Change Your Image
mkvonbergen
Reviews
Gattaca (1997)
An Unsettling, Odd Fable
According to a lot of the reviews, this movie is a solid 10/10.
I don't think so.
I get why people like it. Gattaca raises questions about fate and free will; it pushes back against systemic discrimination, a topic which resonated in 1997 and even more so now. There's a lot to think about in the movie. Jude Law turns in a strong performance. The score is beautiful, elegiac.
So as a philosophical inquiry, or visual art, it's pretty good. As a story, though, it stumbles on several counts.
There are a few dead-ends in the plot, with the movie setting its characters/story up for a particular turn of events and then just seemingly forgetting about them; a few tensions raised in the plot are never adequately answered.
The characters in the movie (with the exception of Jude Law) do not emotionally respond to the plot like normal human beings; they are oddly flat, ignoring or gliding Vulcan-like over tragedies and heartbreak. The coolness of the characters is all the more unsettling in light of some of the wholly unexplored homoerotic and sexual tension in the film; I don't usually go out for psychological interpretation, but a Freudian reading of Gattaca would be illuminating, I think.
The plot itself is a fairly heavy-handed fable. Another reviewer has noted that all the swimming scenes feel like the director is beating us over the head with the message of the story; this is true, and I'd add that Hawke's character's narration does the same thing. It may be a thriller, but it's also very nearly one of Aesop's fables.
The final problem I had was that the movie felt very retro. The huge computers, the orange-tint white balance, the orderly, Spartan, wholly undecorated world of Gattaca, the classic body style cars: the movie feels like a sci-fi movie filmed in the 60s or 70s, not in the late 90s. Given that 1997 was also the year that Contact came out, and its sci-fi world does not feel retro (heck, Alien was made in the 70s and feels less retro than Gattaca!), I have to assume this is a deliberate choice. But why the filmmakers decided to make their film looking twenty years old when it was brand new, I have no idea. The total lack of atmosphere and clunky machinery contributes to the flatness of the story; against it, the characters (already pretty dull) seem less interesting, not more.
At this point, I realize I seem like I wholly hated the film. I didn't. As I noted, there's a lot to think about, and I will probably be thinking about its theme for months to come. Also, even if I didn't agree with the filmmakers' artistic decisions, I did enjoy watching how they were put together. It's not a great film, but it's a decent way to spend a Friday night.
Star Trek: Voyager: Retrospect (1998)
Handles Rape Culture Unevenly
Two favourite characters (Seven and the Doctor) take center stage in this episode, with both taking strides towards greater responsibility and maturity. The scenario itself (Did Kovin violate Seven or not?) is also intriguing, a good thought-provoking premise for the show.
Yet essentially the scenario boils down to did Kovin *rape* Seven, and I think the show leans too heavily towards blaming the victim. On the one hand, I take the point that accusations of rape are a heavy, dangerous thing to throw around willy-nilly. Kovin certainly suffers from the accusation of (possible) rape, regardless of whether the accusation is true or not. Unfortunately, it's not the lesson our culture needs to be learning right now. Witness (fifteen years after this episode aired) the Steubenville rape case, in which the rapists and not the victim earned the media's sympathy. Something similar happened here: As a previous reviewer said, it's never proved whether Seven's restored memories are true or false, yet it is Kovin and not Seven who ultimately receives the sympathy and compassion of the crew. Seven is left to feel guilty for her part in destroying Kovin. This seems like a classic example of blaming the victim: Seven may have been raped, but it is she who is to feel guilty, not Kovin.
Despite the fact that the case is not concluded either way, I wish that Voyager had more consistently offered support to the victims of abuse and assault, instead of supporting the status quo. Even some balance, compassion for *both* parties, would have been more helpful than the one-sided interest in Kovin seen at here. As it is, this episode seems to contribute to rape culture.
Stargate SG-1: Unnatural Selection (2002)
Glimpse of the Future
Great episode. If you're watching the Stargates in order, the writers reveal a fairly big plot shift as far as the Replicators are concerned. Surprises aside, the episode also tackles the same question that they raised in the episode with Reese: Are there moral limits to what we can do in order to protect ourselves? Or the human race? Jonas steps into Daniel Jackson's shoes nicely here, as the voice of the conscience; Jack, of course, reprises his role as the military man whose main priority is self-protection.
Okay, spoiler time. Seriously, stop reading here.
The second half of the episode absolutely screams Battlestar Galactica. Since Classic BSG does NOT feature humanoid Cylons (just the shiny toaster version), Reboot BSG is strikingly similar to this episode. Machine-based humanoids that call each other by numbers? Check. Machine-based humanoids that create additional versions of each other? Check. Organic humans who wonder about the humanity of the machine-based ones? Check. Plot tension hinges on the survival of the human race? Check. Even the way that the Replicators carry themselves predicts the Cylons: They line up, with the speaker in the middle, facing other people. They refer to each other by their number, not their names: "Fifth" and "Sixth" is an easy transition to "Five" and fan favourite "Six". Plus, "Helo" shows up as a Cylon - oops, sorry, a Replicator. Especially for fans of both shows, the similarities make it that much more fun of an episode.
Battlestar Galactica: Resurrection Ship: Part 2 (2006)
Poor Focus
As an episode, "Resurrection Ship" is generally good (with a few plot / characterization holes). At this point, however, a shift in characterization is clear. Last season, most of the characters were generally sympathetic, though they could at times make enormous mistakes. This season, some of the characters seem to have abandoned sense altogether and become much less likable.
Thrace, for inexplicable reasons, speaks up for the sociopath Cain (albeit, at her funeral) in favour of Adama. Her newfound dislike of Adama is confusing: Whatever Adama does wrong, Cain does as well, and she adds torture and mistreatment of the crew to her list. How can Thrace be so blinded by Cain's interest in returning to Caprica not to see that the woman is dangerous and that her command would not be a good experience for Thrace herself?
Apollo, despite all this private self-doubt the show tries to shove in there, acts as if he's morally superior to anybody else on the show, including Roslin herself when she makes a decision he doesn't approve of. I think what bothers me isn't that he disagrees with people's decisions but that he never seems to weigh the options and admit that, hey, other people might have good points too! He's the show's Ned Stark, but more annoying and less likable.
And what the heck is Dee doing listening at his door? Dee, Apollo is not going to be good for you. Stop creeping at his door like a stalker!
Absolutely nobody is able to work through or even express their differences. Besides Helo, my favourite characters are all Cylons: They seem to be the only ones capable of taking action on their decisions and thinking through things in a rational, moral manner. Perhaps that's the goal of the show, but then it would be nice to see Sharon more frequently.
Yes, I know that even in this episode (and others) BSG does not qualify as a soap opera. Yes, there are still many fascinating characters and themes. I just feel at this point as though needless character drama is obscuring some of the more interesting themes that the show started out with. What I loved about the first season was the effort to secure the survival of the human race, which is interesting as a common motif in Mormon science fiction (Orson Scott Card's novels deal with this motif as well). I also felt like the Cylon-human interaction (between Six and Baltar, and between Sharon and Helo) was interesting. Now, Sharon spends all her time in the brig, and even the shows that feature encounters with the Cylons (such as this one) drag in Apollo's daddy issues and his impotent relationship with Starbuck.
So, enjoy the show, but it's starting to lose its moorings.
Stargate SG-1: Entity (2001)
Old story, new emotions
A computer-based alien life form taking over a member of the SGC is nothing new. Just last season (3), all four members of SG1 were taken over by a mind-embedded, controlling electronic probe: what we see here. So, old story and not much new by way of plot.
What IS different, though, is the relationship between the members taken over and those trying to solve the situation. It is Carter who is taken over by the probe, and Jack, whom we now know cares deeply for her, who has to get rid of the device. Thus, I felt as though the plot gave viewers the chance to see a different side of Jack than we usually see: Usually, it is Daniel and Carter who are the sympathetic; this time, it's Jack who develops his sympathetic side a little bit. He faces some hard decisions (getting rid of the alien, possibly terminating Carter) and comes away a richer character for it.
Stargate SG-1: 48 Hours (2001)
Introducing Rodney McKay
Personally, McKay is my favourite character on Atlantis, so I watched his first appearance as a character with interest.
Mostly, there are a lot of differences between his Atlantis character and the one that shows up in this episode. In Atlantis, he's taken on Carter's role: the scientist responsible for making things happen when guns won't do it. Also, Atlantis pokes around in his personal life: His various illnesses and his sister (whenever McKay's sister shows up, Atlantis has a good episode) show that he has a human side and a heart, despite his obnoxious exterior.
While McKay of SG1 is obnoxious , not much else about him in this episode (at least, that's important) is similar to McKay Atlantis. McKay SG1 is a naysayer who can't be bothered to make anything happen, an chauvinist, and even a little bit stupid scientifically (but that's compared to Carter, of course). The seeds of the later character are there, of course: He IS funny at times, he likes to eat (especially in stressful situations) and is afraid of lemons.
For me, the episode was mostly interesting as a McKay character study. (I'm fascinated by watching characters change.) However, all of the usual SG-1 characters play their roles well, and I enjoyed seeing more of Maybourne in his unofficial "rogue agent" role (much more likable than his official role). While there's not a great deal of character development, the episode advances the plot nicely and is a fun way to spend an evening.
Stargate: Atlantis: Critical Mass (2005)
Good episode; some plot holes
This episode is one of my favourites. A combination mystery / action plot, the story kept me on the edge of my seat throughout and had a nice twist at the end. In terms of plot, the danger that Atlantis faces escalates smoothly from a contained threat to a wholly uncontained and terribly threatening one. The ending has a beautifully unexpected twist, the implications of which are unfortunately not fleshed out in later episodes.
In spite of the tension, the writers also work in some good humour (using Zelenka and Lee). A few episodic characters are brought back, including Kavanaugh (who turns in a consistently realistic performance as the annoying, self-absorbed civilian with authority issues). The characters, especially Weir, are willing to own up to and consider the ethical dilemmas raised by their actions, a refreshing step in light of some of the episodes at the beginning of Season 3. And there's a lot of McKay in this episode (Confession time: McKay is my favourite character. Probably I'm one of the few people who is happy to see a lot of him in any given episode.)
Weak points: Teyla's emotional, poorly-considered decision will annoy some viewers who should see a much more obvious solution to the problem.
Still, good episode: Nice plot, nice characters, better-than-average treatment of ethical problems. Enjoy!
The Bourne Legacy (2012)
Had promise, but failed thanks to poor plotting
In short: Fun movie, engaging characters, abrupt and unsatisfying ending. Personally, what made the movie disappointing was that it felt like a rough draft: good, but very unpolished and in need of revision.
The good parts: Renner's character is an interesting contrast to Damon's. For a secret spy, he has strong people skills and these, along with his compassion for other people, are on display throughout the movie. For Weisz, her character is slightly underdeveloped but an interesting and spirited person nevertheless. I appreciated how different these two characters were from the original characters; it would have been so easy simply to write a second Bourne into the role. And, as many reviewers have pointed out, Renner and Weisz throw themselves into their roles and flesh the characters out even further.
Moreover, the film raises (and returns to) questions about the ethics of war, of medicine and government interference in an interesting way. Unlike Bourne, Cross remembers his history with the Agency, which makes his character potentially more conflicted than Bourne. Bourne changes quickly around the time of his accident; Cross, more slowly as he gets deeper into his spy work.
The Bad Parts: But, the film fails to live up to its promise thanks to poor pacing. It takes perhaps 30-45 minutes to fully introduce the characters and initiate the conflict between Cross and the agency, then sends the characters running around the world with only a brief explanation of what is at stake or why hunting down Cross is so important. Interrupting these little bursts of action are flashbacks to Cross's earlier decisions and his moral dilemmas, but the movie never ties up these loose thematic ends. And the ending itself comes very abruptly and unexpectedly. So, the entire movie is stop-and-go; it starts some interesting themes and conflicts but never ties them off.
To give you an idea of how the Legacy plot runs, imagine that Identity ends after the Farmhouse scene: Bourne has made a step towards victory, but he's not there yet and ultimately takes the offensive confronts the CIA directly. Without that last scene, Bourne wouldn't win; the ending would be unsatisfying. In Legacy, it's a different ending (of course) but the same feeling: The movie feels incomplete, unfinished.
It's a shame, considering how much was working for this film.