John Dies At The End (Don Coscarelli, 2012)

Don Coscarelli has had a unique career. He came to be a prominent writer/director among horror fans in 1979 following the release of Phantasm. He also went on to direct it's many sequels and is the man who wrote and directed The Beastmaster series, which has it's whole own cult following. In case you aren't familiar, the Phantasm series follows a boy who upon discovering the local mortician is actual a being from another dimension doing rather dastardly things with the bodies, sets out to stop him. After making this discovery, the series of films follow this young man, and his friend Reggie the ice cream man, as they battle the forces from this other dimension that are attempting to take over earth. I understand how that sounds, but at the very least, the original Phantasm is worth seeing because it is mind bogglingly original. It matches some real scares with some deeply funny moments and shockingly surreal imagery.

The Beastmaster is something else altogether. It's also a piece of fantasy fiction, but it's extremely different than Phantasm. Much more along the lines of a sword and sorcery variety of fantasy, it follows a warrior who can communicate with animals on an epic adventure, the third film in the series also involving time travel. It is a joyfully silly, fun adventure film in the best traditions of sword and sorcery films.

Those are the films which put Don Coscarelli safely in the hearts of horror and fantasy film fans the world over. He had fallen off the radar for a number of years though. He didn't release a film between Phantasm IV: Oblivion which was released in 1998 and his next film which was released in 2002. That film, was a howling ball of weird hilarity mixed with a healthy dose of horror genre tropes. Bubba Ho-Tep announced Coscarelli's return in a way that made horror fans and fans of the surreal and absurd sit up and cheer like a pack of wild hyenas that have just broken into a slaughterhouse. Bruce Campbell (of Evil Dead fame) plays a man in a nursing home who may or may not actually be Elvis Presley. That's the easy part of the story. The rest is that there's a mummy roaming around that is killing the inhabitants of the nursing home, and when Elvis/Sebastian figures this out, he enlists the help of John F. Kennedy (played by Ozzy Davis). Yes, you read that right. Don't worry, if you actually see the film, which you should, you'll understand and it will make sense.

Needless to say, Don Coscarelli is making very different movies from 99% of the other film makers alive today, and when he's been gone from the landscape of cinema for ten years, many people notice the absence. To his credit, he's made all of these films, and a few others, with the absolute least amount of money he could possibly have at his disposal and is still creating incredibly fun and entertaining films. He is more consistently willing to take chances and try to be actually creative, in the sense of doing things we've never seen before, than most other writers and directors working today. What he isn't, is making movies with serious content even though he's serious about being creative. His films are one hundred and ten percent about being fun, entertaining and original. John Dies at the End is no different. Based on the book of the same name by David Wong (which is itself a pseudonym for a former editor of Vice magazine, Jason Pargin), John Dies at the End, fits into Coscarelli's filmography perfectly, and might just be the high point for his career to date. It's an insane film, barreling at the audience at 250 m.p.h, laughing maniacally, spewing guts and not bothering to slow down and ask whether or not you're keeping up or getting out of the way.

Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

Prometheus is not Alien. If that fact is something you can understand and embrace, walking into the theater, the chances are you're going to enjoy the two hour running time.

If this isn't a fact you can both understand and embrace, the odds are in favor of disappointment.

It's a good film. It is a very different film than the film that is responsible for the franchise. It is, in more ways than not, a much bigger, much more ambitious film than Alien. Ridley Scott is a different man now than he was when he made Alien, and there's obviously a lot on his mind. Prometheus is, in another way, classic Ridley Scott as well. Some of Scott's better films have managed to tackle Big Ideas and present them in interesting ways while also being entertaining pieces of popular art. Blade Runner and Black Hawk Down being two of the better examples of Scott's ability to tame his narrative ambitions enough to produce films that have some depth and weight, yet find their way into the hearts of people who aren't looking for little more than entertainment in a movie theater. There's a lot of venom out there for Black Hawk Down, because it gets lumped in with other action-ish films dealing with the military as a simplistic piece of nationalist propaganda, but in reality, there's a good deal more to that film than the kind of empty headed, uncritical flag waving of the films it so often gets categorized with. What it isn't, is a preaching, preening work of anti-war, anti-military or anti-government propaganda, which is often what it's detractors seem most upset with it for. Personally, I don't like to be preached at via celluloid, whether or not I find some sympathy with the sentiments being expressed. If I want preaching, I'll go to a rally or go to a church. Decent narrative art, much less good or great narrative art, doesn't need to resort to communicating to the least common denominator in order to say something worth while. Even as Ridley Scott has directed a few films that seem to have been driven by little more than bloated arrogance (I'm looking at you Robin Hood), he has proved he can direct films with Big Ideas in a subtle and deft way. 


I have a feeling Prometheus is going to suffer a similar fate in many ways, separate and apart from the fact that there's going to be a large contingent of people who are going to be disappointed that Ridley Scott didn't deliver Alien wrapped in a new package and tied in a sparkling bow made of the latest special effects. As absurd as science fiction often is when looked at from the perspective of literalism, if Scott had attempted to make Prometheus in the vein of being nothing more than a spectacle of summer movie going, it would have been laughably absurd. Big Idea science fiction can slip into being deeply, unattractively, unknowingly campy very easily, and Prometheus avoids any of that, even as there are a few moments of definite gallows humor.

Source Code (Duncan Jones, 2011)

In 2009, Duncan Jones debut, Moon, was released. He had written and directed the film and was quickly catapulted to the top of up and coming young directors. Having written that film, as well as directing it, he proved he could craft a deeply thoughtful film about the nature of identity with a warm, clear eyed humanity at its heart. It was great science fiction for adults. Source Code is Jones second outing, a film which is equally successful in fulfilling it's aims, though those aims are very different.

Source Code is about an army helicopter pilot who suddenly wakes up on a train in suburban Chicago, in a body that is not his own. Following eight minutes of the kind of disturbance which would be expected from waking up suddenly in someone else's body, the train blows up. And then Captain Colter Stevens (played effectively by Jake Gyllenhall), wakes up again, this time inside some kind of small pod or cockpit, with an Air Force officer speaking to him through a monitor, attempting to glean from him any information he may have been able to learn about the nature of the cause of the explosion. The point of all this is that Capt. Stevens is part of a program called The Source Code, which can send a person backwards in time, into the shoes of another person, during a specific event for eight minutes at a time. The trains explosion is the event under investigation this time, and Capt. Stevens is sent into this event to attempt to discover who planted the bomb, in hopes of preventing a second attack, the threat of a dirty bomb being detonated in the middle of downtown Chicago.

Source Code is a very good popcorn movie. I should make clear that I have nothing at all against popcorn movies. I have a definite distaste for any kind of movie which is so cynically derivative that it never attempts to have it's own voice or any film which never attempts to develop anything like story, character or narrative themes because it's counting on the the audiences familiarity with the tropes and clichés of the genre of film it's attempting to imitate. There are great popcorn movies, but it's also probably the kind of movie which is most often lazily thrown together with the hopes that the audiences will see some exciting but familiar scenes in a trailer and flock to the theaters. Duncan Jones has succeeded in crafting a popcorn movie that is exciting, compelling, smart, and has the same warm heart that made Moon such a special film. He demonstrates that he can make a more mainstream science fiction adventure film which is a cut above the majority of other big budget science fiction films by focusing on characters who have a fundamental decency at their core and by presenting the audience with philosophical conundrums that aren't easily solved. He also proves he can take a script written by someone else and carry it through to developing it into a film that demonstrates the same degree of confidence, understanding and ability equal to that of a film he had written himself. Source Code manages to strike a strange balance by only really being about explosions and the trappings of the action/adventure genre in a secondary way. The real story of Source Code is in Captain Colter Stevens, his choices in the face of what he's presented with, and the actions he chooses to take. Jake Gyllenhaal exudes a basic, simple decency that makes him one of the more believable and authentic "movie stars" working in Hollywood today. He takes some difficult material and makes it very easy for the audience to get on board and go for the ride that he is trying to convince them to take. In the beginning of the film, his dis-ease with the situation he finds himself in is perfectly offset by the way he plays the characters military background.
Michelle Monaghan plays opposite Gyllenhaal as Christina Warren, the traveling companion and romantic interest of the man whose body Gyllenhaal is dumped into. Monaghan has had very few opportunities to demonstrate her talents as an actress. Most of her other roles have been in light romantic comedies and a few other big budget action films that cast her as the necessary and too standard love interest. Although she is cast again as the love interest opposite the films primary protagonist, Source Code is somewhat different from the roles she's had in other action films in that this one is at the very center of the films narrative and is the window through which the film makes the journey from being about the kind of nebulous, generic "bomb plot" to being about something more concrete. It becomes very much about Captain Stevens realization that the people on this train that he is trying to save, despite the protestations of the source code's military minders who claim that nothing he changes matters because none of it is actually real, are just people living their lives on a day to day basis, not just numbers of the dead.
Vera Farmiga and Jeffrey Wright play the Air Force officer who is Captain Stevens contact and the scientist who created the source code. Farmiga has been following a renegades path to stardom by passing on many of the kinds of star vehicles up and coming actresses usually jump at to establish their place in the "industry marketplace." Starring in The Departed was the role which afforded her the greatest commercial recognition, but she's been building a reputation as a strong and versatile actress by taking smart, well written roles and giving great performances in those roles. She brings some real subtlety to her role as Colleen Goodwin, adding another performance to that growing reputation. Jeffrey Wright does a great job as he venal and ambitious scientist in charge of the source code program, a villainous role he hasn't had the opportunity to sink his teeth into. Wright is one of the most unfortunately over looked actors in Hollywood. He's a great actor with a powerful intensity which can be beautifully mixed with a touching sense of the more fragile aspects of humanity. Here he proves he can just as surely handle bureaucratic villainy. In the early days of the Iron Man franchise, I was hoping to see Wright get a shot as Rhodey, Tony Starks best friend and conscience so that he may gain some of the recognition he deserve.

I can recommend Source Code to just about anyone, without a seconds hesitation. Though it lacks some of the visual elegance and heady themes of Moon, it's still an enjoyable film that provides some thought provoking ideas and questions. It's pacing and performances are sure to keep audiences invested in the story. It's a great spring time film, in that it is an action film, but is also more thoughtful and intelligent than the summer movie season tends to tolerate. With the sure onslaught of very large, very dumb spectacle films on the way, I'd heavily suggest getting out to see Source Code.

Battle: Los Angeles (Jonathan Liebesman, 2011)

Alien invasions have been a part of American cinema for a long, long time. We don't seem to tire of stories of destruction reigning down from the skies, brought on by an extra terrestrial menace that seems insurmountable. Battle: Los Angeles attempts to write a chapter in that long and storied history.

Jonathan Liebesman did not have my full confidence as I was walking into this film. Having directed The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, the sequel to the remake of the 1974 classic, and the horrendous pile that was Darkness Falls, saying I was a little nervous about being subjected to two hours of really, really dumb with a side of narrative excrement is putting it lightly.

I'm going to start this review off by doing something I probably shouldn't, making a light comment about the other reviews I've been reading. Sometimes, films come along and the critical press lay upon them unfair praise or unfair criticism less due to the film's actual qualities or deficiencies than the over all atmosphere of the film industry and the film press. In reading a number of other reviews of the film, it seems to me that this is the case with Battle: Los Angeles.

I don't disagree that there a number of problems with Battle: Los Angeles. The script is laughably bad. There are sequences in the film which should have just had titles on them to tell the audience that they were about to experience an emotional "character moment." The dialog in those scenes is stilted, ham fisted and practically screams "I am a human being that you need to have feelings for and identify with." Growing up as a fan of genre films, I've seen more horror and science fiction films with absolutely horrible scripts than I can count, and there are moments in this film that are as terribly written as any of those second rate, B- movies I've suffered through. Aaron Eckhart is unfortunately saddled with the responsibility of handling the majority of that half baked verbiage. Eckhart was absolutely great in Thank You for Smoking, and was equally good in bringing Harvey Dent to the big screen, with all of that characters history and the moral dilemma it represents in The Dark Knight. There is a part of me that feels real sympathy for the man, because this script could discredit all of the goodwill he's accrued as a result of those two films. I also know that he would have had to read the script before agreeing to star in the film. The problems with the script are significant.

All of that being said, there are some elements of this film that work extremely well. The action set pieces are great. They manage to instill some real tension, to be exciting and well thought through enough to be able to keep track of everything that's happening without feeling staged and rote. I can't disagree more with the reviews I've read that have taken aim at the action scenes in the movie. They were well thought out, well executed, exciting, and the special effects aren't breaking any new ground, but there wasn't a moment during the film that I caught myself thinking, "Wow... that looks really bad," as I'm want to do when confronted with crappy C.G.I. (I'm looking at you Clash of the Titans.)

Battle: LA has some of the makings of a very good film. It's essentially the story of how the military would react to an alien invasion, told through from the perspective of one Marine staff sergeant, who is trying to retire (facepalm!) when assigned to a new unit during the reaction to the invasion. The military's reaction, as depicted in the film, is pretty believable. Throwing the whole, "he's trying to retire" cliché in there is a near perfect example of what's wrong with the actual script, where there are good ideas that could have examined further but are hamstrung by poor characterization. The underlying problem with the film is that it seems to be confused about what it actually wanted to be. If it hadn't strayed away from the action sequences and tried to run off into more "serious emotional" territory, it may have been a more successful film on both counts. Trying to use the stupidly belligerent moments to establish character and drama was a direct misstep. Those same things could have been established through the actions of the characters in the midst of the battles and the continuing travel. It would have made more sense, and seemed a good deal less forced to have used moments and elements during the action because these characters are professional soldiers, this is their element, and this is who they are. Stopping off to hide out somewhere, and using that time to get all weepy doesn't suit the characters or the narrative well. We'd be able to learn as much as we need about each of the characters by following them through the action and following their reactions, what they do well, what they don't, etc. Their relationships with each other could have easily given the audience the window into the humanity of each character without trying to pull us through that same window by the nose.

It seems the writer, and probably Liebesman, couldn't decide what previously successful film they wanted to rip off. Where they most succeed is with throwing Black Hawk Down and Independence Day into the blender and painting with what comes out. When they start trying to mix in a little bit of Saving Private Ryan and Platoon, it turns into a suicide mission and the audience is the enemy. It just falls apart when the action stops for too long, and there are a few long periods during which the audience is being bludgeoned with the blunt force stupidity of the script. If the film had stuck with the more relentless action sequences, and the roller coaster ride they provide, this could have been a great popcorn movie. I almost feel the "dramatic moments" had to be inserted in order to meet the movies budget or because someone involved with the film making process decided this beaten like a dead horse variety of characterization was the only way an audience could invest in the story. I know that the action has to slow down intermittently so that the audience isn't able to settle into that kind of heightened state, because that eliminates the exact purpose, but these are unnecessarily long periods, done poorly, that end up killing some of the momentum of the film.

As much of a mess as this movie is, I thought the action sequences were put together well enough to not completely hate it. I'm basically ambivalent toward it. What I liked about it, I really liked, and what I didn't like, reminded me of falling out of a tree and hitting many branches on the way down. True story. I was seven or eight. No injuries, just pain and fear. The pain in this case was inflicted by the script and the fear came from how long those long "dramatic sequences" lasted and the feeling they might never end. I don't know whether or not I can suggest seeing this in the theater. The action sequences are worth seeing on the big screen with a theater quality sound system, but shelling out your hard earned money for what amounts to half a film.

If you feel it necessary to see this film, in the theaters Fandango is the place to go.

The Adjustment Bureau (George Nolfi, 2011)

No science fiction writer has had as many of his works adapted for film as Philip K. Dick. It’s unfortunate for his legacy, and the movie going public that the majority of those films have been terrible. The Adjustment Bureau is the of the great sci-fi visionaries works to make it to the big screen, and although it’s certainly lacking in the kind of ambition that often made Dick’s work so wonderful, this is a fun movie. It’s not reinventing the wheel, and it’s not going to set the world on fire becoming a cultural phenomenon, but it succeeds at the goals it sets out for itself more than it fails.

David Norris is a political wonder boy. The youngest person ever elected to the House of Representatives, he’s now running for the Senate. It seems he’s destined to win, until a newspaper releases photos of him making a drunken ass out of himself at a college reunion by mooning some old frat brothers. On the night of the election, when it becomes clear he’s going to lose very badly, basically a landslide, he goes to write his concession speech. He wanders into a secluded men’s bathroom in the hotel where his campaign is headquartered for the evening, and begins the unenviable task, after loudly asking if anyone else is in there. Laboriously trudging through his work, Norris is finally finishing his speech when a young woman comes out of one of the stalls. And this is how David Norris meets Elise Sellas, throwing the trajectory of both of their into a tailspin, altering both of their destinies.

And in short, that’s what this film is about, fighting one’s destiny. The central plot element surrounds the idea that destiny is controlled, and that it’s controlled by The Adjustment Bureau. When your life deviates or seems as if it might deviate from the plan it is supposed to follow, the films suggests it’s this shadowy group of semi-supernatural folks who step in to set it back on the path that’s been laid out for you. David Norris and Elise Sellas are not supposed to be together. Unfortunately, David Norris isn’t interested in going along with that plan.

George Nolfi manages to keep it light on the metaphysics, which is all for the best in this case. There’s a quasi-religious aspect of the story that if more heavily laid on would have become the kind of sluggish exercise in tedious exposition that good science fiction literature is often saddled with when made into film. This isn’t a film that needs to have all of this too heavily explained and I think Nolfi in both his screenplay and his directing is smart enough to tread lightly in that territory. He explains what he absolutely has to, when he absolutely has to, and when explanation isn’t necessary, he sticks with the films real assets, Matt Damon and Emily Blunt.

Matt Damon’s real talent is that it’s extremely easy to relate to him. He brings that talent to this film as well as he has any other before it. Even while playing the new golden boy of American politics, it’s easy to believe him, to relate to him, and eventually to sympathize with him and root for him. Very few people will ever actually experience the kind of precipitous rise and deflation that Damon’s character does in the film, but we’re with him the entire way, because of his extremely affable and sympathetic demeanor.

Matt Damon’s talents would be completely wasted without someone we believe his character would be able to develop the kind of connection that sets the narrative in motion. Emily Blunt's character could have been just another in a line of female characters that's already too long. Essentially, she's a grown up Manic Pixie Dream Girl who has matured and developed enough discipline to have a successful dance career. She could have ended up coming off very much like Kate Winslet's character in Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind or Natalie Portman's character from Garden State. Instead, her character comes across as a confident, self possessed young woman with a good sense of humor and straightforward enough manner that it's easy to believe Damon's character would fall hard for her, especially under the circumstances they meet under. This is the first time I can remember Blunt getting the opportunity to play a modern woman in a world that resembles our own, and she's knocks it out of the park. There isn't much about this film that could be called special, except for her performance. Emily Blunt is a bonafide movie star at this point, but even as this film isn't going to shake the world up, I'd be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that this performance puts her in the running for roles directors wouldn't have considered her for before they got a look at her work in this film.

The Adjustment Bureau is a fun film, built on the foundation designed by one of science fictions greatest writers. It's smart enough outline the philosophical underpinnings of the source material, but also smart enough to know that in a film meant for a mass audience, the dangers of collapse are all too great if those underpinnings are too deeply mined. The real story here, in both the films narrative and in looking at what in the film is worth giving time to, is the chemistry between Damon and Blunt, and ultimately, Blunt's ability to take a role that wasn't particularly well fleshed out and to breath life, sincerity and spontaneity into it. The Adjustment Bureau is a fun date movie, with good performances and there are worse ways to waste two hours, but there are better ways as well. I don't feel like the film was a waste of my time, by any means, but if given the choice between seeing this again or watching any number of other films I've seen before, I wouldn't choose this one.


Fandango has tickets to local showings across the country.

Monsters (Gareth Edwards, 2010) [Netflix Watch Instantly]

In the last few years, science fiction has been going through a real revival, a revival of science fiction for "adults." And when I say "for adults," that doesn't necessarily mean gratuitous sex and skin either. It means there have been a number of intelligent, well made films with guts and heart that rely on narratives based in science fiction. There's been more to these films than giant robots, computers taking over the world or aliens blowing up buildings. I like giant robots, computers threatening humanity and alien destruction on film as much as anyone else, but I like variety even more, and that's what these films have been giving us, a wider variety under the very large umbrella that is science fiction.

Gareth Edwards Monsters is another film adding some adult perspective to the wide world of science fiction. Though the narrative does have some elements surrounding alien invasion, this isn't about our hero's saving the earth from the invading hordes. Instead, it's much more a road movie about two people who are lost in more than the journey they're undertaking as part of the film, but lost in the larger sense as well.

The film tells the story of a photojournalist, Andrew Kaulder (played by Scoot McNairy, a name I find infinitely amusing) making his way across South America, documenting the results of a NASA probe having returned and crashed with an alien life form attached to it. These aliens have multiplied and are wreaking havoc across a wide swath of territory, stretching from what would have been northern most Mexico on down. The area where the creatures are most populated has been labeled The Infected Zone, just south of the United States border, and our intrepid photographer is headed in that direction hoping to score the kind of picture that pays the bills for a long time.

But, as always... there's a snag. In a call home to the publisher he plans to sell these pictures to, he's informed that the daughter of the man who owns the publishing company is trapped in Mexico, and needs to be sent home. Of course, this is not what Kaulder had in mind when heading south of the border, and isn't interested in babysitting while he's trying to find his get rich quick pic. Unfortunately for him, when the owner of the major publishing conglomerate is asking to have his daughter returned home safely, he's obliged to help. Samantha Wynden is our titular damsel in distress (played by Whitney Able). From there, our protagonists set off on a journey to get Samantha safely back into the U.S, which of course, doesn't go exactly as planned.

The short version of the story is that I really enjoyed this film. What is probably my favorite aspect of the film is that the characters are extremely well written, conceived and drawn. Too often (and especially in genre films) the characters seem to be plot devices. They don't seem like people who have an entire life's history that is coming with them to the story that's playing out in the film. In Monsters, the fact that the characters very obviously have a much larger story than this one specific episode in their lives, is one of it's most interesting aspects, resulting in a feeling of discovery permeating the entire film. We're discovering things about these characters as they're discovering them about each other and themselves, but most of it is done in such a simple way that it feels organic and much more akin to what it's like to actually get to know people, instead of having character elements lumped together or thrown at the audience to give the appearance of character development where there actually wasn't any. That journey, and that sense of discovery are central to the film, and the geographic journey they're taking is almost secondary, but it also adds to the sense of discovery and wonder that the great acting and character work create.

Another interesting aspect of the film, and one that is truly unusual, is the portrayal of these alien creatures. This isn't an alien army attempting to take control of the planet or to conquer humanity in order to enslave them. It's much more a matter of simple Darwinian theory. These creatures are much more animal-like than what we're used to in a science fiction narrative. There is no sweeping strategy or plot. They've just landed on a planet with a favorable environment, and are doing the things that life forms do in that situation, eating, reproducing, protecting territory etc. They're not even particularly interested in eating humans, so they're not horror movie monsters in any way. They're just doing what animals all over the planet have always done, and as has been true with so many other species, that puts them in competition with humans for both territory and resources. Gareth Edwards, in both writing and directing the film, manages to walk a very fine line with real grace. The creatures are at points terrifying and at other points objects of wonder. Think Jurassic Park if the dinosaurs weren't trying to eat people, but were still trying to get out of the park and be dinosaurs, doing what dinosaurs do, while people were trying to stop them and you might start to get a handle on the way Edwards "monsters" are portrayed.

The cinematography in the film is gorgeous. Again, it's Gareth Edwards who deserves the credit for this, as he's actually also the cinematographer on the film. There are some wide shots during a river sequence in the film that immediately call to mind the most hauntingly beautiful shots in Apocalypse Now, and even in the more intimate close ups and "one shots" of the actors are awesome, giving those scenes a quality that is extremely intimate, but gorgeous at the same time. Edwards camera work is as good as his writing and his directing. He's also responsible for the special effects, which for a low budget indie are fantastic. His IMDB page suggests that prior to Monsters he's been doing work in television, which almost seems like a waste of talent. The number of roles he's taken on to make this movie, and produce something this good is somewhat mind boggling. Then again, with this amount of talent, anyone who's looking to produce great content should be willing to pay this guy to do basically whatever he wants.

Both Whitney Able and Scoot McNairy are very good as the protagonists, and I wouldn't be shocked to see either of them starting to pick up smaller roles in bigger Hollywood films very soon. Because this isn't a science fiction, special effects extravaganza, and the narrative is so personal in nature, the organic quality and very real nature they bring to both of their characters is another big part of what makes the films so successful. In some ways, it's almost as if Monsters is what you get when mumble core meets meets Hollywood style science fiction bonanza's, and as in mumble core, the degree of charisma and grounded-ness of the characters and the actors portrayal of them is central to any success the film hopes to have. The film works as well as it does because these characters and their story is the central aspect of the film, and the more fantastic elements are just a part of these two people's lives at this particular point in time, giving the entire film a feeling of being in a world that actually could exist and the narrative a kind of cohesive nature that isn't normally found in high concept film making. Just because these alien creatures are wondering around the planet, doesn't mean humans stop acting like humans and doing the things humans have always done. Everyday life isn't at a stand still, which is part of the films charm.

All in all, I can recommend this to just about anyone, but especially to people who have enjoyed some of the more intelligent and adult science fiction films of the last decade. This isn't as flashy and exciting as District 9, but it's not as cerebral as Moon (my review) or as pulpy and shocking as Splice (my review). It is very much it's own film, with it's own story to tell and it's own way of telling it. What it does have in common with those films is the fundamental humanity at it's core that they have all addressed in very different, but effective and entertaining ways.

Splice (2010, Vincenzo Natali)

Science fiction has become so ubiquitous in contemporary film and fiction that we hardly recognize it as itself. The days of the kind of heady, science fiction that commented on society and culture hasn't been in vogue or even much to be found for a long time. Though there may have been a healthy bit of cheese to the science fiction films of the sixties and seventies, they were also the inspiration for so many great films and pieces of literature that followed, that their cultural importance has to be recognized.

So it is enjoyable to have such a good new example of this kind of science fiction in theaters. Splice, the new film by Vicenzo Natali (who also wrote and directed the cult favorite Cube), is a very, very good film. I don't know that I would call it a great film or that it will be placed on the mantle with the kinds of classic science fiction films which are its' ancestors, but it is a well written, beautifully shot and constructed, enjoyably subversive and somewhat shocking film.


Splice is the newest in a very long line of fictional stories that stretches all the way back to "Frankenstein". Instead of reanimating dead bodies though, our intrepid scientists in this film are played by Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley, and they are splicing human DNA with that of animal DNA to create a new organism. Of course, this new organism is the miracle humanity has been waiting for in combating all manner of disease, and the scientific team use the proteins and antibodies it's body creates to save millions from death. They are then held as heroes, but reviled by a secretive religious cult who attempt to destroy them and their creature. Battles ensue. The good guys win.

Everything in that last paragraph, except the parts about Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley starring and the DNA splicing are completely false. Our scientist protagonists do actually splice human DNA with a number of other animals DNA to create a new life form. It really doesn't go very well. The how and why of not going well is what makes Splice such an interesting and worth while film. The story line of the scientist overstepping his or her bounds in the midst of intoxication by the knowledge they've gathered is nothing at all new, as I said before. This film does take that story in some new directions though, and more fully explores some of it than other films or other mediums of fiction have. Those things do make it a thoroughly modern film in it's own way, but one which will resonate with audiences a long time in the future as well.

Adrien Brody is really the heart and soul of this film. Without his performance I don't think audiences would be willing to sign on and take the ride the film has in store for them. Luckily for Vincenzo Natali, and audience members, Brody is terrific, and the ride is certainly worth taking. One of the things that makes Splice somewhat different than most of the films that are within the same family is that is isn't really about the science at all. There are certainly some questions related to the moral implications of gene splicing, and specifically using human DNA in that effort, but they're shown through these two scientists relationship with each other and their relationships with the world around them. It is the characters, their relationships with each other and the creature they create that really drive this film and it's story. The effects are at times average, and others spectacular in their depiction of this living creature. I didn't feel at any point during the film that there was an attempt to put the effects front and center as the focus of the film. It's always about the characters and the story, and that was really refreshing to me. In fact, as the film moves forward, I honestly feel the effects became more and more subtle.

Natali delivers some moments in this film, story elements and scenes which are completely unexpected. It's gotten harder and harder to surprise me in the course of a film. That's to be expected when anyone watches as many movies as I do. There are lots of other people out there who are just as able to understand the normal rhythms and usual story elements at least as well as I do or better. There were a number of times while watching Splice that I was genuinely shocked because I in no way expected to see what was on the screen when I was walking into that theater. I will always give some credit to any film maker and writer who can accomplish that.

There are some pretty disturbing elements in this film. The things in the film which were disturbing and unsettling have nothing to do with blood and gore. There's actually very little gore in the film. What is disturbing about it, like everything else in the film and what makes it so good, is disturbing because in some way, it always comes back to story and character. I was sitting there squirming in my seat because what I was seeing on screen related back to some other piece of information I'd already been given. With the exception of the final sequence in the film, there's really not even any violence in this movie, and it's still pretty disturbing.

I do want to speak to the most often expressed complaint I've heard about the film. In a nutshell, people can't seem to get their minds around the idea that scientists this brilliant could possibly make the number of stupid decisions these two make in the course of the film. I understand that criticism, but at the same time, those decisions are never related back to a lack of intellect. These are obviously two people who are very talented and capable in their field of study and research. That's a literal no brainer. Not one mistake in this film is made out of sheer stupidity, and nothing in the film suggests that. It suggests at every turn that these mistakes are made because of personality failings these characters already have. The mistakes they make are made because they're either being arrogantly brash or they're being dishonest with themselves about their own intentions etc. The history of humanity, even very recently, is full of very intelligent, very capable people making the most elementary of mistakes for all these same reasons. In essence, these mistakes are made because these two people are immature and irresponsible, not because they are stupid. And again, immature and irresponsible are at no premium in the world we live in, no matter a person's intellectual ability.

That is one of the things I really do appreciate about this film. From the fifties forward, we've had a relatively steady diet of films part of whose overall perspective comes from a distrust of science and scientists. This is perfectly understandable to me, considering it was in the fifties that we as human beings, specifically scientists, cooked up the weapons which could literally destroy the world. It's important that the question "should we" is always addressed, along with "can we". But this film doesn't take that kind of perspective. It doesn't give us the kind of cookie cutter "bad scientist" who does something so incredibly irresponsible that none of us watching could possibly begin to see ourselves doing. These are people with very regular failings, like any regular person. Those failings also happen to be married to an incredible ability and talent that very few people have, and I think that's the kind of idea which is important to put forward and that we should be making a part of the narratives we tell each other, because they do eventually have some effect on our way of asking questions and having discussions.

Either way, Splice is an extremely well made film and it should be a boon for science fiction fans, horror fans and people who like to see people succeed outside the studio system. This film was bought for distribution after it was filmed. It was filmed and shot completely independently. It was able to draw the budget it did because of Natali's previous work, and honestly, it looks like it should have been a much more expensive film than it actually was. I can endorse Splice enthusiastically. Go check it out in theaters.

Moon (2009, directed by Duncan Jones)

Some of the most thought provoking, powerfully human, beautiful, entertaining, haunting, and heart breaking works of fiction I've ever seen on film or read have been science fiction stories. 

There's something about science fiction that seems to be more well suited to adeptly capture so many elements of what it is to be and the experience of being human than any other genre of fiction. I may have a soft spot in my heart for horror films, a kind of gooey, giddy, unfettered, sloppy teenage romance with horror films that's continued into my adult years, but good science fiction gets my admiration and respect. Added to that, film seems as if it were almost specifically created for science fiction story telling. Few genres are served as perfectly by a visual medium.

I feel that way because of films like Moon. Directed by Duncan Jones and starring Sam Rockwell, this is excellent science fiction. I'd wager it will be considered a classic, and part of the cannon of "must see" science fiction films. It's hard to say much about Moon without spoiling the experience for people who haven't  seen it. I'd absolutely suggest that if you haven't seen Moon you go into it knowing as little as possible about it. That being said, I knew more about it than I probably should have, and obviously, I still think it was a great film. I'm giving you the choice by not revealing anything that would take away from the impact of the film. If you want to know more of the actual story than that, you'll have to look elsewhere.

What I can tell you about the story is that Sam Bell is the sole technician in an almost completely automated operation extracting an element from the surface of the moon that has solved Earth's energy problems. Sam has been at this base on the moon, attending the machines, collecting the element (Helium-3) when cannisters on the harvesters are full and sending it back to Earth. When we meet him, Sam has apparently been on the moon, alone, for three years. In two weeks his contract will be up, and he'll be able to go home. Unfortunately, while heading out to collect a full cannister of Helium-3 from one of the harvesters, Sam has an accident, at which point, things get interesting, really, really interesting.

To some of you, that might sound like the kind of geektastic, hard core science fiction stuff that makes certain varieties of science fiction so very unattractive to most adults. I understand that, but what that synopsis doesn't tell you is that those details are the set up for the story. The real story is what happens from the accident on, and it is a very completely human story, more about Sam Bell than the moon, some made up element, harvesting on the moon or any of that. It's about Sam, our ideas about identity, what it is to be human, how it is we relate to ourselves and each other and it does all of it with authentic heart, subtle intelligence, and exquisite film making.

Moon is able to take on some big, heady, adult themes and make them personal in way that gets them away from being purely intellectual exercises. I enjoyed Richard Kelly's The Box, but I recognize that one of it's problems is the fact that it's intellectual nature doesn't make for the kind of compelling film making that a general non science fiction geek can identify with. Moon is an utterly compelling piece of film making, in the most human storytelling tradition.

You can not discount the importance of Sam Rockwell's performance to the success of this film. Rockwell has literally ninety eight or ninety nine percent of the screen time in the film. Other than a few minutes of video feed coming from Earth, and Kevin Spacey as the disembodied voice of Gerty, the robot/automation which has been Sam's only companion over the past three years. There just isn't another human being for the audience to start taking this journey with or sympathizing with, it's that simple. The thing is, Rockwell is absolutely phenomenal. I posted something earlier today on Facebook about having watched this last night, and that I couldn't stop thinking about it today, and a friend commented that the he would probably not have enjoyed the film if anyone else had been in Rockwell's role. I think that's a good call because not only can I not think of any other actor possibly having played this role, I can't think of an actor I would have sympathized or empathized with more than Rockwell. That authentic and honest heart in this movie is half to seventy five percent Rockwell's performance. I'd have to give credit for the remaining percentage would be due to the storytelling choices Duncan Jones makes, but there isn't enough praise available to me for Rockwell's performance. It is just so honest and so real and so understandable, it's completely disarming. I'm honestly disappointed Rockwell wasn't nominated for an Academy Award. This is the kind of role which the Academy usually trips over itself to give away awards to and I honestly think Rockwell is the victim of the Oscars trying to answer a very large and very loud community that has been increasingly critical of it. Too bad Rockwell is better in this role than most of those past Oscar bait nominations could have dreamed of being.

It's fairly obvious that a great deal of time, effort and care were put into this film. The production design is wonderful. The inside of the moon station is believably functional, and well designed because it continues to be interesting even though we spend the majority with it and it never gets boring or overwhelms the story or character. And the special effects are awesome. Not necessarily in the big, splashy, "look at how cool my special effects are" kind of way, but just in their subtle beauty and the fact that they all do have a very palpable reality and weight to them. All of it works together and is so deeply integrated that it makes me excited to see what Duncan Jones will do in the future. One of the problems that often comes up in sci-fi films or films that involve effects is that they don't seem to be a part of or integrated in the world the film exists in. Moon succeeds at avoiding that pit fall so well, I honestly didn't think about the effects until I was thinking about writing this. The fact that I was watched a film set in a near future, in a moon base, and didn't think about the effects at all, is a huge testament to the effects department, specifically because Moon is not the kind of film who's effects you should be thinking about. It should never be taking attention away from the character work in a film like this and it never does, while still being beautiful and interesting.

In the past year few years, we've had a few very good science fiction films. The Star Trek reboot was well done, exciting and fun. But, it was definitely more popcorn and action film than real, adult science fiction film. District 9 was the perfect middle ground film. It was exciting and fun, action packed, but also had a real story with great character development, an awesome character, great effects and the whole nine yards. Moon follows in the path of earlier classic science fiction like Blade Runner, the original Solaris and 2001: A Space Odyssey. But, Moon as much as it is in keeping with the thoughtful, honest nature of those films, it is much warmer and more heart felt and warm.

I can't recommend this highly enough.