Showing posts with label Michael Fassbender. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Fassbender. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 11, 2019

Dark Phoenix (2019)


Dark Phoenix (2019)
Director/Writer: Simon Kinberg 
Cast: Sophie Turner, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jessica Chastain,  Jennifer Lawrence, Nicholas Hoult, Tye Sheridan, Evan Peters  
Again, another film that’s getting the shaft from audiences because they are being led to believe they shouldn’t see it. Hollywood is notorious when it comes to dealing with left over productions from a previous regime. Case in point, Disney bought Fox and so all films that were in the process of being completed during this period are quietly swept under the rug or treated like crap and left to die a quick death at the box office. For example, The New Mutants was one of the productions to get swept under the rug and forgotten. To be honest, that film looked all types of cool, it even had a horror vibe to it. Mutants in a horror film? Hell yeah I’d like to see that one! But since it was made during the Fox/Disney take over, it’s now in limbo, possibly being unceremoniously dumped on Netflix. And then there’s Dark Phoenix, the last X-Men film that will be produced by 20thCentury Fox. Well, people already hate it because they just can’t wait for Disney to take over the X-Men and “give them the X-Men film they’ve always wanted”. 

It’s sad too, considering that the X-Men franchise was the one (along with the Spider Man movies) to kick off the currently still going strong super hero craze in cinemas. I remember a time when people just couldn’t believe they were finally getting an X-men film. Now here we are, at a point where people don’t want to back up an X-Men film. And it’s a damn shame too because this is a good one. Dark Phoenix tells the tale of the ‘Dark Phoenix Saga’, one of the most recognized and beloved of the X-men stories. This review comes from a guy who’s just read the Dark Phoenix Saga and has just recently seen Dark Phoenix. So, how did the comic book to film transition fare? Was the film faithful to the comic? For those not in the know the Dark Phoenix Saga is all about Jean Gray and how her powers get out of control and how she likes it. Problem is, absolute power corrupts absolutely and Jean ends up turning so powerful that all she cares about is pleasing her ever growing thirst for power, which includes the ability to devour worlds and everyone in them. She actually rivals Galactus in that sense, and Galactus is one of the most powerful beings in the Marvel universe! But how do the X-Men react to Jean going evil? Can Cyclops stop loving her? Can the X-Men and the rest of the world forgive her for all her evil doings? 

As expected, some changes do occur from comic to silver screen. The biggest one for me is that Jean’s reason for turning evil doesn’t come from within her, but rather from an entity that possesses her body while on a space mission. This point is the one that “bothered” me the most as I actually dug that element of the story, the fact that the evil comes from within,  that idea that we all have a dark side that we have to contend with, that side that we learn to keep in check, to control. The other big change is that they completely eliminated the plot line involving The Hellfire Club and their desire to control Jean and use her for their purposes. Finally, one last change was that the aftermath of Jean going evil and how she is judged by an alien race for having destroyed and entire planet and all the millions of people who lived in it. These changes were probably made for budgetary reasons, to keep the story “smaller”, and I get that. Which is why I’ve always thought this story should have been better suited for a trilogy of films rather than telling the whole story in one film. 

The good news is that the story manages to retain the gist of the Dark Phoenix Saga. Jean is still battling with her inner demons and the fact that she quite enjoys the influx of power. The story is still about her trying to control it. So we get all the important points that the original story hit. What’s good about the film? Is it as bad as the media and mindless movie reviewers would have you think? Hell no. In all honesty, I enjoyed this X-Men film more than I enjoyed parts 3 to 5! It is a very eventful chapter in the X-Men saga. To my surprise it is very well written. Now take in consideration that this film was directed by Simon Kinberg, the same guy who wrote X-Men’s 3 through 5! So he knows the X-men inside and out! Thankfully Kinberg takes the opportunity to fix a lot of the mistakes and quirks that fans haven’t enjoyed from previous entries and even makes fun of his own films. For example, Mystique has a line where she pokes fun at how it’s the women who are always saving the men and how the group should be called X-Women.  Also, just when Xavier is about to go on one of his famous ramblings where he starts to babble people to death Magneto says “save it, nobody is listening”. Poking fun at how sometimes Magneto and Xavier go on these endless rants! 

Why do I say that I enjoyed this one more than other X-Men films? Well for one, the dialog is straight and to the point which I loved. The film doesn’t feel like it was filmed entirely in a green room; this one feels like they actually shot the film in locations! In terms of action, this one delivers. There’s a moment where all the X-Men get together to gather Jean that’s just wow. There’s another scene on a train that will blow you away! Another plus is that the X-Men don’t hold back on their powers on this one. Remember how in X-Men you were upset because they put Storm to fight against Toad? Well, that doesn’t happen here! On this one all the X-Men go completely ballistic! In fact, they are more violent with their powers on this one than any previous X film, excluding Logan (2017) of course. Also, there are some amazing moments on this one like Magneto vs. Jean!  Anyhow, sadly this one is dying a quick death at the box office. But what can you expect? They were writing bad reviews even before the film was released. Good news is, we will see the X-Men rise from the ashes like the Phoenix by way of Disney/Marvel's take on the franchise, gotta say I’m mighty curious about that iteration of the X-Men. But this last Fox film was a great swan song; I recommend you see it in the theater. 
Rating: 4 out of 5   

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Alien: Covenant (2017)


Alien: Covenant (2017)

Director: Ridley Scott

Cast: Michael Fassbender, Katherine Waterston, Billy Crudup, Danny McBride, Demian Bichir, Guy Pierce, James Franco, Noomi Rapace

Ridley Scott’s Alien (1979), is one of those seminal horror films that changes the face of a genre so much, that it marks the way the genre will be for years and years to come. How many movies have imitated the style, the look of Ridley Scott’s original monster movie? Many that’s how many.I could write a list of films that look and play out exactly like it: Alien Contamination (1980), Galaxy of Terror (1981), Outland (1981), Leviathan (1989), Event Horizon (1997)…and the list goes on and on. Ridley Scott left that Alien franchise after having directed that first film and the sequels that followed were directed by talented directors that took each film in totally different directions, which is why I love this franchise, each director has put his stamp on each film, so they are all extremely different. Now if we fast forward a few decades, things have come full circle. Now Ridley Scott has retaken the franchise as if saying “this is my baby and I’m going to make it my freaking legacy to the world!” Which is what Prometheus and Alien: Covenant are, these films represent Ridley Scott’s reclaiming the franchise he started. Does Ridley Scott still have it?


Alien: Covenant is a direct sequel to Prometheus (2012), just in case you had your doubts. This is the story of how the xenomorphs came to be, those nasty sharp teeth, perfect killing machines with acid for blood. Alien: Covenant is the second film in a planned trilogy of prequels, they tell us the story of how the infamous aliens came to be. When Prometheus came out, audiences complained about the lack of xenomorphs, audiences wanted more of the creature that frightened them so much in Alien (1979), they wanted the horror element amped up, the wanted that nail biting, heart pounding suspense they got that first time around. But I like Prometheus for what it is, part of a trilogy of how these creatures came to be, it’s the back story. With Alien: Covenant we can definitely see a story unfolding. There are some surprises in store for fans of the Alien franchise, my mind was blown. I mean, yeah, these prequels are deeper and more profound, but that has to do with the fact that Ridley Scott has grown as a filmmaker, he has a lot more to say about life, hence, the difference in tone between these new prequels and the classic Alien films.


And speaking of depth and themes, what I enjoy about these prequels is that they explore the origins of man. Who would’ve thought that the Alien movies would end up touching such heavy themes? But here we are considering themes about the origins of man, about death, about who made us. The exploration of these themes begins with the introduction to androids, synthetic beings who are capable of thinking and feeling like humans. Similar to us in every detail save for one: they can outlive us. Questioning death and begging the universe for more life is a theme that Scott has been exploring since Blade Runner (1984) a film in which we have renegade androids begging their creator, their “father”, for more life. So yeah, Ridley Scott’s exploration of heavy philosophical themes continues in Alien: Covenant. These are questions that need answers, and Scott knows they cannot be ignored. After all, these are "the big questions" in life. It doesn’t surprise me that these are themes Ridley Scott has chosen to explore now, at the end of his career and last half of his life. Scott is probably feeling extremely identified with the themes explored in these films, questioning life, questioning where we came from, who made us and ultimately: why must we die? As I write this, Sir Ridley Scott is 79 years old!


Ridley Scott does not forget that the franchise started with what is essentially a monster movie, a horror film, and a very good one at that. When we go into top horror movies ever made, there’s no doubt Alien (1979) will make the list. And Ridley Scott knows that. So with Alien: Covenant he seems to want to go back to that horror, the spine tingling, nail biting suspense. And I have to say that Scott nailed it. There are some genuine scary moments here, there’s gore, there’s blood. Yes my friends, this one amps up the terror. But the great thing about Alien: Covenant is that it doesn’t forget that it is a sequel to Prometheus. So it’s like we get half of the philosophy and deep themes of Prometheus (2012), and half of the horror and suspense from Alien (1979), so it should satisfy both camps.


The film works even better because it has an awesome cast, and a very eclectic one at that. Here’s Danny McBride doing a serious role, he doesn’t do bad at all I have to say. But if one performance stands out it has to be Michael Fassbender in the dual role of David and Walter, the androids of the film. I simply love Fassbender in anything he does, but here he clearly plays two different roles and it is magnificent. But then again, so many things are magnificent here. The screenplay is so poetic, so good, the dialog sounds beautiful with many references to classical music and poetry. By the way, you’d do good in reading Percy Shelley’s sonnet ‘Ozymandias’, it comes into play at one point in the film. Finally, the production itself is gorgeous looking, the sets, the ship designs, the alien designs I mean, this film is simply beautiful to look at, which comes as no surprise in a Ridley Scott film. So go see this completely satisfying sequel! Here’s hoping this one makes some cash at the box office so we can get to see the next and final film in this prequel trilogy!


Rating: 5 out of 5      

  

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)


Title:  X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)

Director: Bryan Singer

Cast: Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Halle Berry, Nicholas Hoult, Anna Paquin, Ellen Page, Peter Dingklage, Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart, Famke Janssen, James Mardsen, Kelsey Grammer

So this is to be the end all be all of all X-Men movies, reuniting characters seen in all previous X-Men films, from the first trilogy, to X-Men: First Class. The story this time is based on the famous Chris Claremont/John Byrne storyline that ran through The Uncanny X-Men #141 and 142. Many comic book fans consider this storyline one of the greatest Marvel Comics ever made. I mean, it’s easy to understand why. A lot of important characters die, the whole idea that mutants are being wiped out like flies is a scary one, drawing parallels with fascism. It’s a story that touches upon many important themes. Racism, bigotry, xenophobia, you get the drill. So anyhow, here comes the film based on the famous tale; did it do it justice?

One of the greatest Marvel Comics ever made; The Uncanny X-Men #141!
                             
For those who haven’t read the story, Days of Future Past starts out in a dark distant future where giant dna-copying robots known as Sentinels go around hunting mutants and eradicating them from the earth, like cockroaches. The idea being that mutants aren’t so special anymore because these Sentinels can copy their dna, and as a result their powers. But wait! The X-Men have figured out a way to send Wolverine back in time to stop the anti-mutant hysteria that started way back in 1973, when the Sentinels where first created. Can Wolverine convince a younger Prof. Xavier to help him stop the events which lead up to the creation of the Sentinels?


Bryan Singer returns to the franchise he helped build with X-Men (2000) and X2 (2003). In a way, Singer has returned to fix the huge mess left by Brett Ratner with X-Men: The Last Stand (2006); a film that changed X-Men cannon by killing off important characters as if they didn’t matter. I can almost hear Ratner saying “Kill Prof. Xavier? Sure! Let the next guy deal with it, meanwhile I’ll have a movie that everyone will talk about because important characters die!” That next guy ended up being Bryan Singer, picking up the pieces, trying to make things make sense again, trying to make order out of chaos. So it’s no surprise that Days of Future Past has a couple of surprises in store for X fans! In many ways, it’s great to have Singer back in the helm. I mean, so far, he’s the director that has handled these films the best, so it’s kind of comforting to know the material will be treated with some dignity and respect.


In Days of Future Past there are so many characters appearing on screen at the same time, that unless you’re a diehard X-men fan, you probably won’t know who the hell is who at times. Who’s that guy with fire coming out of his chest? Or that mutant opening portals? I don’t know, but it sure is cool! That’s one of the things I’ve always enjoyed about the X-Men comics, the multitude of characters, each with their own amusing ability. Having this whole mess of mutants running around using their powers and kicking the hell out of each other is fun times in my book. On this particular X-Men flick we get to meet many mutants we hadn’t seen before, like Quicksilver, whom you might have gotten a glimpse of during the final moments of Thor: The Dark World (2013). And by the way, speaking of Quicksilver, he was the one character everyone was all worried about. “He looks funny, he doesn’t look right” Whatever! He’s the guy who steals the movie! Quicksilver only appears for a short period of time, but damn, Quicksilver’s moment to shine is so cool that I don’t think the film every reached that level of awesomeness again. The film reached its peak somewhere around the middle of the film and it was all thanks to Quicksilver.


For all you comic book purists out there, well, you know they tweaked things around a bit. I guess the most notable change to the story is that Kitty Pride is not the one who goes back in time, it’s Wolverine. Every book to film translation suffers from changes for the sake of being more cinematic or exciting, so its understandable why they chose to make Wolverine the main character instead of Kitty Pride (like in the comics) or Bishop (like in the cartoons); considering Wolverine is the most popular X-Man ever, it kind of makes sense. In a sea of characters, some are bound to get lost in the shuffle and the one that got the least amount of attention in my book was Storm who is in the film for about 5 minutes total…or maybe less. Other characters only cameo and others you’ll see in some outstanding action sequence, and never see them again. But this is the nature of the beast. X-Men has always been a comic propelled by the idea that this is a group of super heroes and with so many characters in its roster, it stands to reason that the spotlight will shine on a different one with each story. In a future movie, who knows, maybe it won’t revolve around Wolverine so much. I mean, there are so many other characters to focus on. Still, with such a huge cast, I have to give Bryan Singer some props for not letting this turn into a total cluster fuck of a film.


At the end of the day, this film is a spectacle, a huge comic book movie with top notch special effects work, tons of action and many mutants to keep you entertained. Is it the best X-Men film ever made? I don't know, I guess time will tell on that one, but I will say that it's a very satasfying film. My only complaint would be that I wish they’d showed us more of the dark future world where the film starts out in. That part of the story is supposed to be very post apocalyptic, but alas we only get a glimpse of it. Aside, from that, I’m a happy geek boy with this movie. Of course the story brought to mind many time travel films, but the first I drew comparisons to was The Terminator (1984), because of the whole idea of going back in time to stop something from happening. By now everybody expects an extra ending at the end of all of these superhero movies. Disney has been doing this “extra ending” thing for a while now with great success. It’s a great thing in my book because it keeps the spirit of comic books alive. Comics have always been about the “to be continued” at the end of the comic, the cliffhanger to make you come back for next issue, or in this case, the next film. So yeah, now 20th Century Fox is copying this technique in their Marvel movies, and it makes all the sense in the world to me. Trust me, stay after the credits! Then go on the internet and find out who the hell Apocalypse is. Looking forward to X-Men: Apocalypse come 2016!

Rating: 4 out of 5


Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Prometheus In-Depth Analysis



Prometheus was one of the most anticipated films of the year for me and many film lovers. A Ridley Scott film, in my opinion is always a major event, he is after all one of the most important filmmakers of his generation. As you might have gathered from my review for Prometheus, I love Ridley Scott films for many, many reasons, still, I have no problems in pointing out a disappointing one if I ever see one. For example, the last Ridley Scott film to underwhelm me was Robin Hood (2010). I enjoyed it, but wasn’t floored by it. Though well made, I found it boring. I wasn’t a big fan of G.I. Jane (1997) either. Point is I don’t blindly love Scott’s films. No filmmaker is free of making a dud or two; but Prometheus wasn’t a disappointment in my book. I recognize that it isn’t perfect film though. Some characters do pretty stupid things when they should be acting more professionally; like that guy who starts playing with a potentially dangerous alien life form like it was a cute little teddy bear or something? The idiot! But can that scene really be considered a major flaw? Not in my book, there are a lot of idiots out there, that guy happened to be one of them.

The interesting thing about a lot of Ridley Scott’s most recognized films is that at first they weren’t big hits with the masses. Two good examples are Blade Runner (1982) and Legend (1985); both huge flops when they first premiered in theaters. Yet right now they are both considered some of the best films within their genre. Now here comes Prometheus, again, a film that a lot of people have felt disappointed by. It was not a flop in theaters, or a failure in the true sense of the word (it’s still making money around the world) the problem with it was that even though there was a huge hype surrounding the film, it didn’t make as much money as expected. I think people were expecting another film like Alien and Prometheus was anything but that. Alien was a straight forward horror film, Prometheus isn’t. Ridley Scott’s Alien (1979) was a far simpler film than Prometheus. Alien simply wanted to scare, while Prometheus aspires to explore deeper themes about life and the universe we live in; we can’t blame a filmmaker for wanting to go in a deeper and more cerebral direction with his new films. But this shift in tone was not received well by the masses. The masses wanted people running from Aliens and shooting guns, what they got was a film that wanted to explain the origins of humanity. The result was a smaller intake at the box office then expected. Still, that’s fine by me; I don’t consider Prometheus to be a film for everyone. It doesn’t have mass appeal. The masses love stupid films, Prometheus was not.

The following article aspires to analyze Ridley Scott’s Prometheus. If you haven’t seen the film, then please don’t read this article because I’ll be analyzing major plot points and themes. If on the other hand you have seen it, and want to read my thoughts on the films themes, then continue reading my friend!

  
ORIGINS OF MAN - WHO MADE US?

The questions of who made us and where do we really come from have always been a major issue for deep thinkers. The thing is that once you eschew the many teachings religion has to offer  about the origins of man, then you are left with zero answers. The scientific mind will rarely acknowledge anything related to religion because scientists by nature need proof. That’s what science is all about, making a hypothesis, and then proving it. If you can’t prove it, then it’s just a hypothesis or a theory. In religion, when something can’t be proven, it’s called faith. For scientists, religious explenations are closer to fairy tales than anything else, for the philosopher, this holds true as well. Truth of the matter is we still don’t really know who made us; the perennial question lingers on.

Prometheus is an interesting film because it’s one of those films that dares to give explanations for the origins of man other than the explanations that Christianity teaches. The daring part is that the film doesn’t tell us that humanity was created by Christianities ‘God’, the film tells us that it was other beings known as ‘The Engineers’. The idea that maybe aliens designed us and that we are somehow linked to them is not a new one, for example, it had been explored before in films like Brian De Palma’s Mission to Mars (2000) and Alex Proyas’ Knowing (2009). Mission to Mars actually has many similarities with Prometheus, watch that film again and you’ll see what I mean. The same themes are touched upon.

The alien beings in Brian De Palma's Mission to Mars (2000)

Prometheus starts out with these amazing vistas of Planet Earth. We see mountains, waterfalls, cloud formations, basically, planet earth at it’s most glorious. The idea being that maybe the Planet was here long before any life form came to it. Then, a huge spaceship leaves an albino, bald, and extremely muscular alien being behind. The alien seems to be wearing ceremonial clothing of some kind, leading us to believe that maybe this whole event has a religious connotation for the alien beings. The being takes a sip of something that begins to degenerate his body, soon, the being falls to the water as his body continues to disintegrate in the depths. Then, the camera does an extreme close up and focuses on the beings DNA which appears to be disintegrating and forming itself back again; we are looking at the origins of man. “Big things have small beginnings” a character says at some point in the film, this was the small beginning of man.

 
So this is a brave film, because according to it, we weren’t created by the Christian idea of ‘God’, it was beings from some other planet. But of course, the question still remains, if they created us, and they are ‘The Engineers’ of humanity, then who created them? There is always something bigger behind everything. Who is that one final being who created everything anyways? I love it how the film attempts to answer some questions, but makes even bigger ones. 

   
 THE QUESTIONING OF CHRISTIANITY

The films protagonist, a scientist by the name of Elizabeth Shaw is a Christian. According to her, Christianity is what she’s chosen to believe in because it’s what her father believed in, and therefore, his beliefs where passed on to her, which is something that happens to a lot of people. You probably ended up believing in Jesus because that’s what your parents taught you, but does that mean it is right? Or even real? Maybe, maybe not, but like Elizabeth Shaw, when one is confronted with the validity of their beliefs, the answer is sometimes “because it’s what I choose to believe”, not because you have proof, or because you know what you are believing in is right, but it’s what you’ve chosen to help you get through life.

This is another theme that the film addresses, the idea that we got to believe in something even though we might not be entirely sure if it’s true or not. For example, my belief system is a bit more grounded in reality. I personally believe that we don’t know the truth about anything, that the universe is the biggest thing out there and that there is a lot we don’t know. If it was by me, we would have sent out a spaceship to explore the universe a long ass time ago, Star Trek style.  I personally just accept the big mystery until that fateful day when we’ll finally know THE REAL TRUTH.

But Prometheus is a film that questions Christianity a lot. For example, when the scientists in the film are finally gearing up to meet with the alien beings, Charlie tells Elizabeth that she should throw away her cross, alluding to the idea that maybe Christianity is all fairy tales and that what they are about to meet out there is the real deal. I found it interesting how Elizabeth Shaw never throws away her cross. Maybe it’s because it belonged to her father and it reminds her of him so it has more to do with sentimental value than beliefs, either way, the cross Elizabeth Shaw wears through out the whole film is an important symbol. It means that until she finds some real answers, she’s not willing to let go of the beliefs she grew up with. After all, that’s exactly what this movie is all about, finding answers to the big questions in life and until Elizabeth finds them, she’s sticking to Christianity. But I like the fact that her search is never ending.

Elizabeth Shaw never looses her faith

At one point in the film, the character of Peter Weyland says that because of all we have achieved so far as a race “we are the Gods now”. Somebody created us, but we can also create life ourselves, even artificial life. Right now, we can create computers and robots that think for themselves, but how long  before we can create androids like the ones presented in these films? In Prometheus, humanity has reached the point where they can create androids that live forever (!) and are almost indistinguishable from man! In the film we are similar to Gods in the sense that we can create. According to Biblical and Greek Mythology, the gods don’t like it when we are like them. It’s the reason why they punished the god Prometheus and sent him to Tartarus; a.k.a. HELL. According to the story, Prometheus shared the secret of fire with man, in this way bringing us closer to Godhood because of it. The idea being that knowledge is power, and ultimate knowledge has made us Gods. What drives the characters in this film? The search for answers to the biggest questions; its that thirst for god like knowledge. Mans thirst to KNOW, which strangely enough is considered a sin in the bible. In the tale of Adam and Eve, when they take a bite from the tree of knowledge, they were expelled from paradise! So to the Gods, no matter what religion, knowledge is not something they want us mere humans to have, knowledge is what makes us like them.  

   
 WHY DO OUR CREATORS WANT TO DESTROY US?

In Prometheus The Engineers of humanity have now turned into the would be destroyers of humanity. The big question that arises in the film is why? Why do they want to wipe us out? One scene has Elizabeth Shaw confronting The Engineers, asking them why do they want to destroy us? This idea of Gods destroying their creation is not new at either. If we go back to the bible itself, God was once so displeased with humanity that he wiped it all out, save for eight people he thought were good enough to save. I’m speaking of course of the biblical story of Noah’s Ark and how he and his family where saved from the worldwide deluge that God sent humanities way. This is the idea that we are presented with in Prometheus as well. The Engineers have created a deadly life form that they intend on releasing upon humanity. When David, the android of the film finally discovers how The Engineers computers work, he learns that their final destination was earth and that their deadly cargo was destined for us; what they really wanted to do was destroy us. The idea being that our creators are ashamed of us, same as God was ashamed of having created humanity in the bible.

This idea is an interesting one when we take in consideration how messed up the world truly is. So many shameful things happen ever second of every day on our planet, that if  alien beings were watching us, analyzing our behavior, I wouldn’t be surprised if they decided to wipe us out. Let’s see, nuclear weapons, child slavery, rapes, violation of human rights, despotic governments, greed, murder, war, famine, you name it, if it’s evil, its happening on Planet Earth!  If there is a God, and he’s watching what’s going on down here, he HAS to be ashamed. I would have pushed that restart button a long time ago; as one of the characters in Prometheus says: sometimes, in order to create, one has to destroy.  


 ACCEPTANCE OF DEATH “EVERY KING HAS HIS DAY, THEN HE DIES”

It’s interesting that one of the main characters in Prometheus is an android who will live forever, way past the lifespan of its own creators because this film is all about humans wanting more life. Same as the ‘replicants’ in Ridley Scott’s own Blade Runner (1982), one of the humans in Prometheus is after more life. I’m talking of course of Peter Weyland, the owner and founder of The Wayland Corporation, the company in charge of space exploration in the Alien universe. You see, in the film Peter Weyland is dying, but before he dies he wants to meet The Engineers in order to ask them for more life, same as the replicant Roy Batty in Blade Runner wanted to meet his creator to ask him about: “Something a little more radical…death” If you remember that scene, Batty then picks up Tyrell and tells him “I want more life fucker!” I found it interesting that the need that the androids of Blade Runner have is now the need that humans have in Prometheus. Basically, we don’t want to die. As I said in my review for Prometheus, I think it’s fitting that Scott, now 74 is asking these questions. He must feel like Roy Batty or Peter Weyland himself; getting close to death, and not wanting that day to arrive. 

Rutger Hauer as replicant Roy Batty in Ridle Scott's Blade Runner (1982)

All these great things we see and do, they all fade away as soon as we die, sometimes forgotten forever. How many lives blink out of existence, never to be thought of ever again? The character of Roy Batty said it very poetically in Blade Runner: “I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-Beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain…time to die.” Of course, since this is a film that addresses big questions and themes, the theme of death could not be left out. It is mans greatest enemy and one of the grandest themes one could address in a film, which is why I appreciate a film like Prometheus, it touches upon so many important themes, leaving them there for us to ponder and think about after the film is over. On Prometheus, the final thought on death is mentioned when the character of Meredith Vickers tells her father Peter Weyland: “A King has his day and then he dies” That is the truth about death, we have our days on this earth, we better make the best of them because then we die, and the ride is over. 

THE SEARCH FOR THE REAL ‘TRUTH’ NEVER ENDS

Finally, one of the things I loved the most about Prometheus was its ending. When Elizabeth Shaw finds that other ship and takes off towards the planet where ‘The Engineers’ supposedly come from. To be honest, that ending offers up so many awesome possibilities for a sequel. What planet will Elizabeth Shaw arrive at? What discovers await for her out there? Will she find the true engineers of humanity, or something greater? Whatever Elizabeth Shaw’s out come maybe, I loved the fact that her final words were her signing off and saying that her search never ends, that her search for truth continues. This is my goal as well, the never ending search for the real truth. Well, my friends, this has been The Film Connoisseur. I should reach the frontier at some point, with a little luck; the network will pick me up. This is Franco, one of many survivors on spaceship earth…singing off.  


Friday, June 15, 2012

Prometheus (2012)



Title: Prometheus (2012)

Director: Ridley Scott

Cast: Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron, Idris Elba, Guy Pearce, Patrick Wilson

Ridley Scott’s most recent foray into science fiction -Prometheus- is in many ways different then its predecessors and in many ways the same. As I’m sure many of you know, Prometheus is a prequel to Ridley Scott’s own Alien (1979), the film that redefined sci-fi films and kick started the whole alien franchise. It also happens to be the first science fiction film from Ridley Scott since he made Blade Runner (1982). It’s interesting how Scott denied that this was a prequel for a while, only to later admit that the film does in fact take place within the same universe. That’s right my friends, Scott is playing on familiar ground here. The art design for the interior of the spaceship looks like something that might have come out of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1969) or Scott’s own Alien; you know, lots of white corridors, very cramped, very claustrophobic. Same as all the other films in the Alien franchise, The Wayland Corporation is the company that oversees space exploration; and same as all previous Alien films, every spaceship gets an android to accompany them. So yeah, this film has a certain familiarity to it for fans of the Alien franchise; the question on my mind was what was going make this one different?


On this film we meet a group of archeologists/scientists that are hot on the trail of humanities origins. They are after the answers to the biggest questions in life: Where did we come from? Who made us? And why did they abandon us? Their search begins with  a series ancient paintings they find, in all of these ancient paintings from different eras in human history, the same image is depicted: humans pointing to the same constellations in the sky. So they zero in on this constellation and embark on a journey towards this sector of the universe, hoping to find the engineers of humanity. Will they find what they are looking for?


To me, Ridley Scott is this cinematic god, he makes movies that I end up falling in love with and can watch over and over again; so of course, seeing this movie in theaters was a major event for me! Like the Greek story of Prometheus, Scott’s films feel like stolen fire from the gods themselves. The worlds Ridley Scott creates are so rich and detailed that he can make a fantastic setting a reality; Blade Runner (1982), Legend (1985) or Gladiator (2000), no matter how fantastic the setting, these worlds feel real, complex and intricate. Another thing that distinguishes Ridley Scott’s films is that they have the highest production values. He makes sure he’s working with the best of the best in order to produce a high quality film. This is also the case with Prometheus, one look at the film and you can just tell that the people that were behind the cameras knew what they were doing. For example, the visual effects work in Prometheus is flawless. This time though, I have no idea who the conceptual artists behind Prometheus are; I don’t know who’s handling the visual effects or the make up effects; to me Prometheus is Scott working with a whole new generation of creative talents; which of course is great, if you’ve seen Alien, then you’ll feel a familiarity with this world, yet at the same time, it will feel new and fresh. I love how Scott’s approach towards visual effects is “if you can do it live, do it live”, an advice given to him by fx guru Douglas Trumbull while filming Blade Runner. This is the main reason why Scott doesn’t overdo CGI; if he can build a set, he will. This kind of filmmaking adds a level of realism that is quickly disappearing from today’s films, where sometimes they construct only half a set, or only the floor is real; not so in Prometheus where Scott spent a large part of his budget on good old fashioned set construction. Normally I hate CGI, but I've always said that when it's done well, it really, really works. Im glad to say that Prometheus is one of those rare occassions when CGI is done right.


Both Alien and Prometheus have certain similarities, but the differences are evident as well. For example, while Alien was a straightforward horror film and for all intents and purposes a monster flick, Prometheus is more of a philosophical film. Like many of the best science fiction films, this one explores the bigger question that humanity asks itself like for example: where the hell did we really come from? And therein lays the crux of this film. It questions religion; it questions the existence of god. Should we believe in life after death? Why are there so many different beliefs on the matter? Could it be that no one really knows the answers to these questions and so we simply choose to believe what we want about the after life and God? This is the main reason why I loved this movie so much; it asks these big questions and actually attempts to answer them. Prometheus basically summarizes where humanity stands with regards to these questions. Yet the film doesn’t eschew the Christian angle of things, actually, Christianity is represented through its main character Elizabeth Shaw as played by Noomi Rapace. Interestingly enough, I wasn’t expecting for Prometheus to touch upon some of the themes that Blade Runner plays with, namely, why we die. This is the reason why I love Blade Runner so much. It has its android protagonists ask their creator for more life. Prometheus also plays with these ideas, which I found fascinating considering Ridley Scott himself is getting pretty old. I’m sure this is a theme that matters to him as a filmmaker now more than ever; so he touches upon it yet again on Prometheus. This is probably why we have characters addressing the issues of life after death, or characters simply wanting, searching to elongate their lives, this once again, and same as Blade Runner, is a film about accepting death. “A King has his reign and then he dies, it’s inevitable” says Meredith Vickers to her employer Peter Weyland; by the way, to me, Scott expressed a lot of his concerns about death through the Weyland character. After all, Scott was 74 at the time of making Prometheus! My admiration goes out to Mr. Scott for making such an amazing film in his golden years. 

Ridley Scott made Prometheus at 74, that's what I call one tough cookie! 

The great thing about Prometheus is that even though it tackles all these philosophically heavy themes, it does not forget to entertain. We get some awesome looking aliens and creatures on this one! Fun stuff! A bit gruesome at times, but then again this is probably why the film earned (thankfully!) its “R” rating. Yet, when compared to Alien, Prometheus feels sometimes a bit constrained on this department, you can tell times have changed, there’s not a lot of blood on this one. But things do get gruesome, and gory believe it or not, the film plays a fine balance in my book between showing you just enough mayhem. Finally, I will say that I was not one bit disappointed with this film. I don’t get why people are saying that it’s flawed? Flawed how? I guess comparing it to Alien is the reason, but we have to remember, that even though Prometheus is obviously linked to the Alien universe of films, it’s still its own beast. It’s obvious that Scott was aiming for a film with its own personality and uniqueness, not a film that felt like it was walking on tired ground. Maybe the scientists don’t act professional enough at times and get themselves into peril too easily? Almost as if they were asking for it? Maybe…but then again, we have to remember this is also a horror film; characters have to put themselves in peril! Highly recommend it, in my book this film was nothing short of epic, amazing, thrilling…top notch, cutting edge filmmaking at its best. This is Scott showing us he’s still got it! I can’t wait to see what he’ll do with that Blade Runner sequel he keeps talking so much about. Prometheus gets the highest possible recommendation from this Film Connoisseur!

Rating: 5 out of 5



Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Blood Creek (2009)

Title: Blood Creek (2009)

Director: Joel Schumacher

Cast: Dominic Purcell, Michael Fassbender, Henry Cavill

Writer: David Kajganich

Review:

What the hell happened to Joel Schumacher? The guy has directed some fine movies in his life time. The Lost Boys, St. Elmos Fire, Flatliners, A Time To Kill are examples of his good ones. Of course, like any other director, he’s had his couple of duds. Batman Forever and Batman and Robin come to mind. Damn, the guy is known as the director who killed the Batman franchise! But hey, all directors are entitled to one or two misses in their careers. Schumacher does has some decent flicks under his belt, which is the main reason why when I saw Blood Creek go straight to dvd I was a bit surprised. Joel Schumacher straight to dvd? Oh how the mighty have fallen! Then I noticed Blood Creek is  a Nazi zombie movie, so for that alone, I was attracted to rent the film. I thought “at least this straight to dvd horror flick has got an experienced director behind it. Plus it’s a Nazi zombie movie” So I rented it, expecting Id get at the very least a decent straight to video horror film. Boy was I wrong!

The spooky farmhouse where most of the film takes place

Story is all about Hitler and his supposed interest in the occult. According to this film, Hitler was after some ancient runes that could supposedly bring the dead back to life. A family’s farm in West Virginia rests on top of one of these life giving runes, so Hitler sends one of his henchmen to the United States to investigate the rune and retrieve it. The family quickly accepts the nazi's offer because of the monetary compensation they get. Fastforward to modern times, and this evil nazi is now trapped in the basement of the home, and is looking for a way out. He has been kept alive for years and years by feeding on helpless victims. Apparently he has been gathering his strengths, waiting for his chance to live again. But one of his victims manages to escape! And this victim is looking to get some decent payback! Will he be able to destroy the Nazi zombie and his servants?

My special bone armor will protect me from evil!

The same thing that has happened with practically every Nazi zombie movie I have ever watched happened again. The thing about Nazi zombie movies is that they have a cool premise to play with, yet they always screw it up! These movies never take full advantage of the supernatural elements in their premises. Nazis, the occult, the supernatural…that’s a winning combination right there. So how come filmmakers are never able to make a decent Nazi zombie movie? Well, let me take that back. I did enjoy Dead Snow (2009). That one was pretty decent. Lots of gore, cool looking zombies. But Dead Snow is an exception to the rule, because as far as I know, every Nazi zombie movie I have seen blows. Blood Creek (or Town Creek as it is also known) was terrible. Why was it so bad?


For starters, the story doesn’t make much sense at times. This absence in logic could be due to a couple of things, but I believe one of them is the way the film was edited. I don’t know if Schumacher had anything to do with the editing process, because sometimes films are just taken away from directors by the producers and re-edited, but the way that this film is edited doesn’t really help you follow the story very well. Not that it’s a complicated story; it’s actually maybe too simplistic. For crying out loud, the whole film takes place in a farm! But if a movie can’t even tell a story that is “simple” in an understandable fashion, then you know something is definitely wrong. The script is filled with many plot holes and inconsistencies. You’ll be asking lots of questions and getting no answers with Blood Creek. I read there were some differences between writer and director. Schumacher decided to re-write some scenes himself. Would the movie had been any better if Schumacher had not tampered with it? I guess we'll never know. All I know is that the end result was a mess.


Which is actually kind of sad really, because they had the elements for a decent horror movie. The main villain, the Nazi guy, is a pretty cool looking villain. The make up work on the villain is actually really good. He looks like a zombie, feeds like a vampire; his skin regenerates itself with each feeding. And that’s another thing, it’s never really explained if he is a vampire or a zombie. But he feeds on blood to continue living, so I guess he is more of a vampire. Then again, he brings things back from the dead, so right there, there is a connection with the living dead as well. The movie has one moment that I thought was pretty original where the Nazi zombie guy brings a dead horse back to life and turns him into a zombie horse. People shoot the horse with shotguns and he keeps on attacking, then the Nazi dude rides his zombie horse around! Pretty cool visual, if only the rest of the film had as much of originality and energy as these scenes.


Unfortunately, the film decides to hide its faults behind the annoyingly frenetic shaky cam. The film aspires to have a fast pace, which is probably why everybody talks really fast and is always running and doing things  in a hurry. Unfortunately, we can never see what is happening because of the shaky cam and the poor lighting. We need to see what is happening on screen, and if on top of shaky cam you have poor lighting and fast editing, then you will fail to connect with the audience because the audience cannot see what is happening on screen. This is exactly what happens in Blood Creek. It kind of reminded me of Alien vs. Predator: Requiem (2007) which suffered from the same problem. But while the filmmakers behind AVP: Requiem were amateurs, Schumacher is an experienced filmmaker who should have been able to recognize these elements that only serve to bring down the picture.


Unfortunately, Blood Creek was a huge let down. Sometimes, Lionsgate produces a good horror film and then doesnt give it the proper promotional push. Some of their horror movies get a limited release in  theaters and then get dumped on dvd.. They did it with Midnight Meat Train (2008) which was a horror film that deserved a whole lot more exposure then what it got. But Blood Creek isnt one of those good horror films that got mistreated by Lionsgate. This one was just a bad horror film that deserved to be dumped on they way it did by Lionsgate. I was so disappointed to see Joel Schumacher involved in this mess, but I guess it happens to even the best of directors at some point. I’ve still got two Nazi zombie movies that I haven’t seen. One is called The Bunker (2001) and the other one is called Outpost (2008). Let’s hope they are better representations of what a Nazi zombie movie should be like.

Rating: 1 ½ out of 5

 Dead SnowBlood Creek

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails