Change Your Image
earthlad
Reviews
Slipstream (1989)
This film is an ultralight.
The story and the characters really REALLY needed work. The world idea is kind of neat, but no one bothered to develop any of it either through exposition, or through the plot. Despite the cheesy notes at the beginning of the film, it makes sense that you wouldn't use exposition, since no one is new to this world. And yet, when Matt Owens (Bill Paxton) and Byron (Bob Peck) stray off-course and get lost, and get introduced to the wind-worshipers and the fat, lazy, rich people in the museum, we don't get any real idea of who these people are, or why we should care about any of them. Smart films have ways of developing this simply by having the characters live in the world. Simple things, like ordering a drink at a bar, or talking about something in the past -- these are the kind of things that make the film world memorable, not endless shots of crappy planes, and cheap CG effects of someone trying to do loops in an ultralight.
If this is too difficult for you, here's a little tip -- pare down the multiple locations. If everything's becoming disjointed because you're pulling up to often, stay in one place for a little while and have the characters talk a little. All the superfluous crap should be removed. Get rid of the entire wind-worshipers scene. Get rid of the stuffy museum people. Get rid of all the crappy flying crap unless you can make the wind relevant to the story. Have the entire thing set on a big plane, or something. Just get people talking about something we care about.
Hey, get rid of Bill Paxton. Have the film center around Tasker's character and his relationship with the robot, Byron.
Indeed, the biggest problem of the film is that we don't care anything about anybody, because no one takes the time to either explain their motivations or delve into their characters. We don't like Matt (well, because he's played by Bill Paxton, among other things). He's a scoundrel, who doesn't redeem himself enough, except to let the android, Byron, go. And this action has even less meaning than most because of three key points:
1. Byron is a murderer. 2. Byron is indestructible 3. Byron can leave any time he damn well pleases.
We try to like Byron, because there's a kind of pathos there, but it's largely undeveloped. All we're left with is a whiny, glassy-eyed robot guy who's acting is subdued and wooden one moment, and practically zany the next. We don't know why or how he develops emotions, but we do know for a fact that he's murdered someone. We don't know why he murdered someone, or the circumstances of this grisly event, because it isn't developed. We can't feel pity for him if we don't know the story. All we know for a fact is that he murders people. And he likes Bill Paxton.
We don't hate Tasker enough (partly because he's played by good-guy Mark Hamill), since while gruff and ruthless, doesn't do anything out of the ordinary for his character -- a post-apocalyptic peace officer. Sure he kills Montclaire (Robbie Coltrane) and his team, but they are drug dealers, on their way to grow poppies for heroin. And they shoot at him first. He doesn't kill anyone who doesn't get in the way, or who does not try to physically harm him first. That goes equally well for the final confrontation in the museum. He uses a smidge of police brutality against a lazy dilettante (F. Murray Abraham is wasted in this role), and everyone else draws a gun on him.
I really don't understand what's the deal with Belitski (Kitty Aldridge), Tasker's partner. After only an accumulated 10 minutes with Matt, she's ready to switch sides, despite her shouts of loyalty, and despite Matt's trash-talking her, and punching her out. If that's love, then I'll choose hate any day.
Really. Paxton's character is about as lovable as Simon in "True Lies", or Pvt. Hudson from "Aliens". Does anyone fall for him in these movies? No. Why? Because he's a loud-mouthed idiot, and a loser. Why put him at the helm of this film?
The Core (2003)
Awful awful awful....
I wasn't sure I wanted to see this in the theatres. There was something fishy about the trailers -- there were two distinct trailers: one which played on the whole "journey to the core of the earth" fiasco; and one which was much more interesting, touting the whole "government weapon conspiracy which wrecked the world" angle. I was more partial to the second one, and there wasn't really much of this in the film. It was mostly about putting together enough duct tape logic to get a machine that could travel inside the Earth. Unfortunately, the film played a little rough and tumble with the science, using it only when it suited them, and sweeping it under the carpet in other circumstances, hoping no one would notice.
Case in point: they go through great lengths to explain how this gadget will destroy all rock and metal which gets in its way, then come up with a fantastic new element which resists this laser drilling mechanism. Later, they find out that this drill can't get through diamonds (or for that matter, amethysts). Why not just build a ship out of diamonds? We can mass produce these now -- why not just take the existing science a step further.
Case number two: this miracle metal, "unobtainium", has the fantastic capability to absorb heat and convert it into energy (somehow). So later, while swimming in 9000 degree molton nickel, they use a blowtorch (!) to solder copper cables to it. There's obviously two things wrong here. #1, shouldn't this guy get electrocuted by standing so close to the bulkhead? #2, how could a blowtorch make the bulkhead hot enough to take the solder? This thing is holding back 9000 degree metal on the outside. Every calorie of heat from the blowtorch would be converted into "energy". I won't even go into the whole idea that heat IS ENERGY! This drove me nuts every time they mentioned it.
There's dozens of these bad science examples running throughout the film. But really, I don't care what kind of science you use, as long as you at least keep it consistent throughout.
What was even funnier about this film was the fact that they took the greatest minds in the world of geophysics, and simply dropped them into the molten mantle of the planet. Why would you do this? I'm surprised none of them dies during training... what if they were all to die instantly? Wouldn't it be a better idea since they had a RADIO UPLINK TO THE SURFACE to have some Navy/Air Force/Space program pilots drive the vessel?
As much as I hate to say it, I liked Armageddon better than this film. And I absolutely hated Armageddon. But at least it had a little star power, a little campy humour, and some personality to the characters.
Ginga-tetsudô no yoru (1985)
Ranks among the most epic Anime titles
This film is up there with all of Miyazaki's works, including "Spirited Away," "Princess Mononoke," and "My Neighbour Totoro."
It has a very surreal quality and a deceptive cuteness to it, which may trick you into thinking it trite or superficial. However, like some of the best Anime out there, "cute" can leave you open to some horrifying consequences. Obviously it's not as heavy as "Grave of the Fireflies" or as light hearted and uplifting as "Totoro", but this film lies somewhere in between. I haven't read the book, but I'll bet it's similar in theme and scope to "Le Petit Prince" by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.
I'm certainly not a Christian, and often tire easily when confronted by blatant Christian imagery in film, literature, and music. However, this film requires a degree of spirituality to get its point across, and the Christian images present, while overpowering at times, represent a nebulous kind of spirituality -- as if it's saying "there is a force out there which helps determine our fates, but I can't define what it is."
For example, the film takes place in some alternate European world (most likely Italy) and the characters have Italian names. But they're anthropomorphic cats and don't appear to practice any kind of Christianity (they celebrate moon festivals, and sail lantern boats in the river). However, they later meet up with human children on the train, and listen to Christian hymns on the wireless ("Nearer my God to Thee"). They pass several different layers of Heaven, and Giovani, the main character, has a special ticket that allows him passage to "the one True Heaven".
The film, like the train, takes its time to get where it's going, and some powerful messages come across to the viewer. Unlike many Anime and Western films, this one does not end with a happy and neatly tied-up ending, nor does it take pains to explain the things that go on inside the train. It leaves that to the viewer. This is what makes good art films. This is what makes a film worthwhile.
Nemesis 2: Nebula (1995)
Dirty Harry meets Terminator meets Predator
This film has it all ... mainly because it unapologetically borrows from several other films, including "Dirty Harry," "Predator," and "Terminator." For example, the final battle scene looks like it was set in the exact same locale as in "Dirty Harry." They battle in some kind of rock-crushing mill, complete with conveyors, and a big fall from the top of a metal tower.
Of course the alien cyborg bounty hunter is a cross between Bobba Fett, the Terminator, and that alien guy from "Predator." He even has that partial invisibility screen that looked much cooler in the former film.
Speaking of "Predator," theres even one scene which is an hommage (rip-off) of when Schwarzenegger is escaping from the alien and gets all muddy and wet from trudging through the Amazon river.
Sue Price is stone cold in her acting, and you're never sure whether she's angry, sad, happy, or whatever. I'm not sure what else she's done, other than the rest of the Nemesis series, but I'll bet she's a much better weightlifter than actor.
All things considered, I've seen better episodes of "Sheena".
Hardware (1990)
This film has become one of the "classic" Sci-Fi cult films which will live on forever in anonymity.
The sound track alone is worth the price of admission. It features some of the best late 80's music (including spoken word by Iggy Pop), all tied neatly together by a moody Simon Boswell (Lord of Illusions) instrumental theme.
The film itself is a more disimpassioned and nonchalant version of the Terminator, where the world has pretty much run down, and people are simply dealing with it, while a killing machine is running rampant.
The film has a slow pace (punctuated by sparks of action/violence) and takes its time to establish the world, to make us feel the ennui and discomfort of the characters.
The robot itself is a killing machine, no more, no less. We feel no sympathy towards it, nor should we, as it's an emotionless dreadnought whose primary function is population control.
It's very artistically done, seems more like an elongated music video than a film, and it lends as many pop-culture references to subsequent films as it borrows from previous ones.