checking out.

Recommended! [3 ½ Out of 5 Stars]

Weapon of Choice

Sun, 13 Jan 2013 13:23:06 +0000

My favorite thought about playing the original Ratchet and Clank was, "Finally, an actually, honest to god mind numbing action title!" Thankfully, it turned out to be more than a hiccup. It turned into a semi-iconic video game series for the Playstation 2, and one of the last identifiable console mascots. (Although their being a console mascot has more to do with them being exclusives on Sony's machine than anything else. You don't see any ads for Sony equipment with Clank holding up a miniaturized television set.) Ratchet and Clank was a throwback to the good old days of video games, when challenge was presented through impossible-to-approach bad guys rather than uncovering every patch, hidden or not, to reach the number of whatever mystical item you're collecting.

Up Your Arsenal, the third Ratchet and Clank game, realizes the full potential of the series and corrects a bunch of glaring flaws from the first two games, Ratchet and Clank and Going Commando. It also expands on those two games in some very fun ways while removing some of the riffraff. Those hard as nails space dogfights and motorcycle races from Going Commando are gone.

Up Your Arsenal features the grand return of our two favorite characters from the first game who weren't named Ratchet and Clank. I'm talking about Dr. Nefarious and Captain Qwark. The story introduces us to our two titular heroes, Ratchet and Clank, living a pretty good life. They're still good friends, but all Clank's attention lately seems to be getting the better of Ratchet. It's Clank who's the face of the two by playing the James Bond wannabe on some camp show called Secret Agent Clank, while Ratchet gets the undignified role as Clank's limo driver. Clank is awesome and everything, but Ratchet is still feeling a little left behind, a justifiable thought considering he did all the dirty work in saving the universe while Clank pulled his weight as a backpack. In the meantime, Dr. Nefarious has returned and is now bankrolling an attack on Ratchet's home planet by some gullible warrior race called the Tyhrranoids. His ultimate object is to wipe out all organic life. The Tyhrranoids, by the way, are organic life forms, so in helping Nefarious out, they're also future winners of a Darwin Award. Long story short, it's up to Ratchet to play the universal hero again, gather an arsenal or weaponry which would make Mad Max plotz, and nuke Nefarious back to the age when the deadliest weapons were sticks and stones.

The weapons in Up Your Arsenal are bigger and more explosive (read: fun) than ever before. You want military assault guns? You can leave the M-16 and AK-47 at home for this one. Up Your Arsenal gives us BFG after BFG with names like the N60 Storm, Spitting Hydra, Lava Gun, Shock Blaster, and Annihilator! And yeah, they'll all be blowing stuff up REAL good, too! The Mine Glove attacks any enemy who gets too close. The Agents of Doom run around the battlefield dismantling anything they can get their tiny, scuzzy little hands on. The Spitting Hydra locks onto enemies before giving them a knockout dose of lightning, and the Annihilator launches rockets at whatever it's locked on. Provided you have one of the older Ratchet and Clank games on the same memory card you're using to save Up Your Arsenal to, you can also grab some of the older weapons from those games. Some of the weapons are better, more useful, and more powerful than others, and some are just plain obsolete by the end of the game. And when Slim Cognito offers Ratchet a deal on the Plasma Coil, you're best off picking it right up because without a powered-up plasma coil, the final battle against Dr. Nefarious is going to be a much longer and more drawn-out affair than it needs to be.

The weapons even gain experience and become more powerful the more often you use them, like in any standard RPG. While this is a nice little addition that adds a little bit of replay value, I don't think Insomniac (the developer) went far enough in developing it. The N60 Storm is a nice little basic blaster which packs a sizable wallop in the early goings. It also holds the most significant ammo reserve in the game, with 300 shots, making it a good fallback weapon when the bigger, fun guns are bereft of all projectiles. And, no matter how much you work to get that sucker juiced all the way up, it's still going to do nothing more than maybe tickle your enemies come the game's halfway mark. The effect gets magnified if you happen to really enjoy plugging bad guys with the Omniwrench - Ratchet's default weapon - and the Plasma Whip, which are the only weapons in the game suited more for melee combat than distance battles. They're also outdated early, which makes it a pain later if you get surrounded by little nuisance enemies because most of the guns in Up Your Arsenal are of the one-shot-per-enemy type.

The level designs…. Ah, who cares? We all know the weapons are why people love to play the Ratchet and Clank series. Some of the levels are slight retreads from the first game, like Blackwater City and Metropolis. Still, though, well, first you'll be glad to know there's no real water level. There's swimming in the game, but nothing in the way of water which can really be said to hamper the game. You'll be stopping by a lot of the planets more than once, and it's a good idea to keep dropping by other planets in order to make money. In one level, you can gather crystals which are worth a black market fortune. In others, you help the Galactic Rangers in one of their various missions in restoring peace and order to the galaxy.

The difficulty of Up Your Arsenal took me off guard, probably because I've spent many years now softening myself up through a million video game scavenger hunts in which the only challenge was finding every item. But as far as 3D games go, this ain't your kid's 3D video game. Levels are linear, and in the grand tradition of the old 16-bit era, you actually have to start at one end and you get stuck traversing the same path until you get to a designated end point. In your way are enemies. Not token road block creatures which happen to get in your way sometimes and can be knocked off in one shot, but ENEMIES. Bad guys who either charge you or start firing away on sight, knock off giant chunks of health, and are programmed to kill you in faster, better ways as the game goes on. Some of these guys are in inconvenient places, and they're not privy to just letting you by. You need to do some serious weapon cycling and experimenting to learn which weapons are best suited for those situations.

Up Your Arsenal even has bosses, and they're not tokens, either. They're big, they're bad, they have long and absorbent life bars, and they're not going to let you by until you've shot them enough times. The boss battles are unfortunately one of my problems with Up Your Arsenal. Remember what I said a few paragraphs ago about how outdated weapons won't do much more than tickle enemies in later levels? Well, that's the way it goes in EVERY boss fight. A lot of these boss battles are turned from simple fights into wars of attrition because of that. You walk up to them, avoid getting hit, and blast them as much as they can take being blasted. A powered-up gun can help, but even so, most bosses will be able to withstand the onslaught of nearly everything you can throw. I've fought boss battles in this game which ran over 20 minutes, and that's just inexcusable.

At least you get to start over at any boss you made it to after dying, and that's more than I can say for the rest of the game. Again, this was a 16-bit mainstay so I shouldn't be complaining, but it's still painful to fight your almost way almost to level's end, or at the very least the halfway checkpoint, then die just when you're close enough to smell it because you have to start the whole level all over again, with all the dead baddies resurrected, right in the same spots they were in last time they killed you. Up Your Arsenal could have used the less torturous system of letting you pick up right where you died, thus saving a lot of frustration. What's worse is that, terrible as it is being brought back all the way at the beginning of a level, all the ammo you expended that didn't find its way into robot steel isn't resurrected. You have to visit the vendor and buy a whole new stock. The sections with Clank don't give him any weapons other than a banana launcher which is there only for puzzle-solving. Clank has to walk up to every enemy and hit them with his fists. He only has a handful of hit points, and every time he dies, he has to start his section all the way from the beginning. Good luck with that.

At least the obstacles aren't overtly painful to navigate this time. There are no real tricky jumping puzzles or rushes to use a ledge-creating gadget however many times in a row before you get any time to collect your bearings.

Up Your Arsenal presents us with playable Captain Qwark comics, which are essential to the plot and which function as fun games within a game. The last comic you have to play, featuring a boss fight against Dr. Nefarious, is one of the most annoying scenes I've ever played out in a video game, but all in all the comics are a fun addition and a dash of uniqueness to the game and a welcome break from the action when it gets too hot.

The graphics and sounds in Up Your Arsenal are as perfect as in the rest of the series. Voices are loud and crystal clear, and the graphics perform smoothly while pushing the Playstation 2 to its limits. A lot of action is capable of happening onscreen at the same time, both in the background and foreground. There's nary a whiff of graphic slowdown which tends to infect the Playstation 2 normally when it tries to do the things Up Your Arsenal does; no pop-up problems, smooth camera, beautiful colors. The voice-over work is extremely well-done, and the cast includes veteran character actor Armin Shimerman. Geeks reading this will recognize him as the actor who played Quark on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Principal Snyder on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. And no, while the names Quark and Qwark sound exactly the same, Shimerman doesn't portray the cowardly sellout Captain Qwark in Up Your Arsenal. He actually voices Dr. Nefarious.

The controls are as perfect as can be. There are parts where the game is reluctant to let you really get a good look around with the camera, mostly when you're leaning against walls and such. There are also points where it's a little bit too easy to misjudge the distance of a jump, but that's hardly Insomniac's fault. One feature I like is that at the weapon selection menu, you can press R1 to get an alternate selection of weapons, which makes life a little easier when deciding what to place into the quick select.

If you're the kind of gamer who likes to just toss in the cartridge (kids, a cartridge is what we dinosaurs used to play video games on. They didn't have any loading time, but when you played one often enough, you would have to blow on the data chips inside them to clear the dust off to get them to work) and start blowing up everything in sight, Ratchet and Clank is your series, and Up Your Arsenal is the best game in it.

Could have easily been the best film of the year if only the story ran smoother and less precise.

Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:28:29 +0000

I left two times the movie theater knowing that I saw something special, knowing that I witnessed not only a march towards freedom but also towards a better understanding of faith and how that works in the context of evolution. I noticed that everyone is talking about how important is the concept of freedom in this film and to a certain degree I fully agree. There is one small window though that I think a lot of people are missing. The fact that even if the present or the future seem to be irreversible and not to be altered, faith plays a great role in doing the unexpected because it's the pillar of what pushes anyone to change something. So the role of faith in evolution is a major concept in Cloud Atlas. Haven't read the book I have the opinion of an outsider here and I think what Cloud Atlas did is marvelous but I also acknowledge the issues that the movie has and why it is so polarizing.

The force of Cloud Atlas is not in the labirynthian craft of the story which is a bit hard to process entirely by the general audience but in the mixture of ideas and themes present in the film. That is the marvelous part. That this film succeeded in telling a story of faith, destiny, and freedom by using important problems that are relevant to our society. It went on and explored slavery, environmental issues, resource problems, politics, religion, human integrity and professional integrity, linguistics, and even insanity. It was so easy for a movie about something so common like freedom or faith to just revolve around the love/hate element of human nature but this one it didn't, it didn't took the lazy path of going somewhere. This is where I think Cloud Atlas succeeds. Making every story that's being told important and relevant to our society. It tells a story of "how not to" or "how to" without directly pointing the finger. The bad side of all this though is exactly the labirynthian craft of the story. Not because it's too hard to process by the average moviegoer but simply because it feels even for people like me -who've seen thousands of movies-- a bit like reading a really "exhibitionistish" piece of literature. It just hits you with so many things without any warning that you're constantly under a wave of ideas. It's more of a flood of ideas. The character development feels like that as well. While I can see the progress and the small connections I can hardly get attached to any character because I feel they are for a moment just pawns in the grand scheme of things shown here. It's a film that lets few people breathe. It doesn't take a pause and in movies like this one, pauses are sometimes needed.

The acting is good but nothing that will stand in front in particular. We get fine work from Tom Hanks, Jim Broadbent, our latest "Q" in James Bond Series, Ben Whishaw, and short but keen performances by David Gyasi and Hugh Grant. Halle Berry feels a little bit out of place, and God that makeup was half brilliant, half awful. In general this films lacks the technical qualities that it could have had. The cinematography is polarizing as well. Sometimes I felt the John Toll shots made more sense and sometimes I felt the Frank Griebe shots were more gripping and pulled me back into the story. The strongest technical part in Cloud Atlas is without a doubt the music. The score by Tom Twyker, Johnny Klimek, and Reinhold Heil is so emotional, vivid, and really helps in keeping the audience interested and ultimately sending a message.

I think Twyker and the Wachowski brothers managed to create a great film that only falls short because it feels just a bit too much. It went over the top with it's exposition and that hurts. This could have easily been the best film of the year if only the story ran smoother and less precise.

Story: 9.0
Acting: 8.0
Technical Execution: 8.6
Replay Value: 8.5
====================
OVERALL: 8.6

This will make a great movie

Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:08:02 +0000

Army guys might dig this book, I, on the contrary couldn’t even finish it! It reminds me of World War Z: an oral history of the zombie war because they are both told by different voices around the world narrating the events leading to the zombie war and in the case of Robopocalypse, the robot rebellion.

I found the book very army like and technical. Also, if saw the I, Robot movie with Will Smith you already have an idea about what robot rising is about and might enjoy this book.

Why did the robots rebel? How does it end? Only God, Wilson and those who could stomach to finish the book know! Because I gave up before my eyes went robotic on me and rebelled to read anymore.

Steven Spielberg is making this book into a movie which I think will be awesome because it stars Chris Hemsworth and you know how hot this Australian guy is :- ) and being the latest Midas of Hollywood everything he acts in turns into gold.

Hey There! Remember Me?

Tue, 4 Dec 2012 06:40:07 +0000

I thought that was a fitting name to this review since I haven't written in awhile and I miss you guys! Plus, it has to do with this fantastic movie about intersecting life paths, deja vu, and how even your smallest decisions affect the world at large.

The other day, F and I headed to a movie. He had wanted to see Cloud Atlas for a while, and having no memory of what it was about, I agreed. I'm so glad that I did. I loved this movie. It's one of those that keeps you on the edge of your seat, constantly trying to guess what's going to happen next. It's also one of those that keeps you talking, even after the last credit has rolled and the theater lights have been up for quite a while with the ushers giving you the eye. I'm not going to add any spoilers here because you just need to go see this movie, like yesterday, but I will breakdown the different aspects that stood out to me.

Acting: With only about 15 actors and 75 roles, the actors played multiple roles. Not only did they play multiple roles, but they played them incredibly. It is no small feat to conquer a role believably, it is a tremendous conquest to tackle multiple roles and play them without a trace of the other characters bleeding through. Of course, you know that Tom Hanks is amazing, but Halle Berry, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, and Doona Bae don't give up their spotlights easily or readily.

Make-Up: If this movie doesn't get an Oscar for make-up, I give up. It was quite a bit of fun to match the characters to the actors as the credits rolled on. I was fooled by a couple, which says a lot about how truly talented the make-up team was on this film.

Story: There were multiple plots going on at the same time. If you don't like that sort of thing, you may want to pass on this movie. I happen to love that sort of thing and didn't find it too difficult to keep up. That's about as much as I can say without giving anything away!

Go see this movie. It will inspire a great conversation with those that have seen it or those that have any interest in how the smallest of actions can have the biggest impacts.

Very boring and slow

Sat, 1 Dec 2012 01:49:49 +0000

I was so looking forward to reading this book. Pia was born in a secret lab deep in the jungle of the Amazon. She’s born perfect. She doesn’t get sick, her skin is like that of Superman – can’t be pinched by needles, she doesn’t grow old-er, she is super smart and she is soon to become a scientist to help make others like herself and help create the perfect new race.

There is also Eio, a boy from a nearby village who Pia meets one night when she escapes the lab and ventures into the jungle. They fall in love and he urges Pia to leave the lab and run away with him.

For me, the concept of immortality is a very interesting one. Unfortunately, the book is very simple and kind of black and white to read.

A few points are:
1) It is never fully explained how Pia was made. She has a father and a mother but, was she born naturally? Was she a normal baby? Did she grow up like regular kids do or kind of like that movie Splice?
2) It looks like everyone who lives in this lab/facility called Little Cam has been there since they were… 15? How is that?
3) Pia is supposed to be this super smart girl but her reasoning and dialogue seem pretty dumb to me.
4) There is a secret room where Pia is forbidden to go… why?
5) Others who tried to escape where “discouraged” from ever doing so… What is really going on in Little Cam?

I never really found out what Little Cam is about. Why or who people were chosen to live there, why you couldn’t ever leave, what kind of lab or experiments were taking place… oh! I just didn’t find any sense to the story other than bring Pia and Eio together, create a love story and give it a happy ending.

I guess the dialogue between Pia and Eio is dull because English is Eio’s second language. But for God’s sake! Did it have to be that dragging and boring?

I didn’t feel any momentum rising in the book. I didn’t feel any sense of adventure either (as the book is cataloged under ‘adventure’). I didn’t feel any type of connection to Pia or anybody else.

What I liked: I liked the general idea of the book and the ending. It was very interesting discovering where Pia’s perfection came from!

Ivan Vorpatril's Revenge

Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:00:26 +0000

Ivan Vorpatril is the cousin of Miles Vorkosigan and intermittently pops up in stories about Miles. He is constantly used as the but of jokes and accused of being an idiot. But overall it seems to be quite unfair.

So Lois Bujold has finally created a novel centered on Ivan. Ivan does in one book what takes Miles three and causes more problems for ImpSec in one book than Miles did in nine. It took the three stories, Komarr, A Civil Campaign and Winterfair Gifts for Miles to meet the girl, woo the girl and marry the girl. Ivan does all that in six chapters and then things get interesting. Of course he gets help from renegade Jacksonians and Miles never worked with them.

The tale begins with Ivan minding his own business on Komarr. The troublemaker from A Civil Campaign, Byerly Vorrutyer, turns up to maintain his reputation. He wants Ivan to meet a pretty girl. How can Ivan object to that? Of course Ivan knows there must be a catch. But the trouble is not even Byerly knows how big the catch is. Wait, Komarr is where Miles found his woman. All trouble starts on Komarr.

Thus begins the chain reaction with Ivan playing the role of pinball. Every bounce makes a certain degree of sense but it just leads to more trouble. Ivan helps Jacksonians invade Barrayar but of course they lie about why they want to do it. Never trust a Jacksonian.

Oh, you don't know what a Jacksonian is? That is the problem with this book. You need to read at least half a dozen books preceding this one in the series to understand most of the nuances of this book. Fortunately Komarr and A Civil Campaign are as good or better than this one.

A Civil Campaign is somewhat of a comedy like this one but this has a higher slap-stick factor and is more linear without intersecting side plots involving insects and sexual politics. Without reading ACC Byerly is an unknown quantity and jokes about his no account cousin will go over the reader's head. But Komarr and Mirror Dance must be read to comprehend ACC and Memory to explain Komarr and some of this book too, and Brothers in Arms to explain Mirror Dance. I guess you should get Cordelia's Honor and start at the beginning to deal with the whole Vorkosiverse. Skip Cryoburn until after reading this one though.

Most of the series is worth reading and this book is among the better and funnier ones.

http://www.lunch.com/reviews/d/UserReview-Vo...s_by_Lois_McMaster.html

Another Apocolyptic Blast from the Past

Sat, 3 Nov 2012 18:24:04 +0000

The Long Tomorrow is one of the first post World War II novels depicting a possible aftermath of nuclear war. It is set only 80 years after the war rather than multiple centuries like A Canticle for Leibowitz. It also contains a deep religious streak. But it has an entirely different psychological perspective and does not raise the issue of mutations.

Instead there is a backlash against science and what is left of American culture is religiously devoted to keeping science repressed. But there is a persistent rumour of some technologically advanced town somewhere out west that still has technology but no one knows where it is. If people believe you are from there they will kill you.

Two young boys accidentally discover that it must actually exist because they find a radio. So they go off searching for the town.

This is science fiction as a thought experiment. There are thousands of more nuclear weapons today than there were in 1955 when this book was first published. Although there does not seem to be as much overt worry about nuclear war today as in the 50s the problem really has not gone away so this book is still just as relevant though many may not think so.

I prefer it to A Canticle for Leibowitz because it does not have the mystical component and seems much more plausible. What I do not understand is why it is so much less well known and mentioned than Leibowitz. Sometimes I think the literary crowd does not like realism in science fiction.

That is the book cover I had long, long ago.

'Cloud Atlas' a brilliant, scifi, fantasy love story, spanning 500 years (video)

Thu, 25 Oct 2012 04:11:36 +0000

By Joan Alperin Schwartz
'Cloud Atlas' is a film that some people, like myself, will find absolutely brilliant, while others, like John (the other half of 'Two Jews On Film') will feel just the opposite.

Some critics have already called it prententious as well as an indulgent mess. All these varying opinions simply prove one thing...When it comes to movies, art, music, culture...it's all so subjective.. Therefore, my suggestion, is...go see this film and judge for yourself.

'Cloud Atlas' directed and written by Lana Wachowski and her brother Andy of the 'Matrix' fame along with Tom Tykwe ('Run Lola Run') is based on David Mitchell's best selling novel of the same name.

The film spans five centuries and explores how the actions and consequences of individuals impact one another through the past, present and future. Characters meet and reunite...Are born and reborn. And...everything and everyone is connected.

One soul is shaped from a killer into a hero, and a single act of kindness ripples across centuries to inspire a revolution.

'Cloud Atlas begins in 2346, and in 1849, 1936, 2012, 2144 and back to 2346.

The film is part action, mystery, romance, scifi, fantasy and even at times, a comedy.

There are six stories and the actors including Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Susan Sarandon, Jim Broadbent, James D' Arcy, Hugh Grant, David Gyasi, Hugo Weaving, Ben Winshaw and the memorizing Doona Baein, play six different characters and they are all extraordinary, transcending genders in some cases.

When the film begins we meet Tom Hanks, a one eyed goat herder living in post apocalyptic Hawaii and then in 1849 as an evil ship's doctor. In 2012, he's a balding skinhead who becomes a pop star after he throws a critic off the roof.

Two of Halle's characters are a crusading San Francisco journalist in 1973 and the last survivor of a lost civilization in 2345..

One of my favorite character that Jim Sturgess plays is a a robot warrior from the future living in New Seoul. He falls in love with a sexy, socially outlawed genetically cloned slave,Sonmi-451 (Doona Baein) who spends her brief existence as a compliant restaurant server. With the help of Sturgess, she starts gains enlightenment and starts a revolution.

I could write pages about this complex, intriguing, fascinating film, but then why would you go see it...And see it, you must.

"Cloud Atlas' opens in theatres, Friday October 26, 2012 and I gave it 4 1/2 bagels out of 5. Check out our video to see what John thought of this film and what I thought about his critique.and bagel rating.

Please SUBSCRIBE to our youtube channel and LIKE us on our Two Jews On Film facebook page. Love to hear what you think about this film. Thanks everyone.

.

The Walking Dead: The Complete First Season Quick Tip by Madpenguin

Sat, 29 Sep 2012 01:15:19 +0000

While preparing to watch the second season, I decided to rewatch this again. Fortunately, my original feelings are still the same and I find this to still be a gripping experience. The Walking Dead manages to deliver where it counts and gets so many things right. The characters are well developed to the point you care about where they're going, plus it maintains a consistent tone freeing it from the usual zombie comedy bullshit you been seeing like wild fire for like the last 7 years; with exceptional action scenes and gore along with a pretty high suspense factor. The Walking Dead is a zombie apocalypse horror fans shouldn't miss. Recommended!

A small step for Martians.. A giant leap for mankind.

Fri, 28 Sep 2012 07:47:14 +0000

I bought a ticket to another movie, but had to wait an hour, so I thought I would pass time watching John Carter.

As JC began I became swiftly swept up in it, forgetting the other movie entirely, as I was so transported.

If you're like me and like movies such Star Wars, I think you will love this movie. I'm not suggesting that it's better than Star Wars, but I certainly enjoyed it than some Star Wars movies.

Like many movies our hero John Carter starts out in the ordinary world, in this case, earth slightly after the civil war. Our hero, a former soldier now disillusioned, has lost his purpose. Now the army attempts to conscript him into service. Being resourceful he escapes custody, stealing the captains horse, survives a showdown with Indians, seeks shelter in a secret cave with walls of gold.

Something happens that transports him to a special world, Mars, with its own rules, where there is a power struggle, between two factions vying for control of the planet, which threatens the destruction of a group of giant indigenous green people, who ultimately become his allies.

Quickly, he is taken captive, but in this special world with its different gravity he has special abilities, which impresses his captors. Pretty soon he crosses paths with an extremely pretty princess, played by Lynn Collins, who has beauty, brains, and fighting skills. She definitely is not your typical damsel in distress. She also has an excellent suntan, sky blue eyes, and a most shapely figure.

Though worlds separate him from the princess, as he crosses the distance quickly, we come to understand the loss that fuels his reluctance, and when you watch you will discover the cause that fuels his purpose.

I have always loved the Tarzan stories by Edgar Rice Burroughs. As a child I would sit in a tree and stop traffic with my blood curdling Tarzan impersonation. I was unaware that he had also written the John Carter series.

This story follows the same mythological pattern set out by Joseph Campbell in his book The Hero has a Thousand faces. George Lucas followed this template in creating the Star Wars series, and other movies that follow this pattern include The Matrix, Batman Begins, and Wanted. John Carter follows yet precedes the pattern, as the book series was written before Campbells book.

Stages of the story include a hero called to adventure, refuses the call, something happens to draw him into adventure, meeting the mentor, meeting the goddess, crossing the threshold, allies, trials and tests, the inmost cave, mastery of both worlds etc.

I loved the imagination and the creation of all these Martian characters.

Disney was disappointed with its opening weekend gross of $30 million, which tracked several million below expectation. Supposedly, the movie cost $250 million to make, but I always take these figures with a grain of salt. The more expensive the movie is, the more impressed people will be, the more likely people are to watch, so figures can easily become inflated. I think word of mouth will help this movie enormously.

If one likes to be swayed by beauty, then one might enjoy the performance of Lynn Collins. I realised early in the movie, that she had not just beauty but a commanding presence, charisma, and acting talent. In fact she has a strong grounding as a Shakespearean actor, having appeared in Merchant of Venice with Al Pacino. I did not recognise her because she had different hair, played a man for at least a portion of that movie, and had a Venetian pallor instead of a Martian suntan, or perhaps a Los Angeles spray tan.

So, it's nice to see the studio not cast a name but cast a great talent.

I loved this movie. I think most people will, and I hope this was helpful.

How Reading Reviews Enables The Butterfly Effect

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:45:44 +0000

It's amazing the amount of people that spend the time to sit and review movies, books, comics, anything. And here I find myself doing the same the thing. I decided to alter my own life by going to a few different Sci-Fi communities and read the reviews and then purchase the book and/or see the movie. I wanted to see if I listened to others opinions and read or watched something that I normally would not go out of my way to do, would have a profound impact on my life. Sort of a Butterfly Effect 2.0. Did exposing myself to these new sci-fi arenas have any effect on me? Read this Review and Find out.

Review #1 The Keepers by Rick Friar:
There was a review first posted here about a series called "The Keepers". The guy reviewing it "Shredder203" (I assume it was a guy) talked a mass hype. Stating that it was as good as Star Wars if not better. I decided to take it for a test spin, because to me, nothing can beat Star Wars. (At least episodes 4-6).

Did I like it? YES! Surprisingly so. One thing I love was the grittyness of the novel. That classic super post apocolyptic space future vibe was strong throughout the entire book. And when I did a little more research, I found out that the author actually specked out his 'Animalian' vehicles from supreme robots that are being built now. It was really interesting to check out his website and see these 'primitive' versions of the robots he describes in his books. It's a big book, but I was able to finish it quickly and recommend it to virtually anyone that likes the classic sci-fi novel that digs a little deeper into amazing technology and future politics.

The Butterfly Effect: While reading the Keepers I was sitting on the bus headed to my friend's place. An amazingly cute girl laughed at me and asked me what I was reading. I told her my plan to read and experience life. We have gone on 3 dates so far and now she is reading The Keepers and we have some epic conversations. So I think the Butterfly is in full Effect.

Review #2 2001: A Space Odyssey - Movie:
I know that I must seem like the worst sci-fi geek ever, because I never had the chance to sit down and fully watch 2001. After reading review of it on SciFiScape, they mentioned a list of a zillion movies that have the HAL theme. So I needed to finally watch it.

Did I like it? YES. I know that in this day and age it is a little slow, but you have to realize that this movie really stands the test of time. Kubrik was a masterful genius and the first scene with the black monolith is 100% amazing. If you have not seen this movie yet, because you are young, but you love sci-fi, it is a must!

The Butterfly Effect: After watching this movie I have been stuck for two days in a philosophical point of view. Nothing crazy to report yet.

I guess that is it. More to come! Watch 2001 Odyssey and read "The Keepers"!

"Battle Royale" lite in an intellectually and idealistically distant future.

Sun, 16 Sep 2012 18:11:27 +0000

** out of ****

"The Hunger Games" is based on the first book in the best-selling young adult self-titled trilogy of books written by Suzanne Collins. I have never read any of the three - "The Hunger Games", "Catching Fire", and "Mockingjay" - and the film really does me no favors. Based on fan feedback, I will not for one second believe that this adaptation reflects the quality and depth of the novel; because the film falls short in both departments. But as always, I'm here to judge what I saw (the movie); and what I saw, let me tell you, just wasn't all that good, sorry to say. I'm forgiving of a blockbuster that doesn't underestimate the intelligence and expectations of its audience; which is why I'm not all that forgiving of this one. By my personal definition, it simply doesn't qualify as a good film.

The story takes place in the future; in the nation of Panem, which is what North America became after the Capitol (of which the president is Donald Sutherland) was founded and the surrounding districts (twelve in total) were left to face poverty and the sense of grim, hopeless desolation that can only come from social abandonment. Every year, there is the annual Hunger Games; in which one boy and one girl from each district are chosen to fight each-other to the death in a Capitol-owned arena (conveniently, they're the ones who devised the games). The names of the participants are picked from a lottery of sorts by Effie Trinklet (Elizabeth Banks); and this year, a girl from district 12 named Katniss (Jennifer Laurence) has offered herself as tribute to prevent her beloved younger sister from participating in the games.

Katniss and a boy around her age - Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) - represent district 12. They go to the Capitol, where they are trained for the games by former victor (and apparent alcoholic) Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson). Before the games have even started, they need to make an impression of sorts on television, as this is a world controlled by the media (Stanley Tucci and Toby Jones play popular television personalities). Peeta and Katniss will be presented as star-crossed lovers (to make use of the term), even though they will ultimately have to fight one another in the end, unless the rules are somehow reversed by the end.

I've recently developed a fascination for futuristic sci-fi and big-scale storytelling. It's difficult for me not to compare "The Hunger Games" to the bigger, better, and sometimes smaller but more engaging features in the same vein that I've seen. In this universe, the future is supposed to be both visually and conceptually elaborate (although when is the future not?), although I can only give it credit in the first department. Director Gary Ross is too concerned with over-stylizing his film (the shaky-cam gets annoying fast, and makes you want to kill yourself in the action sequences) to care much about the satirical edge to the film or more importantly the characters. There are interesting themes at play here ranging from feminism to the absence of religion in this world, but do they really mean anything if I just don't care to begin with? This film did nothing for me.

I don't personally recommend "The Hunger Games" because it did not entertain or enlighten me. Most people will probably enjoy the hell out of it; but for some reason, I did not. Perhaps one day I'll give the books a go to see if they're any better (and if there's even the slightest bit more proper character development or emotional resonance, I'm sure they are). All I can say at this point is that I'm not excited for "Catching Fire". The film may be well-cast and overall well-acted (Wes Bentley for once gets the role of an arrogant douchebag, a role which fits him very well; and I liked Harrelson's drunk) but those are pretty much given when you're working in Hollywood. There are good things (spectacular art direction, good James Newton Howard score) and bad things (Ross's awkward direction, the gimmicky camerawork) about this film; although none of them are hardly worth the effort in my humble opinion. But don't listen to me.

What if I told you...The Matrix is great?

Sun, 16 Sep 2012 18:08:20 +0000

**** out of ****

What would you do if you were in the place of hacker Thomas Anderson (Keanu Reeves) - popularly known by his in-movie online alias of "Neo" - in that you woke up one morning to cryptic messages on your computer monitor referencing this thing that you are indifferent to known only as the matrix? If you were Anderson, you would keep following the white rabbit, and you would then meet a fellow female hacker named Trinity (Carry Anne-Moss) who tells you of an acquaintance of hers named Morpheus. You don't know who Morpheus is, you don't know why you need him, and all you know is that you do. He calls you the next day while you are at work and tries to prevent you from getting arrested by a trio of Agents, although ultimately fails.

You wake up the next morning after having been arrested by the agents, one of which is the particularly demeaning Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving, absolutely INCREDIBLE), and also after having being literally bugged (with a device that transforms into something that resembles a literal bug). You decide that it might be in your best interest to contact this Orpheus again and meet with him. When you do, at his place, he offers you a choice of two pills; one red, one blue. You choose the red, since the blue will only make you forget that the meeting ever happened. You follow him. You are knocked out, presumably by the effects of the pill. You awaken in an oval-like vessel filled with liquid, in a world that you'd never hope to know.

Orpheus (Laurence Fishburne) explains that you are now in the future. He can't tell you what year because he's lost track himself (closer to 2199, he says). In the future, mankind is at war with very powerful machines that harvest the bioelectrical energy that human beings give off. The humans are kept controlled within an alternate universe - the matrix - which is where you has lived all your life, therefore rendering it a mere lie. Humans are basically converted to batteries. A fascinating concept. You are told that you are The One, meaning that you are the only One who can crack the code of the matrix and restore balance to both worlds.

Alright, done talking in first person. "The Matrix" is an absolutely stunning vision of the future presented in two separate planes of existence from writing and directing duo Andy and Larry (now Lana) Wachowski. It's a damn good mind-fuck of a movie, constantly switching out between the two realities; and I loved it for that. The future is a visual work of art; a compelling world tinted seedy green - dark and visionary. It's also home to some of the most badass, straight-up fantastic action sequences ever choreographed (the cinematographer is Bill Pope). It is pure cinema; memorable, influential, but also intelligent and ambitious.

I do not normally like Keanu Reeves. He doesn't appeal to me as an actor who can play characters of significant depth; although he pretty much proved me wrong here. His character inspires sympathy and understanding; and his relationship with Trinity gives the film a significant portion of its more emotional edge, since I think a good sci-fi/futuristic feature truly needs that to exist on its own. The world is one thing and its inhabitants are another. At the core, I think the film is very human; asking many existential and philosophical questions which imply that its creators are more intelligent than a lot of action filmmakers. But then again, this is more than an action film. Yes, it has the unforgettable lobby action set pieces, some truly epic slow-motion, and a whole lot of bullets; but the film is kinetic and frenetic without being stupid. It devotes a lot of its third act to the action, but by then we're one hundred percent invested. The breakneck pacing is not a flaw; it's an attribute, and a very positive one.

Perhaps what blew me away the most about "The Matrix" was where it drew its influence from. It's hard to categorize the film as the Wachowski brothers were clearly inspired by many things: including anime, science fiction literature (and just literature in general; there are many references to Lewis Carroll and his "Alice in Wonderland" works), action cinema, and even (spaghetti) westerns. If you put all of those things together with more philosophical idealism, you get this film. I'm afraid I can't do it much justice. The most I can do for it is advertise the damn thing to all those who appreciate good, mind-bending cinema. You won't see this one and its impact coming from a mile away like you will most films of its kind. It influenced a new generation of action filmmaking and still holds up today. There is no spoon, there are no rip-offs; only "The Matrix".

"The Keepers" Tickles The Youthful Part Of My Imagination That Says, "This Is Badass"

Wed, 5 Sep 2012 19:00:36 +0000

"The Keepers" by Rick Friar took my by surprise. A BIG surprise.

When I first saw these books at Barnes and Noble, I saw 3 thick books stacked next to each other and the way I devour a book, I'm always looking for something long and engaging, but what really grabbed me were the illustrations of new and novel machines I never had seen. It was almost as if I was taken back to the first time I saw some of the X-fighters and the Death Star. They tickled the youthful part of my imagination that said, "This is badass."

I took the first book home and from page one the Ender-Like quality had a hold of me. I cancelled my plans for that Saturday night and read until my eyes were bloodshot at 4:00am, when my girlfriend finally complained enough, so I went to bed.

3 hours later.

7:00am I'm up, book opened to page 314 of this 675 page monster. I had never read a book based on the technology of biomimicry, which is manmade science built and influenced by the living world around us. There were one manned piloted machines based off of hummingbirds and hornets. There were "Sidewinders" which are huge snake-like walls hundreds of feet tall that destroy city blocks, annihilating everything in their path.

And this was just the beginning.

Where many books leave you wondering how machines like these are possible, Friar explains it all in depth leaving you feeling like this IS real and these machines CAN be made. It was like reading the manual to the Star Ship Enterprise. (Which I also own.) The machines are called "Animalians" and run on an alternative fuel source, which is cool and gives it a Dune-like feel, but more importantly, this book sticks with you.

The narrative of the book is based through the main characters eyes and it is fun to see how his character arcs. It's not just the typical "Hero's Journey" and the whimsical relevance of today's culture keeps the pace fresh and alive.

Within 3 weeks I read all 3 books and (I won't give any spoilers) I have to say that each book was completely different from the other, more riveting to the next.

If you're looking for a new world to lose yourself in I highly recommend the Keepers. I feel like I accidentally discovered something really big and it's not going to remain a secret for much longer.

no-no

Thu, 30 Aug 2012 00:45:21 +0000

I had read about how great this book is and how Mieville got inspired on Moby-Dick to write it that I thought I was actually going to enjoy it. But nope this one went to the list of ‘abandoned’ books that I won’t pick up again.

Sham Yes ap Soorap travels with a crazy captain who is obsess hunting for a the beast that took her arm. Yeap, in this one the captain is a she. One day they come upon a wrecked train that is just the beginning of something bigger and more dangerous.

The concept of the story is interesting but Mieville tries to deliver too much fantasy in such a complicated way that it just lost its appeal.

What I liked: the drawings.

What I didn’t like: The writing. I’m just not a fan of so complicated & weird writing. He uses the symbol ‘&’ instead of ‘and’ and other things that should make the writing unique but that just confused me.

"Game over, man! Game over!"

Mon, 27 Aug 2012 02:08:21 +0000

**** out of ****

If Ridley Scott's "Alien" will always be remembered as the film to introduce us to the Xenomorph and franchise favorite, the heroine Ripley (Sigourney Weaver); then James Cameron's "Aliens" will be forever known as the truly rare sequel that really, really could. With sequels to great movies, it can be tempting to bank on the previous film's success; but instead Cameron shows a general interest in expanding on the universe while developing a story of his own that shares DNA with that of "Alien" without completely relying on it. With the flick of a finger, a genre switcheroo (from horror to action) gives the film that Cameron wanted to make more gravity and weight; a healthy dosage of each. And what you get is a film that, in the end, manages to weigh itself down. It's borderline exhausting in its highly cinematic exhilaration.

Leaving off from Mr. Scott's film, "Aliens" begins with Ellen Ripley being discovered as the sole survivor aboard the ship Nostromo. She is rescued by the Weyland-Yutani Corporation, and is informed that she has been asleep for fifty seven years under stasis. When Ripley tries to explain to the corporation what occurred on the planet LV-426, she is met with much skepticism. Her story goes something like this: the Nostromo crew landed on the planet, explored a crashed ship, and discovered an alien lifeform that terrorized and killed everyone but her. To them, it looks like murder; but we've seen "Alien", and we know what happened. Since she entered stasis, terraforming colonies have been set up on the planet; and of course, there haven't been any recent reports, certainly none regarding alien life.

This is because contact has, for the time being, been lost .Weyland-Yutani representative Carter Burke (Paul Reiser), with the help of Lieutenant Gorman (William Hope), hopes to send an assembly of highly trained marines to the planet in order to conduct a thorough investigation into the matters at hand. They also take with them an android named Bishop (Lance Henrikson), who Ripley at first fears because of her previous experience with Nostromo's very own murderous android. Once they're in, there's no going back; and it doesn't take long for the new crew to stumble upon the face-huggers (encased, as they were being studied), the distinctive interiors of the alien ship, a few of the victims, and the Xenomorph itself. Although this time, the title is plural; so it's an entire army of these bastards.

"We're on an express elevator to Hell, going down." This quote probably best explains my experience watching "Aliens". It is action genre filmmaking at its finest; in fact, it juggles enough different genres (science fiction, and even a little bit of horror regardless of the suspense never quite living up to the kind found in "Alien") to leave its mark. As a film, I regarded it as one meant to stir our fondest emotions; fear and excitement among others. It's a classic piece of cinematic badassery written in bullets, futuristic space technology, and acid blood. As far as action movies go; they don't get much better than this right here.

The Ripley character was definitely one of my favorite parts about Ridley Scott's "Alien". She was a strong and intelligent heroine (for once, right?); likable, but able to hold her own in a fight with an extraterrestrial. There was a feminist edge to it all, and "Aliens" pushes that notion about as far as it can go without being overly preachy. Ripley now finds herself in a man's world, even though there are two tough-as-nails women amongst her crew. The crew members of the Nostromo accepted Ripley as one of their own; but she has a harder time with these new fellows, who just want to drop in and kill some shit, although it's never that simple. But maybe Ripley defies gender classification; she has all the charm of a woman and all the raw strength of a man. By the end of the film, she's seen it all.

I feel that most action movies are far too simplistic. Here's one with considerable depth; not only in its visual conception and design, but its conception in general. Cameron says that a lot of the film was based on the Vietnam War; which I find most interesting indeed. Then there's the promise that every sequel to a "monster movie" must fulfill; a new monster. In this case, it's the Alien Queen, basically the Xenomorph but larger and somewhat uglier (although I don't know how much uglier you can be when you're a part of that alien family). It all leads up to a final showdown between heroine and monster; although there are plenty of other showdowns and shootouts to hold you up until then. It's difficult to watch this movie without geeking out completely. I did not find this with the original "Alien", but then again "Aliens" is a different movie. It is more action oriented without sacrificing its rich tension. It is also very well-paced, unless you're watching Cameron's "Director's Cut", which kind of kills it. "Aliens", simply put, kicks all kinds of ass if you're watching the right cut and with the right mind-set.

A pointless recall. A wooden version of nothing that could have been something.

Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:47:25 +0000

Do you know that moment when you're trying somethingDo you know that moment when you're trying something you loved as a kid and it leaves you a bitter feeling but still "forcing" yourself to like it just because it was the thing you grew up with? That's the same thing with this Total Recall and I might add that it's a bit weird that I say this since I'm not really one of the people who consider the original film a classic. Sure I loved it as a kid, sure it has an interesting premise and it's fun to watch, sure it's maybe even original, but I never could get over it's silliness and a above mediocre execution. I can see the original film being a near classic but nothing more. Maybe just a retro sci-fi film that still lives thanks to it's nostalgia. However, it's still a film that needed a remake but not quite this one.

So I went into this film with pretty much decent expectations. Not even those were met because they basically took the Total out of Total Recall so this movie ended up being just a recall. But a recall for what? For who? What's the purpose? I don't know an answer but I know you should never enter someone's home just because they have a nice house. This film has some really good effects and visually, it holds that required realism of today even though everything was living under a rain of ashes and black smog. And I get the decision behind that, I get what they wanted with this dark world but I think they went overboard with it. They didn't made it beautiful or exciting. It was just the bad boring way...

What's missed the most is the lack of Mars. Where is that gloomy and dusty red planet we all fell in love with back in the day? That's what made Total Recall so melancholic and colorful. That's what gave the original that dreamy quality. This one left Mars somewhere in a portrait and decided to tell the story on Earth. Everything revolves around these two large lands that were livable and the fast train that connects them. One is the futuristic ghetto-favela-looking like Colony (situated in Australia), home of our protagonist Douglas Quaid (Colin Farrell), and the other is the United Federation of Britain which looks like it's ripped straight from the 2019 Los Angeles. A lot of Blade Runner elements induced in this film, though none of them serves a real purpose, none of them contributes to the story or to the already poorly development of these characters. They even have a piano scene that is a total throw back to Blade Runner as well. If you watch this film... you'll see a lot more elements taken from movies like Blade Runner and even games like Fallout 3, than from the original source material. Everything here is a downgraded recycled version of something that's already been done three times better. The even bigger problem is when you have to know where the action takes place since they just show you a short shot of the whole city like you're supposed to figure it out in a matter of 2-3 seconds which side of the planet you're on. A lot of things like these that really bugs the viewer. You already have a boring world, a soulless world, why making it even more complicated?

The rest of the story? It's basically the same fiasco only this time with more cherries near the end. Maybe they wanted to make it more dramatic, more surprising, more mind-fu... Argh. Maybe they just failed in doing whatever they wanted to do because nothing really makes sense in terms of story-progress and directorial decisions. The casting was better because there's more talented people involved. Besides Colin Farrell as Quaid there's Kate Beckinsale as his wife Lori, Jessica Biel as Melina (Quaid's "spy maid"), Bryan Cranston as Cohaagen (Minister of U.F.B), and Bill Nighy as Matthias (leader of the Colony). All actors that in a movie like this would work much better than most of the people involved in the original film. However, Colin Farrell didn't have Schwarzenegger's chemistry nor in-born confusion. Our old Arnold was completely lost in the world you couldn't end up but cheering for the guy. Colin Farrell just takes the role and walks with it till the designated end. I'm not saying he gave a bad performance but he didn't was naturally confused about everything around him. He always knew what to do. He always smartly backfired and so on. As for the ladies present in this film, I could dig Biel more than Beckinsale since I still think Sharon Stone is unmatchable in that role simply because she was so erotic, sweet, lovable, and dangerous at the same time. Beckinsale is only hot and dangerous. But I guess the comparison is not really fair when we're talking about the one actress that could have made the world starve for her in the 90s.

The action scenes were decently executed, well choreographed. Could have been better but it was still a smooth and clean to look at. There are some problem of logic though in this film, issues that big that when you're watching them you can't hold but to burn your physics manuals and take a pill to stop the headache. The soundtrack was totally off. I haven't seen in a long time a movie like this where they will play the constant fast and bubbly song all the time. It was like start-long pause-start-long pause. There was no dynamic to the score. Everything in it added to the whole tediousness. I wanted something that I could really enjoy, I wanted that bubblegum I used to love as a kid but what I got is the new one which sucks because they changed the recipe. I wanted nostalgia, I wanted the red and the yellow, the dreams and the charming hero. I wanted all of this and all I got was a wooden version of nothing that could have been something.

If you look at it from a different perspective, Total Recall is not that bad of a film if the original wouldn't have ever been made. Since that is impossible in our reality then this recall was for nothing. It was/is totally pointless.

Storyline/Dialogue: 6.0
Acting: 6.5
Technical Execution: 7.1
Replay Value: 5.0
===============
OVERALL: 6.3

Eureka Quick Tip by wilsontd

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:57:31 +0000

Eureka is not the big flash sci-fi show that traditional viewers expect with even a modest special effects budget. It does have deep story lines and as such, some of the episodes may seem a little slow in their development, but finding the perfect balance between science experiments gone haywire and a strong and lasting background story isn't always easy to come by. I was late getting into this show, but it has not dissappointed.

Supernatural Quick Tip by wilsontd

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:53:36 +0000

Supernatural has been one of my all time favorite TV shows. The writers have been able to mix dark occult fantasy with humor and stories that can puts you in the mind that if monsters, demons, and vengeful spirits were really on the prowl, I would be looking these guys up. Periiod! The show continues to progress and always reaches the point where it might just jump the shark, but manages to keep in check and not put off its viewers.

If Memory Serves....

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:20:11 +0000

Star Rating:

I could turn this review of Total Recall into a debate over which version of the film is better, but unless there are obvious gaps in idea, execution, and quality, I refrain from approaching remakes on that level. Paul Verhoeven’s 1990 film of the same name had particular traits that made it entertaining, and the same can be said for the 2012 reboot. I’m most appreciative of the one element common to both films, namely the concept of false memories being surgically implanted in the brain; the question of whether the events in the story are actually happening or are merely a technologically-induced delusion is ultimately never answered, and we’re left to wonder the extent to which virtual reality will someday extend. Is it possible that one day we will be unable to distinguish an authentic physical object from a computer simulation? Can it be that memory files will eventually be uploaded into and deleted from the human mind?

Loosely drawn from Phillip K. Dick’s short story “We Can Remember It for You Wholesale,” the film differs from its 1990 adaptation in that it doesn’t take place on Mars. Instead, it takes place on a future Earth rampant with extreme pollution and severe overpopulation. Following a societal and governmental collapse, the world is now divided into the United Federation of Britain, a domineering superpower, and The Colony, which today we refer to as Australia. In the former, the powerful and elite live in comfort. In the latter, all the workers are cramped into miniscule living quarters, which are restrictively piled into superstructures of staggered concrete and steel. The two are connected via a massive underground tunnel called The Fall, which actually bores through the Earth’s core; travelling past it, passengers experience momentary weightlessness as the gravity reverses itself.



In The Colony, we meet a lowly factory worker named Douglas Quaid (Colin Farrell), who has been plagued with nightmares involving a woman and a failed escape attempt. By day, his job is to piece together law enforcement robots. Although he has been happily married to a woman named Lori (Kate Beskinsale) for seven years, his lot in life, coupled with his recent rash of bad dreams, has made him solemn and introspective. His dissatisfaction leads him to Rekall, an organization that specializes in implanting artificial memories of alternate lives in the minds of its clients. Quaid selects a secret agent package, believing himself in such a role. But before the procedure can begin, a Rekall tech (John Cho) analyzes his brain and discovers that he is an actual secret agent. Quaid has no idea where this accusation is coming from, but in due time, he realizes he has the quick reflexes and precise coordination necessary to take down an entire squad of policemen.

Panicked, he returns home to Lori, only to discover that she isn’t his real wife and that she now wants to have him killed. According to her, his name isn’t really Douglas Quaid, and every memory he has of being married to her and working at a factory were all implanted. He doesn’t have the chance to fully process this; he has to outrun the lethal Lori and the entire police force. He’s eventually approached by a woman named Melina (Jessica Biel), who claims his name is really Hauser and that he’s part of an underground resistance movement hell bent on bringing down the ruthless Prime Minister Vilos Cohaagen (Bryan Cranston). Quaid/Hauser follows a trail of clues, most provided by himself, in the hopes of finding out who he really is. He’s eventually asked to meet an elusive resistance figure known only as Matthias, thought by most to be nothing more than an urban legend.



All this is told with a great deal of style. The production designs by Patrick Tatopoulos and the cinematography by Paul Cameron convey a grittier, filthier, murkier, less streamlined vision of the future. Large sections of The Colony have a distinct urban Asian market influence, and neo-noir scenes are repeatedly set by the addition of rain and wet neon-reflected surfaces. This could, perhaps, be an homage to Blade Runner, another film adapted from a Phillip K. Dick story. The more space-age designs are reserved for The Fall, a technological monstrosity that stretches the limits of plausibility but doesn’t actually break them, and for a highway system in which cars float over and under magnetic fields. Looking at them, one is reminded of Minority Report – again adapted from a Phillip K. Dick story.

True to its cinematic origins, Total Recall is also a pulse-pounding action thriller and a dazzling special effects extravaganza. Both are utilized in ways that set the film apart from the 1990 version. The violence, for example, is toned down to a level in which escapism is at last possible; it has shootouts yet doesn’t become a shoot-‘em-up, if you get my meaning. Admittedly, one of my issues with Verhoeven’s film was the gratuitous gore, which didn’t serve a purpose any higher than that of sickening spectacle. All the actors prove themselves adept at handling the stunt work. As for the performances, all I know is that, no matter what movie he’s in, Colin Farrell is an infinitely better actor than Arnold Schwarzenegger. This time around, there’s more at stake than a bodybuilder landing the lead role in a sci-fi movie – we can actually invest emotionally in a man who has had his memory erased.

Is it Your Mind or Your Choices That Make it Real?

Tue, 14 Aug 2012 03:14:05 +0000

When I first heard of a “Total Recall” remake, I have to admit I was a little put off. I mean, how can someone remake one of Schwarzenegger’s action classics? I thought it would be an unnecessary remake, but then I watch anything with Kate Beckinsale and my curiosity had been aroused after I saw the trailers.

Remakes are surely meant to apply the premise to a more modern audience, to expand on its premise and perhaps improve on the original. There are a small number of remakes out there that I liked better than the original, and while director Len Wiseman’s “Total Recall” is not one of them, I cannot say that I did not enjoy this action-sci-fi thriller. Wiseman’s “Total Recall” is less of a remake but more of a re-issue, as there is no trip to Mars, no mutates, and takes more of a political and social commentary than an out-of-planet sci-fi romp.





In this future, much of the planet has been deemed uninhabitable after a war. The Earth has been divided into two sectors where humans can live. These are the United Federation of Britain where the rich and the fortunate live while the other is simply called The Colony where the less fortunate, common workers live. The only means of transportation between the two sectors is called “The Fall”, a large transport device that shoots pass the Earth’s core. There is some political tension between the two, as terrorism seem to be rampant.

In the colony, Douglas Quaid (Colin Farrell) is a common worker in a police robot plant, who lives with his wife, Lori (beauteous Kate Beckinsale). Doug has been bothered by his dreams where he has a different life, and these dreams prompt him to pay a visit to ReKall in the hopes of finding some satisfaction. But before ReKall can do the deed, Federal police bursts into the scene and Doug’s life will never again be the same. Doug is now set to try to find out the truth, as his efforts takes him into a ride that only a woman named Melina (Jessica Biel) may be able to help. What he finds is that he is more than who he believes he is, and the governing body that rules both the UFB and the Colony is about to unleash a sinister plan.





Wiseman’s movie may use similar characters, borrows some devices from the original and even has several sequences that pay homage to the original film, but this is far from a remake. The main premise of the film may be similar, but the themes have been changed. There is a very strong theme that applies to current events, as the film brings into the story a commentary about the rich dominating the poor, and how one governing body has this almost iron grip that controls the rest of the world. Land is the most important commodity in this world, and so, the rich and the fortunate are blessed with a land where technology is far more advanced, while the poor are left all crowded in a very small patch of land. I guess, the script by Kurt Wimmer and Mark Bomback was trying to relate to what is going on right now, as the rich seem to get richer and the poor just gets to survive.

The film does have some issues left undefined, and honestly, it was meant to be as such. The script also leaves about some questions, but they were easy to answer as long as you absorb what was going on in the film. Being a re-issue and a remake, the film can be a little predictable, even with its additions of twists and turns that makes it different. “Total Recall” is a film driven by its action sequences much like the original by Paul Verhoeven. The film is essentially a chase film as Quaid goes about his efforts to uncover the truth and to find out who he really is. There is a lot of gunfights, visually arresting stunts and hand-to hand combat that is sure to satisfy the action fan. There are even some robot cops and some cool gadgets that were indeed an expansion from the original’s gadgetry. The film’s visuals were also quite good and was a update to the original (but arguably not as clever), albeit some designs reminded me a bit too much of “Minority Report”. Regardless, there was something truly interesting the way the UFB differed from the Colony, it was almost as if it was an expression as to how one side were left behind by the other.



Farrell is no Schwarzenegger and he does not pretend to be as such. No, he doesn’t use that nose gadget to get that bug out of his head and only Arnold can pull off those wild facial expressions. Farrell was a competent lead, but he would be such a boring one if he hasn’t been supported by the driving presence of Kate Beckinsale (Underworld: Awakening). The plot was being driven by Quaid’s quest for the truth, and such a quest would be meaningless without a fine obstacle embodied by Beckinsale. Beckinsale plays the two roles played by Sharon Stone and Michael Ironside in the original movie and she does it so well that she just steals the show. Jessica Biel plays a more significant role than the original’s Melina, as she exemplifies the film’s moral stances. She is seen as the catalyst for the changes within the lead character. There is a strong female empowerment theme as Quaid is surrounded by two strong-willed women as they appeared to be so intent in opposing one another, expressed both by their actions and their commitment to their beliefs.

The film would be best described as “Bourne Identity” colliding with “I, Robot” all wrapped around designs similar to “Minority Report” that has the original’s core premise driving its story. 2012’s “Total Recall” has all the right stuff to entertain with its fast-paced, action-packed sequences and impressive visual effects. The film even left some questions hanging and leaves an open twist in its narrative. Is Carl Hauser truly a man who chose what he did, or was he someone who really lost touch with his own reality and true alliances? Some may see them as a plot pocket, but I think Wiseman meant for it to be decided by the viewer. While I am not sure if this remake was necessary, I have to admit that Len Wiseman has once again proven that he is a capable action director. “Total Recall” was a fun action romp and I guess I was just so happy to see Kate Beckinsale once again kicking some serious ass.

Recommended! [3 ½ Out of 5 Stars]

LOCKOUT: I Knew Snake Plissken. Guy Pearce Is No Snake Plissken.

Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:38:41 +0000

There’s something to be said for never trying too hard. Take Luc Beeson, for example. He’s been making films for decades, but he really hasn’t been trying all that hard since THE PROFESSIONAL. And, yes, I know all about THE FIFTH ELEMENT. I’m one of those rare sci-fi junkies who thought much of the movie was garbage. At the time of its release, I believe Luc Beeson was all over the place in interviews bragging about how he wrote the script for THE FIFTH ELEMENT when he was in high school. Well, for the record, let me say that I thought THE FIFTH ELEMENT felt like a picture someone in high school had written, and I stand by that.

In any event, let’s get to LOCKOUT …

There’s no doubt in my mind that Luc threw this together after more than a few viewings of ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK (which studios have threatened for the last decade or so to reboot, but, thankfully, no one has made that mistake a reality). Guy Pearce stars as Snake Plissken … oh, no. Hold up there, partner. Guy Pearce’s name in LOCKOUT is Marian Snow. Snake Plissken – or should I say ‘the incomparable Snake Plissken’ – was played by the equally incomparable Kurt Russell (with direction from John Carpenter, no less). Guy Pearce is a good actor. He does a fine job with what he’s given. But he is no Snake Plissken. At best, he’s a wussified Snake Plissken, quick with the quips and the snarks whereas Snake would’ve used a club with spikes in the end of it.

In any event, let’s get back to LOCKOUT …

Emily Warnock (played by Maggie Grace) is the President’s daughter, and she decides to take it upon herself to visit America ’s first prison-in-space for the purposes of guaranteeing that the inmates are being treated humanely. (Rumor has it that the cryogenic freezing process is somehow damaging prisoners’ brains once they’re thawed out for release.) As luck would have it, her visit just happens to coincide with a break-out orchestrated by Alex (Vincent Regan) and his wickedly insane brother, Hydell (Joseph Gilgun). What are the prisoners hoping to accomplish? Well, we’re never really told, but before you can say spit they’ve released all of the prisoners. Though they’re contained to certain regions of the station, apparently the designers thought it was a good idea to keep the important controls in areas sealed up with the inmates.

That’s just the first of many plot-holes and questionably gaps in logic presented in this B movie masquerading as an A-movie. (Second: why is it that the station’s orbital defense weapons never fire on shuttlecraft but will regularly fire on any other type of approaching spaceship? Third: why is that, once the prisoners break free, they just hang around in the same spot chatting with one another? Fourth … well, I think you get the point …)

And it’s a shame, really. So much of LOCKOUT actually looks very solid. The effects are impressive – not perfect but expensive theatrical shots, clearly. If there’s one significant downside to the prevalence of CGI in motion pictures, then it would have to be that the audience has largely been desensitized to the dangers present in any action sequence. In simpler terms, there’s really no danger – hence, no tension – to showing Guy Pearce racing at 200 mph through the city streets when he’s obviously driving a CGI motorcycle on a CGI freeway while racing between CGI cars and trucks. Tip to filmmakers: when it obviously isn’t real, there’s no reason to fear for Marian Snow’s fictional existence.

In any event, let’s get back to LOCKOUT.

On second thought, let’s not.

RECOMMENDED WITH SOME RESERVATIONS. LOCKOUT never rises to be anything more than a respectable B movie or, at least, it’s safe to say that it never tries harder than a respectable B movie. I wanted to like it more. It certainly had some of the right ingredients, but it definitely could’ve used more Snake.

Aliens Quick Tip by GuptaGubbins

Mon, 9 Jul 2012 20:23:08 +0000

I can't really rate this film high enough.
In fact this film has ingrained itself in my heart so much I even undertook the arduous task of sampling the mothership computer sound and turning it into my iPhone text alert sound.

Welcome to Mars

Wed, 4 Jul 2012 15:16:55 +0000

I know what you're thinking: John Carter was a freaking nuclear bomb. You know that, and so, like most people you're automatically associating the movie's puny monetary takeback with an especially rotten stench. Frankly, that's being pretty harsh, for one thing; between production, advertising, and every other expense filmmaking tends to incur, some financial whizzes got together and concluded that John Carter wouldn't have broken even without an intake of around $700 million. It's Disney's fault for shelling out so much - John Carter was one hell of a gamble, and Disney lost the house.

So, can you tell me what that means to you? It really doesn't mean anything except that John Carter was a bad idea to make. For those willing to ignore the financial underhaul, John Carter has a very engaging narrative, an astounding fantastical look and feel, an effective and charismatic lead performance from star Taylor Kitsch, and a fast pace through which a couple of hours fly by. Yes, the grand scale of John Carter is quite a fiasco, but director Andrew Stanton was obviously being as much a perfectionist as he could possibly be, and so it's far better constructed than you might expect. If this thing was handed off to Roland Emmerich or, god forbid, Michael Bay, it would have looked every bit the fiasco the story makes it look like.

Since the titular character is fictional, it was probably a mistake for them to name the movie "John Carter." John Carter. Yeah, really? John Carter what? John Carter, capitalist donkey wrestler? John Carter, Ph. D garbage man? No, it appears to be John Carter, Civil War veteran, John Carter, great hero and savior of Mars. The original title of the movie was, in fact, going to be John Carter of Mars, and it was based on a classic book by Edgar Rice Burroughs called A Princess of Mars. (Burroughs was the guy who wrote Tarzan of the Apes.) Stanton, however, changed it to just John Carter, stating a pair of ridiculous excuses: The first, of course, was money. He wanted it to appeal to a broader audience, which given the movie's massive overall price tag, I can't blame him for doing. The second was that John Carter is an origin story. It's not about John Carter of Mars, but about John Carter of the Virginia Cavalry becoming John Carter of Mars.

It's 1868 and the Civil War has been over for three years, and John Carter, a man with one hell of a military record, decided to go the course probably gone by a few disillusioned Confederate soldiers: Upset that his country doesn't exist anymore, he just wants to go out to the territories - Arizona in this case - and get rich through his personal gold mine. The Army needs his help, though, and Carter's not exactly up for giving it out to his enemies. They try to recruit Carter through the time-tested method of impressment, and Carter manages to escape and get out into the wilderness, where he hides from some Apaches in a cave. Some dude appears literally out from thin air and tries to kill Carter, but Carter gets the better of him, takes his medallion, and is transported to some weird place called Barsoom. He gets captured by a bunch of equally weird, green four-armed creatures called Tharks, but in the process he learns that his strength and jump height have been greatly enhanced.

Carter picked a very bad time to appear; after a millennium of warring with each other constantly, the two Barsoom power centers - Zodanga and Helium - are rearing their ugly political heads. Zodanga, you see, has been trying to conquer the planet, and they've gotten most of it. Helium has been the last outpost of defense, matching them soldier to soldier and airship to airship. Zodanga's leader, Sab Than, claims to be getting a little sick of fighting; in reality, he's just acting as a pawn to three figures who appeared out of nowhere and gave him a superweapon, offering full power of Barsoom. He's been having his way with the Helium military ever since, and wants to marry Helium's Princess, Dejah, to put a permanent end to war. Since Sab's weapon of destruction has been cutting down all resistance, Helium doesn't see much of a choice in the matter. Dejah, however, isn't quite so conciliatory, and as Sab's forces drag her away to Zodanga, she escapes, falls off her airship, and is saved by Carter. Through her, Carter learns that the true identity of Barsoom is actually the planet Mars, and that the lower gravity there explains his newfound god strength.

Dejah looks at Carter like Helium's savior, a man to use against Sab's new weapon. Carter just wants to go home, and so they begin a downriver journey to learn how to utilize the ninth ray, the key to understanding the medallion that brought Carter to Mars. The don't quite complete the quest before being tracked down, though, and although Carter is given his escape back to Earth, he decides maybe the Helium cause is a worthy one after all and that while John Carter of Virginia led a boring existence and would only see him pursued by the military and forced into service, John Carter of Mars sounds just right. So that decision comes with the responsibility of sticking around, rallying the Tharks, saving the Princess from the marriage she's forced into, and teaching the Zodangans the only lesson they'll ever need: Don't mess with John Carter!

It's true that Barsoom has a much more B-movie look and feel to it than other modern contemporaries like Avatar's resident world, Pandora, or Peter Jackson's envisioning of Middle-Earth in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. John Carter in general has a more cartoonish look and feel than either of those two. This is in large part because the computer effects are so obviously computerized. The feeling is worse because of the designs of the Tharks, and it IS really hard to make long-distance jumping look plausible. The airships don't help much because they're exactly that - giants ships that happen to fly and not float on a sea. The characters, in fact, find the idea of seafaring ships odd.

Naturally, it asks for a lot of suspension of disbelief, but for those able to do that, John Carter is rich in rewards. While the main plot is kept pretty simple and easy to follow, it's clear there is a rich mythology which can be mined out of Mars-as-Barsoom. The original books by Burroughs supposedly run for a series of twelve or 13 books, which means there's an entire world here, like Dune or Lord of the Rings, that a lot of independent stories can be created from and spun off. We know Barsoom has been at war with itself for 1000 years, and we're introduced to the different races - and even species. The Tharks appear to have a real background and some unique traditions of their own, along with some different beliefs - one scene takes place in a Thark house of worship, and later, we learn that Tharks don't fly, and the reason for that is never given to us. The three god-people who appear out of nowhere to present Sab with his weapon are never explained, and neither is their reason for cheering Sab on. I expect a few future John Carter movies to handle this, or at least I would if there were going to be any further John Carter movies.

Through roaring performances, engaging mythology, and a stunning fantasy world brought about by a very competent perfectionist director, John Carter gives us one of the summer's great popcorn movies. It doesn't half-wit its approach, like most other summer blockbusters, and so there's much more good than bad to be taken with John Carter for the open-minded. The movie moves quickly and it entertains the whole way through. No, the movie isn't perfect, but given how much could have easily gone wrong, Andrew Stanton did a wonderful job getting everything sorted out, and it really works. So ignore the critics, and make a little room in your weekend to see John Carter. No, you're not in for Earth's-matle-like layers of allegorical depth. But man, it's one hell of a ride.

Scott approaches greatness again, yet...

Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:27:27 +0000

Exiting a screening of Ridley Scott's ludicrous, inexplicably acclaimed sword-and-sandal epic twelve years ago, I vowed never again to pay for the trial of enduring one of his movies. Both then and now, most entries of Scott's filmography following his first three miraculous features are at best underwhelming. Though he's never demeaned himself by defecating Baysian action tripe as his sibling Tony does so often, Scott has turned out an appalling abundance of fatuous genre pictures: derivative, bloodless crime dramas (Someone to Watch Over Me, Black Rain, American Gangster, Body of Lies); obnoxious, misguided feminist concessions (Thelma & Louise, G.I. Jane); visually sumptuous yet dramatically empty and woefully inaccurate period adventures (1492: Conquest of Paradise, the aforementioned Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, Robin Hood); worse of all, a pair of clumsy, painfully unfunny comedies (Matchstick Men, the abominable A Good Year). However, Scott's two early works of science fiction cinema are not merely among the finest of that genre and deserving of their tremendous popularity, but also admirable assays of filmic horror and crime. What's more, the veteran director's recension of these classics is quite the opposite of George Lucas' bungled Star Wars revisions: his director's cuts of Alien and Blade Runner are exemplary, absterged of objectionable elements and seamlessly subsuming previously cut footage that augmented both films' subtexts and impact. Better still, neither were intended as replacements for their theatrical antecedents.

Scott's shrinking yet devoted fanbase has defended the aging filmmaker for decades; when engaging one of his fans in argument, one can always concede that an oeuvre of three great works and at least fifteen resounding artistic failures yields not so bad a ratio by current standards. Considering this substandard output in addition to to two abysmal latter Alien sequels (Joss Whedon being at least so responsible as Jean-Pierre Jeunet for the abject idiocy of the last, despite his inarticulate falsehoods otherwise), can a divergent precursor of the venerated first picture generate sufficient interest among its enthusiasts? On the strengths of the Alien director's cut and promise of some notable assembled talent, this reviewer revoked an oath of a decade and two years prior, and justifiably so. By its faults, Prometheus is denied indisputable grandeur, yet its colossal proportions, magnificent conceptual scope and assiduous realization may well instill some awe in even the most jaded cineast.

In rural Scotland of 2089, a pair of archaeologists (Noomi Rapace, Logan Marshall-Green) discover a peculiar cave drawing depicting a star map identical to others unearthed at numerous locales across the planet. Having identified a location specified in these ancient illustrations, they embark on a journey of two years to a small, distant moon courtesy of the superannuated CEO (Guy Pierce, nigh-unrecognizable beneath elaborate makeup) of a massive corporation (Weyland, precedent of notorious, interstellar, terraforming conglomerate Weyland-Yutani). Under the inflexible authority of a frigid mission director (Charlize Theron), the crew of spacecraft Prometheus (so christened to reflect its mission's exploratory ambitions) is comprised of its captain (Idris Elba), two pilots (Emun Elliott and Benedict Wong), a medical officer (Kate Dickey), a biologist (Rafe Spall) and geologist (Sean Harris), and the aforementioned archaeological pioneers. Secrets extracted upon and within the planetoid provide unimpeachable evidence of mankind's origins, exceeding expectations and dashing hopes of benevolent higher intelligence elsewhere in the galaxy.

None of Prometheus' philosophical themes or physiological implications are reconciled or addressed satisfactorily - a limitation that both compliments and impairs its audacious narrative. Those seeking an exposition concerning the species of Alien's space jockey will undoubtedly be wholly satisfied. Perhaps the movie's best aspect is a retention of mystery: to provoke its viewers' imaginations, it presents at least so many questions as answers. Readers of Lovecraft will hardly find its otherworldly enigmas and adventuresome dread especially novel; At the Mountains of Madness and Dune are perhaps its most cognate literary equivalents and influences, from which screenwriters Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof owe a heavy debt to Lovecraft and Herbert for their historied fantasies of alien ecology, biology, technology and culture traced from inception to apex to ruination.

If Scott has demonstrated any expertise, it is indisputably that of a filmmaker whose fabricated worlds are conferred the most exquisite detail and immersing quality. A skilled illustrator, he draws nearly all of his own storyboards and has interacted successfully with no small number of design and effects luminaries. Here, the photography of Dariusz Wolski (likely the most unremarkable competent DP of his field) is typically faultless and drab, but he was wisely chosen - his invariably muted hues complement this story's foreboding ambiance and environments. However, Arthur Max's production design and the efforts of the extensive art and effects departments bore terrific fruit. Prometheus boasts enormous, spectacular sets, most of which are visually astonishing and entirely credible. Although the titular vessel features many design elements first seen in its utilitarian successor Nostromo as designed by Jean Giraud, Chris Foss, and Ron Cobb, its more advanced navigational interfaces and investigative apparatuses may be attributed to its specialized purpose - one hardly considered by the crew of a cargo tug! The extraterrestrial interiors are gargantuan, redolent of millennial inertia, supreme advancement and unimaginable peril. Most wondrous of the many discoveries therein is the activation of an elaborate, projected galactic orrery of three dimensions, as beautiful as suggestive of boundless purpose. Original creatures designed by Conor O'Sullivan, Carlos Huante and Neal Scanlan under Max's supervision are hardly so innovative as those of H.R. Giger (which are featured throughout), but nonetheless intelligently conceived and appropriately gruesome. Janty Yates' attractive, lithe spacesuits grant the cast comfortable mobility, but introduce at least one question of continuity: why were those of the Nostromo's crew so cumbersome?
Should this production be faulted, blame must be assigned to its aural elements. Marc Streitenfeld's score is lush, lovely and not at all intrinsically obtrusive, cleverly quoting Jerry Goldsmith's classic Alien score at least once...but it's overused in almost every scene by Scott, who's apparently forgotten the provocative effect of silence so efficaciously exploited in his great first few flicks. Worse, the sound design is evocative but too prominent - chewing, vomiting, squirming, slithering, pounding noises are both too loud and prevalent, and silly besides.

While I can readily accept Ridley Scott as a movie maker who routinely cultivates visual splendor, I cannot assent to the absurd notion that he is or has ever been an actor's director. Few directors of any credibility have coaxed so many awful performances from so many actors, many of whom were otherwise reputable. At the early peak of his powers, Scott wisely afforded the best performers available to him (Keitel, Weaver, Hurt, Hauer, et al.) carte blanche with fantastic results. Were he still so inclined, and more great Anglophone actors available to him, Prometheus wouldn't be burdened by so much overacting. If Rapace imparts no great depth to her role, her histrionics in two scenes of harrowing suspense do distinguish an otherwise unexceptional adequacy. Unfortunately, her partner in excavation and romance as portrayed by Marshall-Green is too vulgar to receive seriously, which leads one to ask why he and his interdisciplinary male colleagues comport themselves like frat boys rather than scientists. Worst of this lot is hammy Sean Harris, as angst-ridden as a teen following the confiscation of his iPod and bedecked with red mohawk and facial tattoos. No geologist known to me appears or postures so, and if Scott, Spaihts and Lindelof deem this a legitimate means to bestow personality to their cast, they've descended to Roland Emmerich's low standards. Despite some rather stupid dialogue assigned her that she delivers well, Theron is convincingly malefic as the mission's authoritarian ice queen, and certainly more memorable than the remainder of the ship's crew. I'm not yet entirely convinced that Michael Fassbender is the savior of the western world in light of its contemporary dearth of great screen thespians, only because my exposure to his potent talent is limited to two very fine Steve McQueen offerings. In this franchise, his performance is second only to that of Ian Holm's as requisite android of the mission, and every bit so nuanced. Fassbender's cunning, unfailingly polite robot is cool (never stiff) in imitation of human behavior (especially Peter O'Toole's Lawrence), and subtly expressive of amusement, offense borne and an understated hint of contempt. Perhaps the script's greatest profundity can be evinced in the contrast of Fassbender's relationship with his creators to they with theirs.

Despite its flaws, Prometheus provides its viewers a fine, richly mounted cinematic undertaking commendable for its prodigious sights, stimulating exploration of eternal themes and at least a couple of very good performances. It is unnervingly suspenseful, if very seldom frightening. Possibly its very worst failure is a shift from morbid fascination to contrived heroics during its final twenty minutes, in which plot holes abound. In lieu of an ominous, ambiguous denouement, Scott cheaply spoon-feeds his audience selfless victory by explosion and closure suggesting the possibility of a sequel.

Lovecraft's intrepid characters guided his readers to worlds both known and enigmatic, witness to outlandish auspice and atrocity. Those most fortunate among them were left traumatized, while his hapless were devoured by either what they sought or far worse beyond. By confronting the cosmic unknown of a titanic scale, Scott aspired to create a legend; in suggesting that humanity may intervene meaningfully in its affairs, he fell far short.

Perhaps it ought have been titled Icarus.

Its a good movie, but I expected more.

Mon, 11 Jun 2012 19:39:23 +0000

Like a lot of things, I heard about Prometheus in passing. Back in April I was talking to a friend about movies we wanted to see this year. I said the usual, The Amazing Spiderman, The Dark Knight Rises, and The Avengers. He said that he wanted to see Prometheus. Not knowing what that was he showed me a trailer. As soon as I saw that curvy Alien ship in the previews, I was HYPED!!!!

In 2089 Drs Charlie Galloway and Elizabeth Shaw have discovered star charts in the ruins of various ancient civilizations around the planet. They deduce that this is the work of a race they call the “engineers”, and that they are extending an invitation to the human race. In response to this; an expedition funded by the Weyland Cooperation is sent to investigate the planet, LV 223. Little do they know that humanities greatest discovery could be our end.

I finally got to see Prometheus, and in all honesty it wasn’t as good as I thought it was going to be. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not a bad movie, its good. I say that because Prometheus feels very much like the first Alien movie. It’s slow paced, and can be very talky at times. So much so that I found myself dosing off a few times in the theatres.

Prometheus is very much a horror. Personally I didn’t find anything scary about it, if anything its more disturbing than anything else. There are some minor twists and ironically this movie wasn’t very predictable. (Despite it being a prequel.) Thats a good thing.

Not only that but it’s like the movie is made deliberately hard to follow; there are a lot of unexplained unanswered questions and WTF moments. In addition to this the movie has a very open Ended ending and leaves room for a possible sequel.

Acting Wise I felt that everyone did a great job. There was a lot of interaction between the characters, (Something I really like too see) yet despite this no one really stood out for me. Yes that includes Michael Fassbender, as David.

Like the acting the movie itself was just ok. It wasn’t awful or bad, it was ok. I still recommend this movie to fans of the Alien series. It raises more questions than it answers but I enjoyed it.

The Origins of Humankind....Evolution or Devolution?

Sat, 9 Jun 2012 22:40:13 +0000

1979’s horror-sci-fi hit “Alien” made such an impact and up to this day, the film stands as one of the best horror movies ever made. Its sequel “Aliens” made its focus more on the action and suspense that stemmed from being overrun by the murderous creatures. The second and third sequels while not terrible movies, failed in expanding on the “Alien” mythos and there were times that I thought they were only made to capitalize on the franchise’s popularity. Heck, even comic books, knock offs and spin offs (AVP series) were birthed because the movie franchise truly yielded one of the best (if not the best) movie monsters in a horror film.

I was really hesitant and admittedly a little turned off when I heard that they were making a prequel to the first “Alien” film by Ridley Scott. But hey, then I was excited to know that Scott is producing and directing this quasi-Alien film called “Prometheus”. Scott had created some of the best movies I have seen, and with such a resume, my expectations became a little elevated. “Alien” did ask a lot of questions after all and there lies a lot of area to expand into. I mean who or what was the big dude sitting on a huge ship and how did the acid-bleeding monsters ever come to life? “Prometheus” answers all those questions efficiently and it also asks a lot more questions. Then again, life is filled with questions after all…



Please take note, that if you are expecting to see something that follows the tempo and the mood of the “Alien” franchise, you would be both right and wrong. The film begins when an archaeological find in 2089 had been unearthed by Elizabeth Shaw and Charlie Holloway. This find may hold the secrets to humanity’s beginnings and therefore it means to be investigated further. Fast forward some time in 2093 and then we find an artificial individual named “David” (Michael Fassbender) is tending to a huge spacecraft by himself. The spacecraft carries a team led by Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron, Snow White and the Huntsman) and Janek (Idris Elba), joined by archaeologists Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green). Once they reach their destination, the journey which took several years to undertake, the group opts to explore a huge alien spacecraft as they find both answers and even more questions as to what may be the beginnings of mankind and its the potential destruction.





There had been a lot of sci-fi films that depict the search for the ‘source’ or what we may call the meaning of creation. At first look, I was almost afraid that “Prometheus” was going to be similar to that “Star Trek” flick when the crew searched for God. Should’ve known better to think that. Ridley Scott and screenwriters Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof knew what they were going for with their film. It stays true to established continuity in the alien franchise (enter Weyland Industries) and answers some questions. The film captures themes that bring Darwinian theories into its fold as well as asking several questions as to the origins of what we will get to know as “the Engineers”. I am not certain, I feel that this film may open a new opportunity for a new franchise; one that can go much deeper into the origins of the engineers and present several new twists into this horror-alien genre.

It is all about trying to find the beginnings of mankind after all. If we were created, then to what purpose? Who created our ‘engineers’ if such a thing is true? The direction by Scott keeps things tight and focused on the film’s intentions all the more developing its core premise. It does take a little while to pick up and it does a fair amount of foreshadowing in the first half. Ridley Scott has done something quite impressive with the manner that he paced, edited and executed the film, despite its limitations. The characters weren’t necessarily too unique, but I appreciated the way it hung around some hinted elements of spirituality about it. I do have to admit that the film did have some rough spots, I particularly wasn’t too keen on certain areas of the screenplay. I mean, it does have an amount of predictability around it, and some areas felt a little forced particularly on the part of a certain Mr. Weyland (Guy Pearce, Lockout). I felt that it didn’t quite ease its way into that part of the plot efficiently. I bought it, but it just didn’t run as smooth as I would’ve expected Scott to add in that detail. Minor complaints aside, the film is pretty solid in terms of direction and the story is developed pretty well.





What really impressed me with this film is the way it displays its visual effects. The set designs and the environment certainly mimic the grand dark designs by Geiger. This time around, the CGI effects are much more cleaner, more solid and definitely could immerse the viewer into its fold. It captures the style in the first “Alien” movie, and yet it looked much more advanced in a different and yet, very similar way. This usually presents a common problem when one tackles a prequel (the prequel looks more advance than the original movie), but Scott was careful not to make things so different that the viewer would become detached from the original. The film certainly looked exceptional, the “Prometheus’” spacecraft designs were very convincing in mimicking and improving on the designs of the Nostromo. The engineers are huge, they stand around 8-10 feet tall and appeared quite intimidating. This was certainly an attempt to present a new stage in evolution.

There are some weird and odd creatures that looked very different and yet the same, as they capture some qualities of the ‘face-hugger’. The creatures have the same acid blood and yet for some reason, they yield a different result. There is something here that can be called in as in ‘evolution’, and it left some questions intentionally unresolved to allow the viewer to dig deeper into the many possibilities of what they have seen. The film had several intense sequences, and once it gets things going, Scott maneuvered the film into slowly going into a faster-paced tone that made for an exciting experience. Yes, there is some blood and grisly images. Some scenes stood out to give the viewer a visual image of dread and fear. This is a horror drama at its core, and so Scott served up restrained and yet gruesome imagery to keep his viewers at the edge of their seat.





The performances were good, but not entirely exceptional. Michael Fassbender (who stunned me in “Shame”) quite nearly stole the show. His was the role of an artificial being, and yet, in some ways he aspires to be more human. Noomi Rapace (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) is your ala-Ellen Ripley lead character and she delivers. Rapace appeared to be well adjusted to her role and she performs quite admirably. Theron did appear to be a little underused and the layers of her character weren’t fully fleshed out in the film. Other characters are what you can call “fodder” but even they had some relevance to the film’s script.

“Prometheus” may not be one of Ridley Scott’s best films, but thankfully his "only pretty good” ones are still a lot better than most films by other directors. Scott is still able to capture the fine essence of a horror drama and he is still at the top of his game. There is a certain method to which he executes this film, and I really liked what I saw despite the rough spots in its script; it is the kind of film that gives more to 'read into' than actually watch. If “Prometheus” inspires another spin off of the “Alien” franchise, let us hope that he is still around to follow through. It served to whet my appetite for more. Thank goodness they didn’t just make another “Alien” sequel and went for a totally different approach; one with its own identity that can certainly present a new franchise.

Recommended! [4- Out of 5 Stars]

　
　

The Borg Quick Tip by glenys4chambers

Sat, 9 Jun 2012 14:55:01 +0000

Great play on some age-old human fears. The power of the hive mind, the loss of individuality, loss of self in the group, loss of one's own mind. The borg seem more frightening when they're ignoring the humans around them and are completely focused on their work for the collective, than when they're coming after them. It highlights their fearless willingness to be sacrificed for the good of the group, and their machine-like focus.

The first time I saw the borg I thought .. That's what code is like. It functions in line with its set of rules. If my bit of programming doesn't work it's because there's a mistake in my logic. It's not personal and it doesn't care what I'm attempting to do. It just is.

True to form, Prometheus overreaches

Sat, 9 Jun 2012 14:09:33 +0000

PROMETHEUS

Written by Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof

Directed by Ridley Scott

Starring Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender and Charlize Theron

David: Sometimes to create, one must first destroy.

The ship which Ridley Scott’s latest foray into outer space is named for, PROMETHEUS, is itself named after a Greek god. In case you’re unfamiliar, this particular God is not only credited with the creation of man, from clay no less, but also with providing mankind with fire and the possibility of progress. The trouble is he had to steal the fire in the first place and so his deed would need to be punished. Aside from eternal torment and torture, Prometheus would also be forever known as a symbol for overreaching and the often unfortunate consequences of doing so. There is only one person doing any overreaching on this ship though and that’s the director. Not to mention, it would seem to me that naming an exploratory space ship thus would just be more of a subconscious effort to sabotage your chances for success than anything else.

PROMETHEUS opens with stunning shots of landscapes and waterfalls and culminates in a bizarre spectacle that announces the possibility of a truly unique and breathtaking film experience. It then moves rather quickly into all too familiar territory. Type on the screen dictates the time and place of the mission, while people are asleep in pods on the ship, and an android watches carefully over them with some potentially questionable motivation. There were months of speculation but now there is no denying that this is an alien movie, somehow connected to Scott’s seminal 1979 film, ALIEN. It isn’t made clear just how at first but it certainly follows exactly the same pattern as his original film, as well as James Cameron’s sequel, ALIENS. After everyone wakes up, they pal around in the cafeteria; the ship’s authorities have money on their minds at all times; disposable crew members are picked off in small increments; heck, there are even things that pop out of stomachs and girls in tiny, objectifying briefs. The technology allows the film to look fresh and updated but the familiarity left me wondering if I was watching a remake and also why no one told me ahead of time.

So, once you realize PROMETHEUS is an ALIEN movie, the question becomes is it actually a good ALIEN movie? It is, to some extent, if you consider the word “alien” to mean beings from outer space and not the specific ones from the original film. Go in expecting them and you will be disappointed. That said, I can’t guarantee you won’t be disappointed if you go in not expecting them either. We wait to see what all the fuss is about for a good hour, and marvel at its beauty, because PROMETHEUS is nothing if not beautiful, but by the time the action comes, we have been waiting for it for so long that it almost feels forced. And I know that genre pics like this warrant all secrecy but the fact is the spoiler moments in this film almost spoiled it completely for me. There are moments that are just too hard to believe or too sadistic to be taken seriously. Some of these moments are too hard to truly recover from even. Scott may know aliens but he doesn’t seem to know much about creating credible human beings here.

PROMETHEUS is co-written by LOST alumni, Damon Lindelof (along with relative newcomer Jon Spaihts). Like in the popular television series, Lindelof again attempts to tackle ideas about where we came from and where we’re going. And once again, he provides vague musings about our nature that truly only beg more questions. Hence the reason any characters left at the end of the film are only left with one question on their minds; why is this happening? Naturally, they must find out and so PROMETHEUS seems destined to continue its quest, which, while noble in intention, is really nothing more than a setup for a sequel. With that, PROMETHEUS the film reveals its true mission is not so dissimilar to that of the ship. Profit at any expense is always more important than understanding humanity.

Thanks for reading.
LUNCH rating is out of 10.

Click here for more BLACK SHEEP REVIEWS.
Click here to follow BSR on TWITTER.
Click here to like BSR on FACEBOOK.

Robopocalypse Quick Tip by glenys4chambers

Sat, 9 Jun 2012 14:09:26 +0000

This was an entertaining read. It had some interesting perspectives, particularly on the evolution of the bots, the collaboration between them, and the emergence of renegade bots. The complete coldness of Archos was well-drawn, and suitably chilling. The book lacks the passion of the Terminator movies, but that's not comparing apples with apples -- and it'll be interesting indeed to see what Spielberg does with it.

"Mother, what is the meaning of life?"

Sat, 9 Jun 2012 07:44:31 +0000

So many have wondered this question and Ridley Scott has decided to try and take the characters in his latest movie on that quest to find where we come from and for good measure brings along his old friend the Alien for good measure.

Scott was the director of the original 1977 Alien film and few films are as awesome looking or as intense as that one. While other directors took over for other films with different levels of success (or more accurately a sliding scale into a sewer) Scott has said he would be interested in making another "trip into space" and answer a question about the Aliens from his first film.

As the movie opens, we see that it is the later end of the 21st century with scientists discovering cave paintings that point to the sky and after some mapping we see the destination, a planet that is several years of space travel to reach. Some scientists are on board to learn the discovery of where man comes from, some only want money and others have some more sinister motives.

Ridley Scott certainly does borrow enough elements from the original Alien and thats to be expected. The flamethrowers, the bubbleheaded spacesuits, underwear only in the cryobeds, ship designs it's nice to see continuity between the movies. Why everything in this movie looks much more swank and sleek is best explained by this being a state of the art ship used by the rich and the one in Alien as an older and more spartan civilian one. My guess.

You'll notice that I didn't mention much about the Alien, and thats cause for the most part they end up being secondary almost as if Scott wants to kill two birds with one stone, he got this great sci-fi script and found a way to get his original creation involved. Aliens do show up sure but they aren't quite the same, but don't forget the Alien only looks like what it has spawned from, so you get the Aliens but they will look a bit different.

The cast is great too. Noomi Rapace is in charge of the scientists while holding onto her faith for answers. She also gets the most awesome scene in the movie, one that involves a surgical bed. Michael Fassbender is a crew member who looks on at the world with child like innocence and wonder and as he learns, we are learning with him and it's wonderful. Charlize Theoron is Captain Ice Princess who really doesn't care much about one thing or another. The rest of the crew are either extras or Alien chow, in fact one scene really only serves to clean house before the finale.

Is there anything WRONG with the movie? Well it becomes apparent right away that things aren't kosher on board with the crew and if you've seen other Alien movies, it's sadly not a surprise. Secondly you get the feeling that the Alien segments are there to spice up the movie and that cleaning house moment I mentioned above is certainly one of them. I get the feeling that people wanting a only kill count and dead Aliens won't be happy.

People who wanted a freak out like the original Alien, forget it-you aren't getting one. Scott did that perfectly the first time and other then some suspenseful squirm moments, there isn't much to scare you into vomiting out in the theater lobby like the original film. This isn't an action movie either so you're hope of gun armed loading mechs and space marines is gone too I'm afraid. This is far more like the original Alien where science and answers are the real things to take away and tools of the trade. Not to mention a great, GREAT ending where we see the quest isn't over but that it is just beginning. I can't spoil anything but I can see a branch off from this movie into another one where more answers are given with new questions and if we don't, well at least it's a great lead in to Alien to know what happened, or at least an idea.

Prometheus Quick Tip by TheJohn

Sat, 9 Jun 2012 06:06:11 +0000

Space mission to a far off planet in search of the history of mankind's development is met with malevolence. RIdley Scott's long awaited prequel to Alien is chock full of the kind of impressive visuals he is known for. Those expecting a shock out like the original Alien will be left cold, even colder for those wanting an adrenaline blast that was Aliens but for the rest it's an adventure in more ways then one.

Mankind's Search for Truth and Meaning

Sat, 9 Jun 2012 03:57:29 +0000

Star Rating:

Fundamentally, Ridley Scott’s Prometheus is about the search for truth and meaning. Under the guise of a 3D science fiction thriller, it begs most of humanity’s most basic spiritual and/or philosophical questions. Why are we here? Were we created, and if so, by who or what? Is there a purpose to our very being? The film does not presume to answer all of the above, although it does leave us with the strong possibility that such truths are not only out there but can be found. It’s no coincidence that the film’s title is also the name of the immortal Greek titan that sculpted mankind into existence from clay. He also enabled mankind’s progress by giving them the fire he stole from the gods; he championed us to such an extent that he would ultimately be punished for it, condemned by Zeus to endure an eternity of having his liver pecked out by an eagle.

Most potential audiences cannot be expected to see this film from a more introspective angle. It will be regarded primarily as the semi-prequel to Scott’s own 1979 film Alien, a great horror film in its own right but obviously devoid of any spiritual subtexts. Keen observers should be able to spot all of the references, from the overt inclusions of the “space jockey” and the crescent-shaped alien spacecraft to the subtler throwbacks in characterization, production design, and tone. I personally pride myself on having caught an instance in which a section of music from Jerry Goldsmith’s Alien score was mixed into the soundtrack. Those seeking any obvious inclusion of the now well-known alien creatures are likely to be disappointed, not because the film lacks close encounters with extraterrestrials but because they introduce themselves through a deliberate and somewhat confusing process of evolution.



The story proper begins in the year 2089 when, on an archeological expedition on an isle off the coast of Scotland, scientist couple Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) discover a cave with a painting of a star map. This is but one of many star maps found around the world, which is unusual given the fact that the sites on which they were found belonged to ancient cultures separated by time and distance. Shaw, without a doubt a believer in a higher power, interprets these findings as an invitation from humanity’s outer space forerunners, dubbed the Engineers. Quite simply, it’s a chance to learn who we are and where we came from. Four years later, a privately funded interstellar expedition aboard the starship Prometheus arrives at the only logical location outlined in the star maps: A moon in a very distant part of the galaxy.

The crew consists of your usual grab-bag of mechanical and scientific experts, including Shaw and Holloway. Of particular interest are two characters. One is David (Michael Fassbender), an android; while initially no more than a machine, unclouded by emotions or morality, his mechanically superior ability to process and learn gradually gives him something of a superiority complex towards the human passengers. The other is Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron). She has been sent by the company funding the expedition, the Weyland Corporation, to monitor the crew. Level-headed yet elusive and controlling, we spend most of the film trying to determine what her hidden agenda is. Perhaps it has something to do with a holographic projection of the company’s long-gone founder, the deeply wizened Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce).



After landing on the moon, Shaw and her team soon uncover a sprawling network of underground caves and corridors, which inexplicably produce an atmosphere capable of sustaining human life. Their expedition reveals the remains of an Engineer’s head, along with a vast subterranean cavern well-stocked with cylinder-like urns. Upon their discovery, the urns begin to leak a strange black goo. David is the first to discover this. As he secretly stashes an urn on the ship and conducts an experiment, Shaw is thrilled to learn that the Engineers’ DNA is identical to a human’s. But then begins a biological epidemic begins to infect the crew; it reaches such a degree that Shaw is forced to conclude that she was wrong about the Engineers’ intentions.

The original Alien achieved a shocking visceral thrill with the infamous chestburster sequence, a turn of events that audiences at that time could not have foreseen. Prometheus attempts to outdo its predecessor with its own disturbing birth scene, one that kick starts an unstoppable evolutionary process. As to whether or not it’s successful, that’s entirely a matter of personal opinion. I admittedly had a difficult time navigating the story’s biological path of destruction, as I found the link between organism and host convoluted. My response to the less tangible spiritual aspects was much better. Prometheus is at its best when it speculates on the unknown. Like Shaw, many of us have chosen to believe in something greater than ourselves. Unlike Shaw, we tend to leave it at that. She’s not content with mere blind faith. She will always be searching.

Prometheus

Fri, 8 Jun 2012 17:54:49 +0000

It is tough to tell what, if anything anyone has heard about Prometheus going into it. The biggest talking point of the movie though is that Prometheus is a prequel to Alien. But I suggest you get that idea out from your head. Any fan of the original will remember how beautiful and spine chilling that movie was. Alien deserves to go down as one of the best science fiction movies of all time. Prometheus really isn't anywhere near that level of excellence but it certainly stands on its own as a really good movie. Ridley Scott make his return to science fiction in his latest movie Prometheus as one space crew attempts to go and meet its maker.

Of course there are nods and references to the original movie, but this truly is its own movie. One of the biggest differences being the way the scares come at you. In the original Alien, the movie was steeped in silence and that is where the terror came from, the feeling of isolation while fearing for your life. Where the original movie thrived in the silence, Prometheus relies more on action. In this movie Scott has adapted to the times and includes monsters popping out of nowhere, grissley violence and true to the franchise one moment sickeningly similar to the original (and actually a better made sequence). You can hardly blame Ridley Scott for the shift in tone from the original movie, a film like Alien probably would not be as successful as it was then because the audience demands certain level of pacing. You need to hook an audience quickly or they could just as easily go to their phones and start trying to find out whats happening after the movie. While it would be unfair to expect an outcome like Alien when the movie needed to be made to appeal to modern audiences, it does a wonderful job telling its own story.

Visually the movie is striking. Scott uses 3-D well here and enhances his project and really makes his visuals pop. He doesn't appear to be throwing it in there just to add to the weekend gross, he uses it effectively and seamlessly to enhance his project. In fact all of the technical aspect of the movie are stunning. Nothing seems out of place and it is hard to think that even the wildest imagination could have crated a more fitting landscape to the movie. And while some of the movie needs to be computer generated he films as much as he can using live action, and using this technique always allows the movie to come to life, even if it is taking place trillions of miles from Earth.

True to the franchise Scott gives us two strong female leads in Noomi Rapace, from the Swedish version of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo series, and Charlize Theron who will be competing against herself in Snow White and the Huntsman. Rapace plays Elizabeth Shaw, one of the scientists who discover alien drawings and believe they will help answer man's greatest questions, where did we come from? She does all that is asked of her and is a completely believable hero. Backing her research is Meredith Vickers, played by Theron, who has her own agenda on this space trip. She is cold and calculating in this movie, and leaves nothing to chance, and much like Snow White plays in intimidating force very well. The other stand out character in the movie is David played by Michael Fassbender who reminded me more of HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey than anything else. Another perfect piece of casting, despite his character having no emotion he is able to play every feeling perfectly from dry humor to the subtle threat.

Independent of anything else this is a really good movie. In fact some of the weaker parts of the movie come towards the end when they try and tie the movie back to its 1979 counterpart. But had the movie not had the backing of the original I doubt there would be so much excitement surrounding this project. Prometheus does a better job standing alone as an independent movie, than any prequel has done recently. B+

Prometheus is a smash, a success. Ridley Scott pulled the lever and delivered.

Fri, 8 Jun 2012 03:22:52 +0000

"The Forethinker"

"The Forethinker" says that if you'll visit this film waiting for Ripley to come out with a flamethrower then your whole experience will get flamed. Prometheus is that one of a kind journey people will love to hate because it won't resemble their Alien fantasies. This wasn't supposed to be Alien in the first place so expecting an acid shell shrouding this godlike body will give you as many rewards as a nutshell could ever offer. See this incredible piece without expecting the expected and then you'll get all your questions answered for this new franchise. I already feel sorry for half the people and critics out there who showed no originality and resumed to simply adapt to the general perception without looking for the answers someone else probably missed or didn't find in the first place. Blindness is still a terrifying issue, especially in the film industry.

This movie follows the classical receipt of a great science-fiction flick, takes some of the casual but acceptable cliches and manipulates them in such ways that they become less obvious then they could have been. The story has much to offer even if at the first look it might seem too clear or could be even classified as silly. But the first appearance does not always reflect the true side of things. Sometimes you have to dig deeper and really sell your soul to the intrinsic side of them. Prometheus is exactly like this. That "typical" Ridley Scott film that will weigh much more than it does now.

The film touches new grounds while serving as a distant quasi-prequel to Alien. Some important elements from the original horror film are present here but so are the many differences that can get easily overlooked. The structure is Alien-like but the story serves a whole other purpose. While the structure is heavily cropped within the syntagm "crew that ends up in the middle of a space mission that goes wrong", it really deviates from the original concept where the crew is the main attraction and goes into foreign places where the story is the main factor. The one-dimensional characters from the 1979 film are also present but the interrelationship between them is toned down since the story doesn't revolve around them specifically. The horror elements are mostly gone but they are replaced by the wonderful overstrung and suspenseful atmosphere.

A story that revolves around an existential philosophical concept that could very well start debates between the supporters of Creationism and those of Darwinism. Prometheus has much more philosophical meaning than I thought it will. It does not only ask questions about our beginning and doesn't simply rely on the Von Daniken theories but it actually serves as a realistic possibility. And here I'm not talking about the detailed progression of the film's narrative but about the progression of the basic concept through the film. Questions are asked but most of them are already answered in the film. The ones that stand at the end are definitely there to make room for at least a sequel. Imagine never reading Lord of the Rings, imagine the books never being made, imagine seeing the first film of the trilogy released today in theaters instead of Prometheus. You will leave the theater with so many unanswered questions your head will implode.

Based on the evidence found on Earth from the early days of Sumer and Egypt, this crew led by Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron), a wooden corporatist employee that serves Weyland Industries, sets itself into a journey, deep into space, on the way to find our makers. We get acquainted with the crew of this beautifully designed ship named as the film itself, Prometheus. Mainly we have our leading female Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace), the scientist who represents the intuitive and dependent of faith way of comprehension, and we have Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) who is a scientist that represents the rational way of comprehension. They are both lovers and their connection most definitely grew because of the fact that they complete each other. Next to them we get the fancy, comical and punkish captain Janek (Idris Elba), and the owl-like android David (Michael Fassbender), the rusty and still underdeveloped robot that kinda resembles the legendary HAL9000. Once they end up on the planet LV-223 (which is not the same planet from Alien), everything changes and that's when the movie starts slowly to kick in, building it's way to the spectacular third act. The crew sometimes might take sloppy decisions, might resume to some silly moments of dialogue, and might get involved into cliched situations but the beauty is in the visual narration of all this scenes. And I refuse to be hypocritical and not admit that Ridley's science-fiction films were always driven by their gorgeous visual narration much more than they were by their story.

The performances here are really amazing, almost everyone channeling something similar and familiar to us. Noomi Rapace channels Ripley's demeanor and strength, while Michael Fassbender steals the show channeling not only the idealism personified by T.E. Lawrence but also the physical "elitism" represented by the Olympic diver, Louganis. Charlize Theron is bossy in her role but it does kinda feel like she was rehashing leftovers from her performance in "Snow White & the Huntsman". Idris Elba's performance is probably the cherry on the pie, adding good contrast and balance to the relatively more serious surrounding characters. Logan Marshall-Green makes a great debut and Guy Pearce will probably surprise anyone with his impeccable delivery and mannerism. We enjoy these characters with all their one-dimensionality because that's where Ridley really succeeds. Connect the audience to characters that may seem to be the obvious choices by creating the perfect environment for them to work in.

Once we reach the third act the massive scale of this film really hits you in the chest (no pun intended). There's so many ridiculously good things happening that you can't really hold to not smile at the end. Prometheus, with no exaggeration, holds one of the best thirds acts in the last decade. This last act basically lifts up the film from the level of good to spectacular. It's not scary but it is so frightening and harsh and full of symbolism that many will have a hard time picking during their first view. The pacing can be too fast at one point but I don't really know if that's a positive or a negative thing since I enjoyed it and I never really thought it could be a problem even though I see why for some it may be.

Technically this movie is top notch. Not only the practical sets and stage effects are incredible but also the CGI. The Universe Map room and the "sandstorm" are one of the most breathtaking moments during this film. The intro for this film is already a classic in my book. Beautifully shot, perfectly edited, and complimented by a great score which works terrific in the context of the film but may be forgettable as a stand-alone piece of music, Prometheus delivers a hell of a ride. It's basically a carousel of all colors that knows what it wants and makes the first step in the right direction with this new franchise. I cannot wait for a sequel to this since the big questions are still there like those galaxies and constellations our ancestors point the finger at. Most answers are already in the film, and the questions that are left unanswered set the perfect launch-pod for the next film.

Prometheus is a smash, a success. Ridley Scott pulled the lever and delivered another controversial film that will definitely get better with time. This is a ride you shouldn't miss, a journey through a visceral and immersive world that asks relevant questions using the purest form of entertainment. I can only be disappointed in one thing. The fact that this movie had incredible potential of being an instant classic and ruined that chance because of some silly decisions made. The fact that it creates this illusion that it's too simple for it to have these grand ideas. But even this disappointment says how good the film really is and how much some already missed.

In the end you may ask yourselves... "But what's with the "Forethinker" thing?".

I guess you'll just have to find out, don't you?

Storyline/Dialogue: 8.0
Acting: 9.0
Technical Execution: 9.8
Replay Value: 10

OVERALL: 9.0

Prometheus Quick Tip by KingreX32

Wed, 6 Jun 2012 20:09:56 +0000

Prometheus Comes out in theaters this Friday. I'm going to see it. Nothing is going to stop me. Hell I even put money aside. But As always, before I go see It; I'm just going to write a Quick tip about my thoughts.

Prometheus, Directed by Ridley Scott, is being called a prequel to the aliens franchise. But Ive also heard that its going to be its own story. Of all the news I heard, from multiple sources I'm not sure which too believe. I guess that's A good thing, I will be going into this movie not knowing what to expect.

Despite this I'am a a little disappointed as the new trailers for the movie seem to release alot of information. So much so that I think I know how this one is going to end. In its defence though, if this movie is indeed a prequel the ending shouldnt really be a surprise.

Will it be an Outright horror Movie like the first, or An Action movie like the Second. OR will it blend elements of both into a Sort of Action Sci-fi horror? Im not sure. But I do know this. You can expect to see my review by Monday evening the latest.

Neuromancer Quick Tip by glenys4chambers

Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:16:40 +0000

Brilliant. Brought us outside ourselves and inside our tools. Changed the way we thought about what was real and what was human ... at least for some of us.