Reviews

I didn't see this when it was on television for the first time, on the Space Channel (Canada's Sci-Fi channel, which snatches up most Sci-Fi Channel productions a few months after they've been aired in the States), because I hadn't read the book yet. The first time that Space re-ran it, I caught the first hour of it, because there was nothing better on, but turned it off before it progressed too far.

I remembered it as being good.

Then I read the book over a year later, and it became the best book I had ever read. Feeling proud with myself for completing it, I decided to watch this mini-series right away, as a friend of mine had the entire thing on DVD.

Well, after only ten minutes, I began to realize that the style of said mini-series was not as I had remembered it. The sets and dialogue weren't as good. So I assumed that my memory had glossed over a few details, and continued. As well, most of the characters were portrayed in a way that I thought was all wrong, but I thought "Well, that's my personal opinion. That must be the way the director saw Hawat/Rabban/Shaddam IV/de Vries/Jessica, so I'll accept it, because there might be some value to it."

It still seemed okay, and after all, the television advertisements had been very exciting, and had filled me with great hope for a powerful, rendition. Surely, once the story got away from Caladan, which wasn't its focus, and onto Arrakis, which was, the special effects would improve enormously. The only bad looking special effect in the advertisements had been the worms themselves, but I thought "Well, it's a mini-series, what can we expect? I'll let them off the hook for that."

Of course, that isn't what happened at all. The special effects actually got worse on Arrakis. Actually got worse. The characters ran across a soundstage, in front of a poorly painted screen of dunes. The CGI effects during "wormsign" were laughable. The ornithopters weren't even decently airbrushed, they were flying toys. The storm was a blur effect that I could do on my computer at home using Truespace.

The one decent actor in the cast, William Hurt, gave nothing but flat, wooden dialogue, while giving either a blank zombie-stare or a long and inappropriate pensive look, and then popped up in an inordinate number of dream sequences after his death, just to justify his being cast in the film. Paul Atreides was presented as twenty-five, yet treated like an irresponsible, petulant adolescent, when he should have been a fifteen-year old treated like a man. Thufir Hawat was a useless old idiot. De Vries was a joke. The Baron wasn't frightening at all. The Emperor was even less frightening; the familiarity with which he was regarded by his subjects was unimaginable, and his dress wasn't nearly opulent enough. The director seemed to recycle the computer images of Centauri prime from "Babylon 5" for the imperial capital, and even went so far as to give the court the same stupid accents (applied inconsistently!). That, and the transformation of the mystical Fremen into oppressed and directionless peasants who might have been out of "Hercules: the Legendary Journeys" shows a criminal, almost racist lack of creativity and direction on the part of the director.

Fitting this exotic story into such stupid European modes, dumbing down the dialogue, and the tripe about Paul's hesitancy to kill, Irulan's previous relationship with Paul, and Leto's Harlequin Romance-style relationship with his concubine were all part of that same lack of direction, and meant to make this story comprehensible for the masses by fitting it into the same moulds as the stories they are used to. The masses, however, will never be able to appreciate "Dune." They are too stupid. The director of this film did not put forward interpretations of the characters differing from my own because he had his own vision; he did so because he had no vision. This abomination proves that. I have not seen David Lynch's "Dune," but I want to now, because anything is better than this garbage.

I am surprised that fewer people have compared the story of "Pitch Black" to that of Isaac Asimov's "Nightfall." Surprised and gratified, as there exists only one common plot device: the sudden disappearance of a planet's several suns, the casting of that planet into darkness, the resultant chaos. "Nightfall" is about the fall of an entire civilization, while "Pitch Black" concerns the trials and hazards of a few stranded space travelers, so the latter is hardly a 'rip-off' of the former. It is a good film which does indeed succeed in distinguishing itself from the plethora of "Alien" rip-offs, in presenting likable characters that the audience actually cares about, and in presenting its story in an innovative and visually interesting way. And at an admirably modest budget. It is not a masterpiece, but it is good, it is well crafted, it can be enjoyed by intelligent men and women, and it is worthy to exist.

I just thought it necessary to point out that its exploration of a sunny world's sudden descent into darkness was not its own, that it came from a previous source of which Mr. Twohy and the Wheats (that sounds like the name of a silly band) could not possibly have been ignorant. I also believed that the way "Nightfall" capitalized on this idea was better thought out and less contrived: a planet of people unaccustomed to darkness periodically go berserk during the solar eclipses which overcome their planet every two millennia, setting everything ablaze for illumination, and, thus, destroying civilization again and again. With "Pitch Black," we have the presence of ravenous nocturnal life forms (unlikely to evolve on a perpetually sunny planet) capable of slaughtering anything in their path when the suns set (which coincidentally occurs a few days after the space travelers arrive, another extremely unlikely circumstance) on an otherwise barren world. And, as a segue, those hoodoo-like structures that crumble when the bats usher forth from them; how long would those take to form? Just to fall over in a single night? "Pitch Black" should not be reviled for its plot, as it was in no way a work of plagiarism. What is needed is a proper film version of "Nightfall."

I've been searching just for confirmation that this film existed for five years! For a while, I thought I'd just imagined seeing it, that no one had ever actually made it. Like many other people who have commented on this film, I too remember seeing it when I was maybe nine or ten. It haunted me ever since, because I couldn't remember the title or the names of the characters, only the well-crafted images. As I haven't seen it since then, and copies are indeed impossible to find, I will refrain from describing those images, for my memory may be faulty. Totally ripped off from Star Wars, yes, and horribly violent for a children's cartoon, but I loved it...

This film was pushed as a dissertation on the ethical issues and social implications of cloning in the world of the near future, and most viewers seem to have interpreted it as just that. But the truth of the matter is, the aspect of human cloning isn't really the crux of this film at all: it's the 'syncorder' technology. Theoretically, we could clone a human being now, but such a process would be a threat to no one; we'd simply have a totally seperate individual with the same DNA the individual from whom he/she was cloned. The ability to 'synchord' peoples memories and personalities and implant them into the clone, however, allows the films villains to insidiously 'replace' their victims. Well, if you have a bloody syncorder, to hell with cloning! These people could already conquer the world by retrieving classified secrets from people to whom they give 'retinal scans!' Also, the existence of the syncorder implies that the information storage and retrieval systems of the human brain have been cracked. If that were the case, wouldn't people be able to build more advanced computer programs than the mindless, repetitive, doll-like imitations of SimPal Cindy and the Virtual Girlfriend?

The fact is, this world is not one of the 'near future,' because the kind of technology required to build a synchorder, let alone one as small and easy to use as the 'vision testing machine' used by this film's villainry, is not going to be available to use for a long, looong time. Since the characters ignore this, and focus almost entirely on the mundane concept of cloning, most of the important questions are not asked. Arnold's clone wonders if he is human. Well of course he's human! And the idea that he doesn't have a soul simply because he is a clone is repulsive; how about not having a soul because his memories and personality emanate from a digital information storage device?

Barring this, I think that this was a good action flick embedded in a surprisingly well done science fiction film. Innovative direction, if not choreography, and the movie puts a lot of things taken for granted from Arnie's previous action films on their heads, which is fun to watch. Having to kill the same people over and over ("Yeah, yeah, we've all been killed before."), and two Arnies arguing with each other and double teaming the bad guys, for example. My only problem; Arnold is some kind of extreme sports chartered helicopter pilot; how does that explain his trademark aim, paramilitary training, and the ability to effortlessly kill people with his bare hands? We know he HAS to be able to do these things, but it still makes no sense in this case.

People who took in this film as a guilty pleasure, or who saw it not for it's content but based upon their devotion to the Tomb Raider game or Angelina Jolie react to negative reviews of this film by asking "What were you expecting?" Not, "What were you expecting, 'The English Patient'" or "What were you expecting, 'Citizen Kane'" mind you, because they haven't the intelligence to have seen or remembered those films, but simply "What were you expecting?" Well, I'll tell you what I was expecting. I was expecting a brainless film that would at least keep me entertained. I was expecting riveting action sequences. I was expecting convincing special effects. I was expecting a highly improbably story, but I WAS expecting a story. I was expecting some novelty. I was expecting that if they were going to try and include subtext, there'd actually be a reason for it, and there'd actually be something it was in reference to, and that it would be done well. I was expecting blood and guts. I was expecting AT LEAST one exciting fight scene. I was expecting a film that stayed where it was supposed to and didn't add extraneous crap better done in other movies for the sake of looking 'cool' and having meaning. I was expecting the loose threads to be tied up and the plot holes filled in, because I deserve at least that much for volunteering to put my brain on hold for the sake of 'entertainment.' I was not entertained. I was not amused. I didn't expect this to be 'The English Patient,' but I did expect it to be at least on par with 'Judge Dredd' or 'Mortal Combat' or even 'Street Fighter.' It wasn't. It was abominable. Do not see this movie.

I have to say that I wasn't fair to this show in the beginning, and it still isn't my favourite, but after having watched it for a while I grudgingly admit it is the best science fiction on television. That's right, science fiction, not sci-fi. The aliens are prissy, the characters are flat (except for Sandoval, who's evilly likeable), and the special effects are imperfect, but each episode deluges it's viewers with the everyday application of real, well-thought out science centuries beyond our own. More research goes into five minutes of this show than an entire season of "Andromeda." There are an average of two amazingly ubiquitious special effects shots a minute. And whereas in almost every other series the tendency of the storyline to return to an unchanging equilibrium is a stumbling block, here it is done so brilliantly one ends up marvelling at how the writers pulled it off. I don't care if it ends or not (because, as I said, the story almost never deviates, so it could really end at any time), but I will agree that it's a hundred times better than any "Star Trek" series every was, and deserves to be Gene Roddenberry's most remembered idea. And it's distinctly Canadian feel, similar to and yet different than that of "The X-Files," makes it a great showcase for this fantastic country! Let's hope Paramount goes bankrupt, the Trekkies find real lives for themselves, and history can base it's opinion of Mr. Roddenberry on fact rather than fandom.

As a resident of Calgary, where this was filmed, I was pleased to recognize many of the areas in which this picture was filmed. Hell, I've eaten at the Oriental Gourmet Palace in the background of the final seen! It's good to know that it's cast and crew have enjoyed our hospitality, especially the likes of Jill Hennessy and DMX, both of whom held their own well in yet another of Seagal's brutal action vehicles. It's not another "Under Seige," but it is indeed a significant improvement from his last two disasters, and, all in all, perfectly good for what it's worth. My major gripe is not with the picture itself, but with the fact that it seems like a toned down version of it's directors last effort, "Romeo Must Die," which also featured DMX and Anderson. But if one does not compare the two, one should find both perfectly enjoyable. My other gripes regard the poor treatment of Hennessy's character (I wish this 'tougher stance' on female co-stars had been practiced in a film not featuring her) and the gratuitous vulgarity near the end. All in all, worth seeing for pure entertainment value.

This series is painful to watch. "Oz" and "Homicide" alumni wander around aimlessly through endless, boring tripod shots, looking confused and with little to do. Inappropriate music cues intended to accentuate suspenseful scenes destroy the tension instead. The dialogue lacks all subtext. Much time is wasted on the uninteresting personal lives of the characters, further dampening tension. Figures from the original series appear far too frequently to give the show some much needed juice, but in vain; were it not for their presence, I would be inclined to ignore this show entirely, but using them to breath life into this corpse weakens their impact on their own series (especially when 'surrogate' characters empowered by them behind the scenes arrive, only to use said powers inappropriately), leading me to deride it in this manner. Worst of all, the show focuses entirely on the work of the detectives, when the defining characteristic of it's parent was the separation of powers between detectives and district attorneys. When prosecutors do appear, which only occurs in scenes where a detective is the primary focus anyway, they are chosen seemingly at random from an unrealistically ethnically diverse group of bad actors. Basically, nothing that made "Law and Order" great has been retained by the SVU; this is nothing more than a make-work project for "Oz" and "Homicide" actors worried about the imminent cancellations of their day jobs. Don't waste your time; this is just another mediocre show.

The X-men movie, like all good cheese, can only come into it's own if it is allowed to develop the meatiness and density that comes with maturity. While it was the most purely enjoyable summer theatrical release I have seen in years, I wish I wish I WISH it had just delved a little more into the world in which it was set! I'm not asking for a brooding diatripe on the injustices of society, but more mention of said injustices would have made these characters into characters, the likes of which I might have been a lot more interested in. My favorite line in the movie was Mystique's only line as Mystique: "It's people like you who made me afraid to go to school." Suddenly, we were not looking at a soulless villain headed towards a rightfully deserved death, but a real character who had had a rotten childhood and was taking it out on others in a confused attempt to get even. From that point on, I found myself overlooking the obvious heinousness of her crimes, and actually gladdened that she survived and went about righting the Senator's wrongs in his guise. It just takes one extra minute on screen to turn a the flattest character into someone you'd like to know... oh, and I didn't appreciate the way that the entire background to the film was explained in a five minute monologue, rather than slowly revealed throughout the film's course, and how such trifling details as Xavier's possession of a Blackbird, underground research facility, and "psychic-atrium" or whatever the hell that was were left completely unexplained. Another action sequence would have been nice too.

This was probably the best Sean Connery movie ever made, and I would rank it as one of the top picks of the SF genre. Yes, yes, it was a western in space, but who cares? The bottom line is, everyone puts in an amazing performance, and the direction was just superb. The plot, involving several violent deaths and leading up to a couple of hired assassins coming to take out our protagonist, seems almost trivial in comparison to the kinds of outrageous plots we see in modern 'sci-fi' efforts, and many of the events that take place are, in retrospect, entirely predictable, yet they come as a surprise anyway, and a seemingly pathetic climax nonetheless creates unbearable tension as we await it; right now, you might not think it as exciting as a whole army of assassins coming to get him, but when you see what happens, I guarantee you, you'll be blown away.

In fact, I have only two gripes. One is the child actor (god, can't they get child actors who can ACT), and the other is the fact that the station was on Io. Nit-pickers may grumble about the economic infeasability of such a mining operation; I grumble about the physical infeasability. Why can't these people understand that it is NOT POSSIBLE to build a space station on Io! The entire planet is a lake of boiling sulphur, with incessant earthquakes and new volcanoes erupting every minute! A space colony wouldn't last twenty days on it's surface, and besides that, the surface is ENTIRELY composed of sulphur! There isn't an ounce of titanium there!

Other than that, though, an amazing film. A real must-see for any science fiction fan.

This was a decent King adaptation, but it could have been a LOT better. Having read the novella, I accepted it wholeheartedly until the scene with the monsters. GOD, it was SO horrible! I just knew that they were going to ruin it but I watched anyway; it was the worst case I'd ever scene of ineptitude in directing a single, crucial scene, that spoiled the whole experience. When I read that part in the book, it was ridiculous, and yet, at the same time, terrifying. When I saw this nonsense, it was just ridiculous. The acting was decent, and the directors actually kept all of Stephen King's logical "paradox correctors" in the script; I was expecting it to be loaded with continuity errors. But after those awful CGI Langoliers, and the 'amazing sight' of the present catching up to the future, nothing could redeem it. Huge marks for story (which go to Stephen King), a failure in execution.

I have to admit, this film did not start the way I thought it would. The segment prior to the credits was, indeed, one of the best I have ever seen; it was certainly the most disturbing thing I've ever watched (this from an avid David Cronenberg fan). But fifteen minutes later I was thinking, "This is a disaster!" See Peter Jackson operate his camera on crack, see Peter Jackson force the story along at Mach 2, see Peter Jackson conjure melodrama from nothing to feed Kate Winslet's ego. Grrrr, Peter Jackson! His directing, plus the obscene overacting of the two actresses (especially Winslet) turned the movie into a farce. By the time the lovers were gallavanting through "the Fourth World," I'd become completely desensitized to the zaniness and resigned myself to cynically enduring the remainder of the story.

And therein lies the genius. Jackson numbed my mind to his own ridiculous imagery, and eventually won me over to the side of the lovers. I accepted further fantasy sequences without a second thought, and by the end they had taken on a kind of sinister beauty. I left the theatre ten times richer for having seen 'Heavenly Creatures,' and while I can't in good consciense recommend it to my friends (who would stop it long before they saw it's merit), I felt it was an obligation to recommend it to you. A great film.

I have never seen a film that put so little effort into restraining it's gluttonous plot excesses or achieving any kind of coherency. This movie just rambled on until it degenerated into a jumble of silly names, pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo and idiotic mysticism. Something about 'supermen' fighting each other with 'exo-power' against the 'Great Zog.' It was set thousands of years in the future, but any technological advancements made in that time seemed entirely restricted to space travel. Characters who had been killed off suddenly appeared again, miraculously resurrected in a manner never explained to the audience! Some characters shadowed others around and always beat them to their destinations by several days, even though their equally powerful targets had sped to said destinations as fast as was humanly possible. One protagonist was always hanging around in places where he ought to have been killed by his enemies, and was never noticed until said enemies had concluded a conversation with someone else; the other needlessly slaughtered dozens of innocent people, but was nonetheless portrayed as some kind of messianic figure who attains enlightenment through reincarnation (by means of a woman who had been killed by him and buried at a funeral survice, but was at the last minute and without any justification revealed to have been 'saved' by the initial protagonist). Needless to say, none of it made any sense, and it's not worth trying to figure it out. How a team of intelligent animators was duped into spending nine months of their lives bringing it into existence when no one in their right mind would ever bother watching it is beyond me.

In Canada, 'Farscape' is only aired on the children's television network, YTV, which has alienated many science fiction fans. I feel that this does not do the show justice. Excellent characters made real by near perfect (if not necessarily brilliant) acting, high quality special effects, and exciting plots come together to make one of the most exciting science fiction series of it's kind in a long while. If they were to kill off a permanent cast member this season, I would actually be upset, as opposed to a 'Star Trek' series where I constantly find myself wishing the annoying characters to die. I rate it highest in terms of atmosphere and makeup; it's been a long time since a mainstrean show maintained as much power to frighten me, and the use of Jim Henson's fabulous puppets and the amazing alien makeup jobs put the show's realism in another level entirely from the pitiful aliens of 'Star Trek.' So I'll continue to watch 'Farscape'; it may be on a children's station, but it's still infinitely better than 'Lexx,' 'First Wave,' 'Stargate,' or any other of the pathetic sci-fi offerings this decade.