Posts
There were
only 4 science fiction movies that I wanted to see but failed to make it to the
theater for. "The Signal", it
looks ominous and I imagine has some horror elements to it, I was intrigued but
did not see it playing anywhere; "Hunger Games, Mockingjay pt1" I
was disappointed in the first movie, I loved the second movie, and... I think
it was silly to break this into two movies I will eventually get around to
seeing it; "The Zero Theorem" I cannot say that I like Terry
Gilliam's presentation of material (having only really enjoyed "12 Monkeys") but I like that he is a creative force in the industry and this
is probably an interesting film that looks amazing; and then there is
"Lucy" which I mostly avoided because of the "we only use 10% of
our brains" myth that is the core of the movie, that falsehood needs to
die and I am sure that I am being a dick about something... I will just have to
mentally edit the movie to "her mind is mutating to use 10x the energy of
a typical human"... Not much better but whatever.
Godzilla (Lies of a Trailer)
I already wrote a lengthy review of this that was rather rambling and mostly complained
about how derivative it was of "Man of Steel" of all things. I disliked it immensely. You can be boring but smart, or dumb but
exciting, but you can't be boring and dumb.
Overall: 3/10
 |
| Marketed with Legendary skill. |
The biggest
problem this movie has is that it is called "Robocop" inviting
comparison to a classic science fiction movie from the 80's which holds up
today from both a scripting and social commentary angle. This movie in many ways is a microcosm of
modern Hollywood, let's take a concept from years ago that because of its
uniqueness is fondly remembered, then we will sand off and paint over that
uniqueness, making things all black, soulless, and designed by corporate
committee. If I thought that was the
intentional subtext of the movie I would call this movie a work of meta-textual
genius... I have no faith in the creators to assume that was their goal.
What did I
like? I really liked the scene in which
they show him how little of his body remains, it is sad and strange. I like aspects of the corporate design
process (again meta-textual commentary).
I like a good portion of the investigative technology, in which he
becomes a walking talking crime database that can hunt down and crush crime
quickly and with results.
What did I
dislike, the stupid ending of "love conquers all", I dislike the
general stupidity of Michael Keaton's character toward the end as thru most of
the movie he is seen as a crass businessman, but you can see where he is coming
from and how his actions make a lot of sense in the world, but then for no
reason he turns into Norman Osborne, taunting the hero and
threatening innocent people, stupid ending that taints the character. There is a lack of world building, everything
is very bland, there is no violent gang war, no new super drug
("Dredd" had Slow-Mo, which was amazing), there is no formidable bad
guy aside from the nameless ED-209 (which in the original movie were a joke,
and in this movie they are played straight).
Honestly if
you have the inclination just watch the 80's movie it is quite good. So I will give this one two ratings, 5/10 if
you like the original, and a 6/10 if you just want a generic soulless hack
science fiction film.
Overall: 5/10 (6/10)
 |
| I find this poster poorly made because of the poorly rendered image of his mouth, like they edited it on in photoshop. That and it is a really boring picture, most of them are like this. |
I liked
this movie so much I went out and read the book. And I want everyone to know beyond a shadow
of a doubt: THE MOVIE IS BETTER. All the
book has going for it is the premise of space invasion and time loop, great
premise, but the characters are dull, and due to translation issues I am
certain all the humor and wit has been sucked out. To show how translation errors are probably
at work, the original title of the book directly translated to English from
Japanese is, "All you need is Kill", and if that is not ENGRISH then
I do not know what is. Though the
"Edge of Tomorrow" title is pretty meaningless too, and it should have
been called "Live, Die, Repeat" like it is now on DVD... I am wasting
time on this comparison.
Once again
I find Tom Cruise to be a great actor surrounded by great actors who make a
premise that should be bonkers seem down to earth and accessible. Emily Blunt is properly tough, Bill Paxton is
salty, and Cruise is funny. That all
being said this is another science fiction movie (the other being
"Oblivion") in which Cruise is miscast in the role and too much of
the script exists just to justify his age, compelling a 50 year old borderline
civilian press monkey into being on the front lines during an invasion is
stupid, and symptomatic of other stupid decisions made down the line, as
apparently all the competent military leaders in the world are all dead and we
are left with General Brigham, played by Brendan Gleeson; who when confronted
with proof of time travel being used by the aliens to gain an advantage in the
war he ignores the implications and pushes forward with a suicidal plan. I do not know, the movie has bad leadership
so that the can do spirit of the troops can be shown as the true key to
victory... Maybe.
Something
notable I did not like: The design of the aliens. What were they thinking? A chaotic mass of tentacles and claws that is
in constant movement, I have no idea what I am looking at half the time, they
move so fast and are so confusing that I find them annoying rather than
threatening or cool. Maybe I was spoiled
by the Tripods in "War of the Worlds", those things are menacing,
mysterious, and I know what the hell I am looking at. Or the Xenomorph in "Alien". Of the Bugs from "Starship Troopers". This movie tried too
hard on the designs and it is just a mess. By contrast the battle armor used is strangely awesome, and seems to resemble current proto-types in real life, but with less polish.
So overall
the cast is great, the premise intriguing, the plot is a little contrived
(there is a full blown plot hole at a key moment in the movie), and the
monsters are stupid looking. The goods
outweigh the bad.
Overall: 7/10
 |
| I am strangely okay with this poster. |
My issues
with this movie begin and end with one character, some nearly nameless jerk who
is prejudiced against the Apes because the plague that caused the fall of
humanity was dubbed "The Ape Flu".
That is the stupidest reason I have ever heard of for disliking
something, that is like being racist against black people because a member of
your family was attacked by Africanized bees, or disliking Egyptians because
you know someone who caught West Nile Virus.
The character's transparent stupidity is so out of place compared to the
logical and well thought out motivations of the main villain and the heroes
that he actually harms the movie with his presence.
 |
| This guy. I don't blame the actor, the character's reasoning is the issue, it makes no sense. |
Aside from
that one major failing the movie is fantastic.
Fantastic characters with political dynamics, character interactions, a
unique sci-fi premise extended logically so as to create a world that feels
real because of how it looks and how the characters live within it. If the shitty character had not been in
there, or just had a logical reason for his hostility then I would have ranked
this movie even higher. As is it is a
fun movie with a lot of daring plot developments. Maybe the last confrontation is a little
trite? Maybe some characters become too
tunnel visioned? Maybe. But the movie works.
Overall: 8/10
 |
| This is an awesome poster. |
This is the
sort of instant classic that flew under most people's radars and should be
receiving more attention and praise. As
an action movie it is gorgeous, with dynamic action in a cool environment. As political satire it is laser focused. Dialogue is clear, concise, and does not
explain too much or leave out important context, allowing the full picture of
what is happening to become clear as the movie progresses.
The movie I
most want to compare this to is "Elysium" which I felt had more problems. And these two movies are
similar in a lot of ways. Mostly in that
"Elysium" has the same message of the unwashed masses being cruelly
neglected by some powerful overseers. I
thought that "Elysium" had poorer villains, the environment was not
as cool, the cast seemed weaker, and the dialogue is weaker. I also prefer the bleaker and more unpleasant
ending of "Snowpiercer" to the very pat to the point of naive ending
of "Elysium". While the two
are both have similar messages and even similar plot points,
"Snowpiecer" is just a higher quality film that does the subject
matter more justice.
Overall: 8/10
 |
| This link, is an article mostly about the changing economics of film distribution and is flat wrong about most of it, using concepts such as the cost of printing reels (which with digital projectors and networked computers is an issue that no longer exists) as justification for why theater releases are not as viable anymore. Though the irony of a movie about a populist uprising on a vehicle that exists to break thru the frozen waste being the breakout of the old economic model would be ironic. |
No comments:
Post a Comment