pixfarina Reviews

A Bigger Splash (2015)

A film that looses interest and keeps it lost

[2/10 · 10 March 2024]

Tilda Swinton plays a rock star and Ralph Fiennes a producer, two roles they could have easily pulled as comedy, but not played as straight roles. Tilda Swinton filling rock stadiums? That's too hard to sell. And in their respective roles the leads simply do not work. Both have honed their reputations playing upper class characters, and simply cannot do bohemian.

The focus of this film is their unrequited love, but therein lies another problem. They are at the top end off middle age, and relationships at that point don't have the same passion because they lack real potential that interesting. That's not agism, it just a fact of human nature. So what we get instead are one whacky and one brittle lead in a will they/won't they, who cares plot.

This films story is a mixture of tedium and angst, two things that don't sit well together. This film came with a warning of sexual content. Well even that was stilted and tame. I would not bother watching this film, its just pointless.

The Flash (I) (2023)

Funny, flashy, and forgettable.

[6/10 · 4 September 2023]

The Flash is entertains and at times is both clever and very funny. Ezra Miller proves himself once again a capable actor in the role, this time portraying two Flashes and with good comedic effect. However it also proves the limits both of The Flash character and perhaps Ezra Miller range. The films plot is the long way around the short story, initiated by The Flash's attempt to rewrite history to save his mother's life, and also save his father from incarceration after he is wrongfully convicted of her murder.

The Flash has decent pacing, but at time the woeful CGI is so jarring its almost a show stopper. Its too much CGI and also not good CGI, which is where all DC films seem to suffer. When The Flash enters another time line, or strand of the multiverse, it is done well Michael Keating makes an excellent return as a clapped out batman drawn out of retirement. But the Super Girl character and baddie Kryptonians are utterly 2 dimensional.

The Flash has a happy ending, but its a tinny ending to a film that already suffers badly from the CGI and a stretched story. Satisfying for non-fans, but probably forgettable for all who see it. For reasons other than Ezra Miller's real life shenanigans I don't except there will be a another Flash movies. This movie probably only proved there was not need even for one.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 (2023)

A galaxy of dazzling dullness

[1/10 · 9 August 2023]

Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 3 starts with the hint of a promising plot; that of the character Rockets origins in cybernetic experiments. If taken alone that story had promise. But the film quickly shows it is a extension of Volume 2 in how it manages to be overblown, tired and formulaic all at the same time.

This is odd given the fertile ground of infinite space and possibility that the franchise is based in. Yet the franchise showed it came up short as soon as Volume 2, and has not progressed with Volume 3, which involves a mix of needlessly long side stories and needlessly complex diversions. If the story of Volume 3 can be described as advancing, it does so in a slow plodding spiral, festooned in fireworks. For instance when on a rescue mission half the team ends up having to be rescued themselves, and this happens twice.

The humor which is supposed to be a hallmark of Guardian series is now lazy and usually comes in the form of dumb interactions, like Drax being repeatedly berated for not sitting properly on a couch. This gag runs side by side with Starlord talking to a alien who ultimately just has to point to a building outside the window to tell him what he wants to know. So an alien just has to point at something, yet it takes an annoying ages to get there. Its like James Gunn wants to show us jokes that are not funny and invite us into conversations that are neither interesting or essential.

This films runs for two and half hours, and much of it is padded out with the plot inflating devices outlined above. I got the distinct impression that the script was aimed at completing a preset run time, rather than the runtime being adapted to the script. There is little in this movie that cannot, and should not, be done in half the time. And two hours into this movie it is clear that it should be ending, yet it is still goes on.

The CGI is excellent, but often distracted from due to the amount of it on display and the now predicable overlay of the Guardians soundtrack gimmick. So this is another formulaic concoction to add to the others that also do not work very well.

The endings within the film, when they finally come, are again a mixture of the obviously rushed and equally obviously prolonged.

This film is a waste of the viewers time and studios money. It is not going to win young fans. At best it is a shop window for what is wrong with the Marvel Cinematic Universe - an overpriced and flawed product of faltering quality.

I am giving this one star because there is nothing worth seeing here and nothing you will miss by not seeing it. Best avoided.

Chris Rock: Selective Outrage (2023)

A star for each genuine laugh, and sadly its not a lot.

[5/10 · 8 March 2023]

Chris Rock opens his show with a few jokes about woke and cancel culture, but whatever hopes he raises are soon dashed as Rock never veers too close to real controversy. In fact the middle line is where he stays for most of the show, with mildly amusing jokes on one side, and anecdotes on the other. And the anecdotes are something the viewer may or may not find entertaining.

Through Rock name drops, offers shout outs to other celebrities and indulges in rounds of self congratulation, these things are not amusing, or entertainment. Inviting an audience to cheer name recognition or success never is, it's just cheap. In the part of the show where he talks about his wealth Rock is too clearly imitating Dave Chappelle (who he also name drops), and Rock only suffers by the comparison.

The anecdotes Rock tells (instead of jokes) are also oddly personal rather than funny, and one has to question why he included them. They are certainly not funny enough to warrant the close attention needed to follow them. This is strange as it is the type of material one would expect from a novice comedian who might unwisely rely on a story about their race or social status in place of a well crafted joke. In the current climate its the sort of thing an audience might feel a duty to clap for rather than laugh at. It is the sort of fare one might expect to see from 'inclusive' TV comedy, rather than the in the repertoire of a comedy master. On the evidence of this show Rock has certainly lost his edge.

He does get to Will Smith, and this is the strongest material in the show. But it is only the last 10 minutes, which makes the preceding show look like a lot of formulaic padding.

Black Adam (2022)

Saved by good pacing and nice twists.

[8/10 · 1 March 2023]

The super hero lineup of Black Adam is very good, with characters well fleshed out and portrayed by an able cast with obvious chemistry. Aldis Hodge as Hawkman and Pierce Brosnan are the standouts. Brosnan's performance as Doctor Fate proves the ideal vehicle for his easy charisma and grandee gravatas.

The special effects are not great, but the plot and pacing are so good that the film holds up. A major flaw was the choice of boy Amon as narrator. His clipped stage school accent is as tinny as his acting.

Without the burden of having to express much Dwayne Johnson does well, and is watchable as Black Adam. Overall a very enjoyable movie and well worth a watch.

Things that don't work well in Black Adam are few, but detract from the film overall. That said its better than most recent DC movies have been.

Fire and Ice (1983)

Good animations with pointless plot.

[3/10 · 28 January 2023]

Ice and Fire is a decent attempt at creating quality animation in an era still dominated by Disney. In this regard it is partially successful. But as with other Bakshi projects the story is just meandering rubbish. The first half of the movie is mostly just chasing in circles with a princess repeatedly being captured and escaping. Its beautifully animated plot floundering. The protagonists have no depth and are cheesy in the extreme; and then there is the ending. Its more then just silly, as a plot ending it is just daft. The great evil (who uses the power of Ice) is defeated by a devastating weapon (which is Fire), something which was always available to be used. Nothing in the plot suggests this was not the case. So the ending was inevitable, and the characters actions in between simply did not really matter. The affect is to make a poor story even more shallow. The best that can be said for Ice and Fire is it is well animated, and some of its scenes clearly influenced or inspired later works. Ultimately the film is let down by terrible story telling, which is sad because so much effort was put into the animation.

Prey (I) (2022)

On par with the original, very impressed

[9/10 · 29 December 2022]

Prey is beautifully shot, and its recreation of Native American life is wonderful. The characters are well drawn and Prey does well in telling an exciting story. Characters are smart, brave and human and the action is not over cooked. That said French trappers in the movie could have been better utilized and the predators idea of 'sport' needs tweaking. Despite the IPs age Prey manages to create and sustain a sense of mystery, and so is ideal for new viewers of Predator. Prey is proof that there is hope for much loved IPs if skill and care are used. A memorable film that's well worth watching.

The Tomorrow War (2021)

The Tomorrow War: A senseless 138 minutes waste of human life

[1/10 · 29 December 2022]

I was there man, I saw it. The Tomorrow War, goddam awful. I'm a vet now, can never recover (138 minutes of my life). The plot, so thick with holes it was all holes. Heavy special effects could not hide the mess. And a guy called Zac Dean responsible for it all had a crazy look in his eyes, like he got cut a giant cheque for a dream he had when he was high. War is hell, but need not be stupid. Yet this WAS BOTH. Scenes stolen from Aliens and The Thing padded its runtime. It was hopeless. At the films end 'The Tomorrow War' never happened; we can look back and wish it was just so. The humanity!

The Matrix Resurrections (I) (2021)

There is a third pill, a suppository, take it instead!

[1/10 · 10 July 2022]

After 21 years the Matrix has returned with the kind of splash that makes one immediately think of toilet paper. Resurrections starts where the original trilogy left off, but..... with a twist. The twist? Everything else that came before this movie was pointless. Mind.... blown...

Decades after Neo sacrificed himself he comes back to find that machines are still dicks and human are still kind of dirty and have a preference for dressing in rags.

What has changed? Well in this future future the inexplicable and mysterious entity that is machine intelligence is represented by a smug character called the Analyst, portrayed by Neil Patrick Harris in tight pants. If he did some 80s robot dance moves it would have made him more convincing as a machine. Whatever the future holds, its is not a new career as an onscreen baddie of Neil Patrick Harris. But.... there is worse.

In the future future humans do still enter the Matrix dressed and looking like S&M fans going to the funeral of someone they do not care much about. But now they are Gen Z and mostly only exist to tell Neo how much they admire his 'legend' and what he did (you know, in those better movies). And they don't get to say much more than that. The one exception to this rule is Morpheus, who despite having more to say, says nothing much, and like the other members of the human cast looks like a refugee from Glee Club.

This film is so unoriginal that even Agent Smith makes a return. But instead of being an insane non-human intelligence he is portrayed as a cross between a smug collage Jock and a sneering Yuppie. Like the 'Analyst', Agent Smith manages to be both central to the plot while simultaneously irrelevant.

The tired special effects rerun what the previous movies did, and perhaps out of desperation the makers throw in a 'World War Z' element to make the action more intense. But it fails and it clearly just borrowing to keep the plot line from sinking too fast, despite repeated flushing

In Matrix resurrections there are simply too many plot holes to go into or care about. What it ends up being about is something 'inexplicable' that we are all supposed to care about. And what is that, well its 'true love', which somehow is measurable as actual power. When this became apparent my palm slapped by forehead so hard that I actually forgot what happened to Agent Smith and Morpheus ( and I am NOT re-watching to find out).

This was an inane and pointless attempt at a reboot.

Vivarium (2019)

Disappears up its own interdimensional hole

[4/10 · 14 January 2022]

I really wanted to like this film, but Vivarium is not a satisfying film. 4 Stars is sadly where my estimation of it is... and that may be charitable.

It is a well made movie, and the two main characters, Tom and Gemma, are played well. But the reason for the entire plot is given away in the opening scenes of the film, when Tom explains how cuckoos behave. That means the mystery of what is about to unfold is only experienced by the protagonists, and not the viewer. But the protagonists, who become trapped in an alien simulation of a suburban setting, are more concerned by frustration and misery than they are intrigued. Tom and Gemma are the subjects of an Alien practice whereby they are confined to this simulation where the must raise an alien child. Why Aliens with such technology need humans to feed their young breakfast cereal every morning is never explained. There is nothing they can teach the alien child, and nothing the aliens want to learn from Tom and Gemma. What is hinted at is a deeper Alien presence beyond the simulation, but this again raises the question about why they need humans to raise they young. It simply makes no sense.

Occasionally there are flashes of what could have been a good move, like Gemma's strange experience when she breaches the walls of the simulation. But too little of it makes it to the screen, and what does is to little effect. There is some interesting weirdness that could have been explored better, but it comes too late and ultimately only adds to a sense that Vivarium missed its own opportunity to be a better film. So it ends up being a record of a bleak experience, that is is both pointless and rather dumb.

The cast play their roles well and give a good sense that time is ticking. But that time ticks away until the end of the movie, and then it has the sort of ending that would be fine in a half hour TV mystery show. But both plot and ending fall well short of justifying Vivarium's 97 minute running time.

Aftermath (2016)

Aftermath, by 1000 monkeys on 1000 typewriters.

[2/10 · 10 December 2021]

Aftermath is probably the most pointless and ludicrous sci-fi TV shows ever conceived. The shows 'plot' seems to have been assembled from a random list of things that could happen in an apocalyptic setting, which were thrown together and strung across the episodes of a single season. The result is a series so utterly daft that the only thing that was actually clear about it was that there would be no follow up season.

The story revolves around the struggle of a family to survive the end of the world, an event that takes the form of meteors showers, omens, demons and pretty much anything else you can think of (oh, and a hint of time distortion to explain away some inclusions and many plot holes).

The family in question are played by an able cast, which is a pity because all that does is highlight how inane, meandering and random the plot is. To navigate the end of days they jump into their RV to search for the source of a mysterious radio broadcast, one being sent out by someone who seems to know what is happening. As the journey evolves so does the viewers desire for them to locate this mysterious broadcaster, so someone, anyone, can explain what this show is about.

After a journey that in short order involves encounters with Mad Max style survivors, monsters, demons and the ever present threats of natural disaster, they find the mystery DJ. After he explains .......nothing, they go home, making the entire return journey that they took an entire series to make, in one episode. Why? Presumably so they could start again, but with something that resembles an actual plot this time. At this point anyone who has followed along and kept faith that something might be revealed will have narrowed their eyes and said 'waaait a minute!'

I gave this 2 stars for some fairly decent special effects and competent acting. But beyond that Aftermath is utter garbage. This show seems to have been commissioned off the back of a pitch that had no script, and the writers literally made it up as they went along. And as they did so they literally lost the plot and then ditched their failed story arc in the hope of a redo and season two. But inevitably the real Aftermath was no season 2. And that no season two is batter then the season one that there was, says all you need to know about the vapid exercise that was Aftermath.

Garage People (2020)

A charming and thoughtful documentary

[10/10 · 9 December 2021]

When watching Garage People I was initially unsure whether it was a real or mock documentary, such was the high level of its production.

It is a touching and illuminating documentary, skillfully shot and edited, that examines the lives of a diverse group of Russians at various stages of their lives or careers. The core themes are aspiration, certainty and belonging and these subjects are examined through the experiences of several diverse subjects.

The people featured in Garage People range from a towns youth to those in middle age or are nearing retirement. The featured youth focus on their dreams, whether they involves popular success or simply just finding a stable life. In all cases the are being drawn towards a verdict that says any hope they have for a future lies far beyond the artic town the have come of age in. Similarly the documentaries older subjects are coming to terms with the next stage of their own futures, whether the focus is on illness, love or fulfillment.

Garage People is a amazing documentary, one that fleshes out the tremendous complexity and diversity of ordinary lives, and does so in a way that reveals the beauty that is similarly hidden the fabric of an everyday world.

Dune (2021)

A faithful but undramatic retelling

[7/10 · 2 November 2021]

Dune was a curious miss in my estimation. The adequate special effects are not enough to paper over a visually dull experience, and other rather obvious flaws.

In this planned two movie retelling of the Dune Story Villeneuve's stays very close to the book and the film is visually branded with his unique visual style. But he engages in no exposition, which leaves much of the fabric of the supporting story an unexplained mystery. So although Dune is a long and complex story, and although Villeneuve did not leave anything out of this 'part 1', much is missing.

The universe of Dune is supposed to be a spectacular and exotic environment, yet is portrayed as something that is unrelentingly drab, remote and austere. For instance a powerful sandstorm on screen pales in comparison to still images taken of the real thing right here on earth. Architecturally the city of Arrakeen is indistinguishable from the Palace of Arrakeen. And Dune itself, Caladan or any of the other worlds, are swallowed up in a mediocre and monochromatic rendering. Little time is given to them and no sense of place is ever established.

Primarily Dune is a story that is driven by characters and the mystery and mysticism they represent, and it is these crucial ingredients that are badly fumbled. By comparison David Lynch's Dune, though weak on special effects, it had a very strong cast whose portrayal of even fringe characters made them memorable. Villeneuve has done the opposite. Great effects (to a point), but a cast of characters who do not convince. At the upper end of the credits Rebecca Ferguson's Lady Jessica is not believable as a noblewoman. For instance in the scene where she has to chose a housekeeper it would be hard to pick her herself out of the presented lineup. The problem with her playing Lady Jessica is not simply that she has no gravitas, but she possesses none of the visible traits that would denote Jessica as either noble or worthy of being a concubine. She shares no chemistry with Duke Leto, who is also rather two dimensional. At the lower end characters like the Shoudat Mapes are all but invisible, or like Doctor Yueh or Mentats, utterly forgettable. The Navigators are entirely absent. The Sardaukar, who are supposed to be the most fearsome and cruel warriors in the universe, but they are dispatched by the hand full in battle (and battles themselves are dull, smoke shrouded and dream like affairs that lack any a sense of alarm, danger or any real struggle). What is left is a big burden placed on the central characters, and with the exception of Timothée Chalamet, they all fail to hold up.

There are some other oddities, like why are the Fremen of multiple races? According to the books Fremen society was not monogamous, so it would be impossible. Would different races even exist in the year 10,091? Personally I would not care if the Fremen were any race, but that it is a group of different races makes no sense at all. It is a token I would prefer had not been offered in the way it was, because it does not work. It would have been more viable to make the Atreides black, or even the Emperor, when he appears in Part II.

Overall Villeneuves Dune is simply not as iconic as the story is. The 1984 Dune had its flaws, but not being Iconic was something it could not be accused of. Lynch went to some lengths to deliver a visual style designed to evoke feudalism and mysticism. By contrast the 2021 version seems to be part of an already established visual franchise, one that does the story no favors and offers little more.

Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Star Trek beyond boring

[3/10 · 31 August 2021]

The story of this installment of the Star Trek franchise starts with Captain Kirk being bored. The feeling of thrill and wonder is gone and he is considering resigning. Ironically this is a good reflection of what Star Trek itself has become. This movie going on its production voyage laden with money, but also a host of problems and a unprepared script. That needed to be rewritten when filming was in progress. And it shows.

The Trek crew are called on to go into deep space to investigate a mystery, and on an uncharted world they find challenges that are a chaotic and unbalanced mixture. Trek fan Simon Pegg, who plays Scotty, was given the task or mending the script on the fly, and he has done a decent job. But he was burdened by a narrative arc that is laden, lightweight and ultimately flawed.

Fans may have lost count of how many times the Enterprise has been destroyed, or bemused at how much other destruction is used to fill plot holes, but things have come to the point where few non-dedicated Trek fans will actually care at all. What compounds that feeling is that Trek chose to go down the Marvel route, of a multi-verse approach, by not simply rebooting the franchise but everything in it by creating an alternative timeline. And that means although Star Trek was a fanciful and exotic story of our future, it is not necessarily that any more.

In this 'reimagining' new viewers (as opposed to fans, who are increasingly few) will not notice or care what or who is blown up or dies, as the franchise has become one huge amusement ride. And indeed in parts that exactly how 'Beyond' unfolds, sometimes rather a little too literally. But in that regard it does at least work, but it is shallow stuff.

In terms of production, the formula is money invested in the ride pays off, and along the way a lot of spectacular visuals are created. It is true for almost any block buster franchise, and the visuals in Star Trek beyond are superb. But increasingly in the Star Trek franchise a lot less of anything else is offered, and when it is it is very obviously tokenism or tired in jokes.

Despite the triumph that was the reboots casting choices, characters like Chris Pines man-boy Kirk not grown. Instead they have developed into far less than the original characters they were based on. Similarly the rest of the cast are wasted. From the outset of the reboot true fans may have been given pause by the destruction of Vulcan so early on, and then felt a little uncomfortable by the preposterous coincidences that peppered 'Into Darkness'. But after squeezing the franchise so hard, and stretching credulity so far, 'Star Trek Beyond' is an inevitably flaccid add on.

Money and creativity can create amazing things and wonderful stories. But perhaps too much money put into the hands of people who were not invested creatively is what Star Trek has become. That formula certainly seems to be what got this movie across the line and into the box office. But just three movies into the reboot, it did not have to be that way, and that is sad.

Planeta bur (1962)

An enjoyable and creative time capsule

[8/10 · 10 March 2021]

'Planeta Bur', or 'Planet of Storms', is a Soviet made science fiction film. That and the fact it is not an English language film mean it has largely been forgotten. But for science fiction fans it it definitely worth a view.

The story revolves around a flotilla of Soviet spacecraft heading to explore Venus. As the production year is 1962 Venus was still believed by many to possibly harbor life, and in the real world the USSR was very serious about exploration of it (they would land the Venera probe in 1967). 'Planet of Storms' is a mix of space opera with a smattering of Soviet propaganda, and it all the more interesting for it.

After the flotilla looses a craft to a meteor strike the crew of the two remaining ships decide to attempt a landing on the the 'Planet of Storms'. The male crew all decide to make the journey, along with a robot, leaving the missions only female member in orbit to maintain communications with Moscow control.

The special effects are, by the standard of the time, okay, but at some points are really creative and even exceptional. The mix of effects is uneven, with stop motion and puppet models being the lower end, and solidly built locations models and vistas being the best of what is on offer. Curiously the design of the spacesuits the explorers use seems to have resurfaced in the 1979 film 'Alien'.

While on Venus the explorers encounter dinosaurs, carnivorous plants, violent lizard men, an exploding volcano and the ruins of an ancient civilization. In short there is a lot packed into the films 1 hour and 20 minutes. Peppered throughout are references to the superiority of the Soviet Communist system, and even the scientific inevitability to a 'one world government', which are no doubt included because of who paid for the entire production (and had to okay the script). These references make the film interesting as a take on a fictional Soviet exploration of the universe; a future that never came to be and a system that did not survive to see what did actually transpire.

There are some other Russian curiosities; for instance sexism in any equivalent US film would put a female center stage to be kidnaped or threatened by some alien, but the Soviets men left their woman in orbit, out of harms way. Relating to that there is an interesting sequence of 'Masha' experiencing zero gravity when in orbit, and this is done well. Though no specific year is given for the setting of the movie, the character of Masha does say she was involved in the Sputnik and Luna projects, which means the mission to Venus is part of that lineage. They do however make a joke at her expense, saying that they can make a robot who can think, but not a woman. Que lots of manly laughter and thigh slapping. As it is a film of its time I will not criticize, only say that it is another indicator of the difference in Western and Soviet sci-fi. Another crucial difference is the type of hero that Soviet Science fiction hero uses, as opposed to their Western counter parts. In Western science fiction, a post-WWII influence lingers and is often present. It is the characteristic that the heroes or main protagonists are essentially a mix of aviator and navy type. By contrast 'Planet Bur' adheres to the Soviet preference, by which the main characters are scientists or dedicated cosmonauts, and there is none of the class delineation that is often visible in western space opera.

The special effects are functional, even if they are at times clunky. But some the live action sequences are truly excellent, and do give an immersive feel to the movie, in that it is actually taking place on another world. There is an extended underwater sequence for instance that is very well done.

Besides the afore spacesuits, the land vehicle the explorers use and their robot are both excellent, and are used for more than simply props. Clearly there was a lot of money spent on this production, and the creators ingenuity and artistry is very visible.

Aside from finding dinosaurs on Venus, there is a hint and an open ended cliff hanger, that intelligent life did and does still exist on Venus. This is one of the space opera tropes the movie, but it is well done and leaves the film open ended. Not until 12 years later would the Martian chronicles (in the 1980) infuse the same theme of alien mystery into popular Western culture.

In many aspects 'Planet of Storms' was a product of its time, and in some instances was creatively ahead of its time. It is well worth a look, and I have rated it 8/10 as an example of it's genre. It is not possible to compare it to better more serious sci-fi, as only 6 years later Stanley Kubrick made '2001 A Space Odyssey'. But as a piece of space opera science fiction it may have been more influential than anyone admits too.

Maze Runner: The Death Cure (2018)

A conclusion that is so crass my jaw dropped off.

[4/10 · 18 January 2021]

Parts one and two of Maze Runner were entertaining and created a degree of mystery that was propelling this series towards a potentially interesting conclusion. That is what movies are supposed to do and Maze Runner was doing this well. All three films provide a good degree of tension, some decent acting and very well handled special effects. In short there is nothing wrong in terms of production values that is not balanced out by the all round quality of the film making. But......

........the conclusion of Maze Runner is so morally cowardly and arrogantly crass that I was left scratching my head and wondering what sort of person though it was a good idea? The viewer gets to make that conclusion because those who made the movie probably never even stopped to consider what they were doing. So I will talk about that because it is important (and timely given the current pandemic that is sweeping the real world).

At Maze Runners core is the idea that a select and very rare set of young protagonists are imbued with immunity from a pandemic called 'The Flare', a scourge so deadly that is scheduled to wipe out mankind. And that is a lot of mankind, everyone in fact, except those very few characters who are the stories protagonists. So the set up is these young people are fighting against a system that is trying to exploit them; exploit them to find out what they have that can save absolutely everyone else. The plot takes a little twist to say it is not exactly that, but that is just a plot device to keep the action running and away from any direction that might be thought provoking. So those doing the exploiting are looking for a cure that could help everyone. So what are the supposed heroes doing?

What should emerge from all this is complex moral questions, existential angst and soul searching. But this is a juvenile movie about juvenile people written in a juvenile way, so the third installment of the Maze Runner series continues on where two left off, with 'heroic' children fighting and the 'mean and evil' adults, and nothing more. Even beyond the avoiding of complex issues and choices, it is a thoroughly absurd simplification.

In the end all this movie involves is the fighting of battles and running about. And where does this all lead? Well that is the saddest part. In the end the supposed heroes, who have not stopped for a second to consider what self sacrifice is or might achieve, secure what they want, which is the exclusivity of their own survival. This small band, genetically immune to 'The Flare' virus, escape the people who are evil (but, would save mankind), and thus leave the rest of mankind (absolutely all of it!) behind to face certain death. At the end, When Thomas, the leader of this small unique band, looks over his shoulder towards his pursuers we are supposed to admire his beauty and celebrate his escape. But he may as well just flip his pursuers 'the bird', because that is what this film does to the audience.

The moral of this tale is that sociopathic teens, handsome and physically highly admirable (good candidates for Hitler youth perhaps?), are right to throw mankind under a bus leaving these shallow monsters are to become the future of mankind. Oh dear god. Thus the entire plot of Maze Runner is rendered pointless unless one is willing to endorse a view that genetically superior human beings have the selfish moral right to exclude and replace those they chose to let die. It is that simple, that trite.

Creatively the ultimate flaw of the series is its super arc story, one so big that the protagonists within are lost and exposed as unworthy. And in the end an audience who statistically would be a part of the human population that this brave band condemn to death, are supposed to applaud their survival (and it is theirs an no one body else). In short these survivors are not heroes, but anti-heroes, who are a friend to no one but themselves. It is a conclusion that could have been darkly Nietzschean if the film was in any way daring or intelligent. But I doubt that was ever the intention, so in the end it is just crass and stupid nonsense that just accidently stumbles into endorsing a Nietzschean world view that in the real world we generally labor every day to renounce.

If the Maze Runner series deserves to be remembered for anything it is mainly because it is maybe first of a subsequent slew of high budget movies based on thin and badly thought out ideas. People ask will there be a Maze Runner 4, and I have to ask why would there be? If it deserves to be remembered for something else if perhaps because it delivers a triumph to a selfish philosophical standpoint that is so reprehensible that we introduced something called the Nuremburg codes to stop it coming to fruition again. And maybe it is an under current of unease among the audience who watched this that has seen Maze Runner fade from memory while other efforts (like Mocking Bird) became infinitely more celebrated.

Quatermass (1979)

Apocalyptic sci-fi with a conscience

[8/10 · 14 January 2021]

I first saw this TV series as young child and it scared the hell out of me. Having recently watched it again 38 years later I was amazed at how good it still is. The TV acting is stilted in places but it's budget was used to good effect to produce a world steeped in chaos and slipping towards an abyss. I certainly think the 2006 film 'Children of Men' was inspired in part by this mini-series.

Central to the plot is professor Quatermass who is called back from disgrace to investigate the mass extermination of young people at pre-historic sites around the world. The budget barely stretches to evoke all this, but none the less it delivers and the drama and sense of urgency in Quatermass is palpable.

What ultimately is examined is the sense of growing alarm and division between the older generation and the new age generation that emerged in the 1960's and evolved into Punk in the 70's. The film brackets this generational divide in a story that is compelling and tragic, and it has to be said the series wisely chooses to concentrate on the gravity and graveness of the situation rather than cheap mawkishness.

Secondary characters in Quatermass are deployed to good effect, and modern film makers should take note about how such characters can be used to fill out a plot and create interesting characters, rather than props or dumb cannon fodder. They are used well to bolster the sense of discovery and revelation about what is happening and treated with intelligence and compassion.

Across all it's outings Quatermass has always been a work of it's time and dealt with the themes of the era each was made in. This outing is no different and indeed a generation later it's message about the dislocation between generations still resonates. Cleverly Quatermass takes this, something that is a tangible concern in the real world, as the central theme of it science fiction story. Even though it was made in 1979 my kids who watched it this time around were as impressed and disquieted as I was at there age.

John Mills is excellent as Quatermass. Embracing his role he obviously drew on his age and paternal experience to inject the famous scientist with pathos and real focus.

There are stilted moments in Quatermass and the effects have aged a lot. But none of that can detract from a fine and brave science fiction mini-series.

Stalker (1979)

A master class of story telling and film making.

[10/10 · 10 January 2021]

Tarkovsky's Stalker is a truly beautiful film. Relying on a mixture of script and wonderful cinematography portrays the mysterious 'Zone' and a bleak dystopian world that surrounds it. A large part of science fiction is analogy, and in Stalker Tarkovsky uses the Zone to portray and explore the human heart, a common feature in his work. At it's core Stalker is a movie about hypothesis and realization, and if that puts you off, then this film if probably not for you.

The acting is great and Tarkovsky's mixture of lingering and continuous camera shots creates space to explore the thoughtful subplot of the movie, which revolves around the what peoples inner most desires really are.

The Zone is a cordoned off and forbidden area where some past alien event created a strange and as yet not understood environment. The 'Stalker' is a guide to this 'Zone', a man who was born there, and he is employed to illegally bring a scientist and writer to the center of the Zone where a room exists, a room that if one enters can fulfill their wishes. However the wishes are the afore mentioned inner most desires and these are not always what people think of realize.

The spoiler is this; the Stalker believes the room does not work for him and so feels like his life is empty and defined only by his ability to enter and guide others into the forbidden Zone. But his wife explains in an address to the 4th wall that she chose him, despite everyone knowing Stalkers were strange and had odd children. In her confession she reveals she has no regrets, but it seems obvious that she is what the Stalker wished for, a companion and someone to love him. His inability to see that and instead see himself as an unhappy and unfulfilled being is proof of what the 'Writer' talks about as they travelled together through the Zone; about human's ability to author their own misery by not realize what fulfillment actually is.

At two and half hour Stalker is a wonderful and thought provoking journey from the mind of a director who it has to be said, has a marvelous sense of mystery, the extraordinary and story telling. Stalker is a classic that perhaps only Russian cinema could have made. The art of cinema is not all about block busters, big names and huge budgets. Stalker has none of those things, yet explores areas of human experience using the art of film making in a way that few other movies have.

The 2018 Hollywood film 'Annihilation' is obviously a take on Stalker, but is a radically different film. Tarkovsky's other sci-fi masterpiece, Solaris, was also remade by Hollywood, and that too is a completely different film. In both instances Tarkovsky's films remain unsurpassed by these retries and his films continue to stand the test of time as artistic and creative masterpieces.

Extinction (2018)

It's not botched, its just bad.

[2/10 · 7 January 2021]

I wanted this film to succeed because it looked like an indie film and Michael Pena might be breaking through. So worth a look I thought. But no, it's impossible to like this film and Pena proved he has only one gear and a similar number of dimensions as an actor.

What might have made a half decent short film or twilight zone episode is extended into a full movie, which is just too much for what this story offers. Throughout Extinction Pena's weird dazed persona is all that delays a truly ludicrous plot twist being revealed. Between the start of the movie and that point this is just some teasing and a lot of vacant bemused staring. No spoiler here, when this film finally lift the veil of mystery what is revealed is face/palm garbage, plain an simple.

Ultimately what Extinction delivers is a tiring and disappointing experience. Its not even worth watching if there is nothing else to watch. Go outside instead, even if its raining (or even darkness and wolves).

Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)

WW84 does to the Super Hero genre what Covid did to 2020

[2/10 · 3 January 2021]

Surprisingly Wonder Woman 1984 is two and half hours long. More surprisingly it spans this time with a plot that is far less then half baked.

The performances by Gal Gabot, Chris Pine and Pedro Pascal are strong, with Pascal being the most convincing as he plays a character who looks and sounds a little like Donald Trump. However the weakness of this movie means his performance is wasted.

The plot of WW84 revolves around a man called Maxwell Lord (Pascal) who can literally make wishes come true, and that is the first step into what is a fantasy too far. Wonder Woman, in fact all Super Heroes, are not to be taken seriously. But in popular culture a line has developed between fandom Super Hero dramas and young children's interests. WW84 really blurs that line, which is a mistake.

At points in the movie Wonder Woman's powers weaken and these are the best parts as the the super heroine struggles and this injects some urgency into the action. But if does not last as the turgid plot triumphs over any hope of a good movie.

On top of wish fulfillment Wonder Woman also learns to fly, lashing onto planes and lightening bolts (yes, lighting bolts) with her lasso, to soar through the sky, until she 'believes' she can fly, and then she does. Wait, what? As I said, a fantasy too far. Wonder Woman lurches into the realms of Peter Pan in a very obvious and clunky way. The Super Hero genre has come a long way, with the likes of Dead Pool and Watchmen. So why WW84 chooses to regress into the realms of twee Never-Never land style fantasy is weird. It can only be because the writers lack imagination. This calls into question the talent of the writing team and wisdom of those who appointed them. More cynically the producers may have just tried to get absolutely everybody's money. But fans of the DC universe may feel abused.

The visuals in WW84 are good at times, but occasionally the action CGI is painfully clunky; perhaps the result of someone storing the plot of WW84 on the same computer that did the graphics. And hey, what not? After all Wonder Woman can fly now.

There are other head scratching moments in WW84. Chris Pine's character Steve Trevor comes back to life (a wishy thing), and he and Diana raid the Smithsonian, where they commandeer a fully fueled jet fighter (!) that the WWI biplane pilot knows how to fly; because as everybody knows a WWI biplane is exactly the same as supersonic jet fighter. Luckily our heroes escape the legions of armed Smithsonian guards who populate the night time museum.... and taking off from the Smithsonian airport (?) they fly directly to Egypt, a distance of 5800 miles. Oh, and the plane is made invisible. In terms of credibility taking Captain Hooks flying pirate ship might have been a more believable option.

Diana goes to some lengths to discover which ancient 'god' is behind this wishy power chaos Pascal wields, and when she discovers this information it immediately becomes irrelevant. After making much about finding out the name, Diana finds it in a weird stilted plot inclusion, then barely mumbles the name she finds, and then the plot goes off in the direction of some conclusion. What is achieved by this is that the film is starts to achieve its' two and half hour run time. But it is filled with so much padding that the rather simple plot starts to bloat along with that run time.

The moralizing at the core of WW84 and the device it is delivered through are equally awful. Diana delivers a weepy sermon to the entire world about truth and how bad wishy things are, and does so with all the mawkishness that Gadot delivered that Covid sing-song with. That is WW84s big 'kapow' moment. Ouch.

There are jokes, and some of them are good. But they are no where near enough to make up for the lumbering plot. Everyone in this movie got a wish, and my wish was that I got back the two and half hours it took to watch this movie, and perhaps also a minor stroke to make me forget it entirely.

But all that said, young kids, especially young girls, will probably love this film. I 'wish' it had been marketed more directly towards them.

The Midnight Sky (2020)

A Space opera, and not a classic one

[2/10 · 25 December 2020]

Most of what I will discuss here can be glanced in the trailer. The story of 'The Midnight Sky' revolves around a space exploration vessel returning to earth in the year 2049 after visiting a newly discovered 'habitable' and earth like moon of Jupiter. Scientifically speaking that is a major stretch on a number of levels, but that is only the start of the credulity stretching. But as it is a central plank of this drama, and 'The Midnight Sky' is more a space opera/ drama than a solid addition to the science fiction genre.

The back drop of this mission is that the ship is returning to an Earth ravaged and doomed by an unspecified plague of some sort. Given what is happening currently in 2020 the plague is at least interesting. But that in itself is not near enough to rescue this film.

For some reason the ship's crew did not expect to be able to contact earth when there were at Jupiter, which is odd as Jupiter is not that far away. So this device is used to establish the fact they are returning, rather unconcerned, blind, to a planet that is doomed. Contrivances like this in the film make it hard to watch, and statistically most of the audience are smarter than this film is.

The acting is passable, but only because the script itself was fairly wooden. George Clooney is watchable as ever, I liked his performance and his dedication to sci-fi. But his talent is wasted in a project he had a large hand in brining to the screen.

'The Midnight Sky' delivers a predictable ending though there is a slight twist. But this delivers a moment of 'oh' rather an a satisfying 'ah'.

The sets and visual effects are excellent, which is the only reason I give it any stars at all. But I wondered why the movie surrounded its fairly accurate space physics with action the events that would look more at home in Star Wars. In this films' version of the future astronomers are obviously blind by profession, as aside from an undiscovered utopian moon around Jupiter they also missed flocks of icy asteroids in 'unexplored regions' of near Earth space. 'The Midnight Sky' may as well have went the whole hog and had sounds effects in the vacuum too.

All of this might be excusable if the film delivered engaging drama, but as it does not one has to wonder why it was made at all. Science fiction requires some suspension of disbelief to work. But it cannot work as either science fiction of drama if the abandonment of common sense is also a requirement; which it is. I wanted this film to succeed, I really did, but I am sad that it failed on so many levels. With a currently captive audience, starved of new releases, 'The Midnight Sky' is a major missed opportunity.

Kong: Skull Island (2017)

Beautiful sets, empty plot

[3/10 · 13 December 2020]

Kong Skull island had a lot of potential. Bags of it in fact. It's effects and set pieces are gorgeous to look at for a start, and some of the monsters are very creative and even disturbing. On paper too the cast is very good for an action flick. But unfortunately 'Kong: Skull Island' tumbles off a cliff like a Dinosaur having a stroke.

The film incorporates a lot of borrowed visuals, which in small amounts may be forgivable, but when its from films like 'Apocalypse Now' then Kong Skull Island only suffers by comparison.

As regards characters, Bree Larson brings her usual smug and two dimensions to the screen, Samuel L Jackson his barking soldier routine and Tom Hiddleston tries his hand at tight pants macho posing. Hiddleston is the best by far, which says a lot when he did not even have to try hard. Any bit of furniture could out act the talent vacuum that is Larson. That is about the depth of the characters in this movie. Extras are picked off with an alarming ease not seen since early black and white Tarzan movies.

This film is bubblegum, but it fails to justify its high budget and so wastes what are occasionally thoughtful and ingenious visuals. A 'watch one and delete' sort of movie.

Days of Glory (2006)

Brave subject choice, timid handling.

[6/10 · 13 December 2020]

'Days of Glory' is a well made film and examines a chapter of the Second World War that that is rarely explored, the role of Colonial troops. It's acting, script and action sequences are excellent, but it is not as brave as might have been expected.

The story of Colonial troops is more complex than the film allows for, and instead it concentrates on the feelings of broken promises, abuse, abandonment that Colonial troops might have felt. Portraying armed troops as victims is never a winner, because it is never realistic. In relation to the films central subject, France's Colonial troops, their excesses were not remembered fondly by the civilian population of Germany they policed during the immediate post-war period. Nor are those Colonial troops who fought against the allies for Vichy France referenced. It is not that Days of Glory is historically inaccurate, it is just historically selective. Too much history is fictionalized to portray soldiers as the victims of conflict rather than the perpetrators of violence, and this film ultimately pays homage to that fiction rather than any deeper truth or reality.

There Will Be Blood (2007)

A compelling but flawed story

[6/10 · 13 December 2020]

'There Will Be Blood' is a well made and superbly acted film that kept me watching right the way through. However once the story concluded I wondered why I had been so interested, and that is the problem with this film; it is a long winded telling of a rather simple story.

At it's core this is a rags to riches story, but of an unsympathetic character. The films portrayal of that character as an enigmatic personality is a rouse to disguise the central characters lack of depth until the films unsatisfying end. What the film builds towards is an admission rather than a revelation, and the delay in reaching this point is what makes this film an hour too long. It would and could have been better told as a short story.

Map of the Human Heart (1992)

A Sweeping and underrated drama

[9/10 · 6 December 2020]

'Map of the Human Heart' is an love story and that is usually not my area of interest. But any story can start with an Inuit village's first encounter with the outside world and go on to encompass WWII and horror of the Dresden bombing it worthy of attention. And so this film is certainly worth a watch. The acting, production, locations and period detail are excellent, and the story is truly original. So original that keen eyed cinema fans may derive much pleasure in spotting which far more successful films this one may have inspired. It is a film that deserves more attention, and for all the right reasons.