DANGEROUS DAYS

Battlestar Galactica: The Plan (2009)
Sci-Fi/Action/Drama; USA
112 minutes

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)
Action/Sci-Fi; USA
150 uncalled for minutes

District 9 (2009)
Sci-Fi; South Africa
112 minutes

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009)
Action/Sci-Fi; USA
118 minutes

Virtuality (2009)
Sci-Fi/Drama; USA
87 minutes

Vexille (2007)
Sci-Fi/Action/Animation; Japan
109 minutes

Appleseed Ex Machina (2007)
Sci-Fi/Action/Animation; Japan
105 minutes

Outlander (2008)
Sci-Fi/Action/Period Piece; USA
115 minutes

Idiocracy (2006)
Comedy/Sci-Fi; USA
84 mins



Whenever I watch sci-fi flicks that depict futuristic dystopias I feel a little bit like I'm missing the point. They're supposed to be shitty worlds where everything is dirty, corrupt and just plain fucked up, but I can't help but want to live there. Like "Blade Runner", for instance. I know in my head that I'm supposed to think the future Los Angeles is a bad scene, but to me it looks fuckin' awesome. Seedy underbelly? Synthetic snakes? Hottie humanoid robots? Always night time and raining? Asian street food on every block? Sign me the fuck up, I'm so there!

There is one film, however, that gets the dystopia right and that's Mike Judge's "Idiocracy". Now this, my friends, is a terrifying prospect for our future. There are no alien invaders or rebelious killer robots bent on destroying humanity, just plain old American stupidity taken to it's logical extreme. This is a world where Costcos are the size of cities, people are plastered head to toe with product placement, the president of the US is a former WWF wrestler (pictured above) and water has been completely replaced with sports drinks.

The humor in this movie is strange. It's packed full of jokes to the point that they'll walk right by you and you might not even realize it until 2 or 3 viewings later, but only about 5% of the humor is laugh out loud funny. Mostly it's just fun to find all the little silly details that will make you chuckle or say "Oh shit, dude - did you see that?!"

Give this some time if you're into: Futurama, Office Space, stoner comedy, making fun of stupid people

Gunhed (1989)
Sci-Fi/Action; Japan
100 mins

---

This movie makes no fucking sense. None whatsoever. Reading the twisted origins of the "Gunhed" script it's easy to see why the story is such an utter mess. But it looks really cool. The sets, costumes, character designs, cinematography and atmosphere are all spot on - occasionally bordering on genius, but good luck trying to figure out what the hell it all means. They're on some abandoned man-made research island or something, there's a giant killer mech thing that wants to destroy the world, somebody gets turned into a weird monster cybernetic thing somehow, they're looking for some shit called - I kid you not - "texmexium" (why they didn't just go to Chevy's is beyond me...maybe they don't have gringo food in the future)...I don't know. It makes me sad to think about how epic this movie could have been. All the promise was there, but God damn did they miss the mark. I mean, you should still check it out because there's some cool shit, but maybe watch it on mute or something.

Give this some time if you're into: mechs, cyberpunk, live-action anime, 80s special effects

By Day or By Night (2009)
Sci-Fi; Mexico

Blindness (2008)
Sci-Fi/Drama; Brazil/Canada
121 mins

---

I was pretty jazzercised for "Blindness". It looked cool, people said it was great, but it was all lies! First of all, it's not sci-fi. Not even a little bit. Second, you spend a good 45 minutes watching the characters make tragically stupid decisions that no real person put in the same situation would make. And perhaps the biggest crock of shit about this movie is that Julliane Moore's character CAN FUCKING SEE, yet she allows a bunch of fucked up shit to happen to her and her worthless husband (played by the worthless actor Mark Ruffalo) even though it's completely and utterly within her abilities to stop it from happening because SHE CAN FUCKING SEE and everybody else can't! I know I just dropped some major spoilers there, but believe me, I just did you a favor. Now you don't have to see it.

This is one of those movies where the entire plot rests on the fact that we buy the ludicrousness of the situation as being believable, yet at no point in the entire run time does it even tread close to the land of believability. Yea, the visuals are nice, but not so nice that you couldn't close your eyes and imagine something much cooler in your head. Just bad, bad, bad all around.

Give this some time if you're into: unbelievably angsty emo bullshit

Terminator Salvation (2009)
Action/Post Apocalyptic Sci-Fi; USA
115 mins

2046

Sometimes the best sci-fi is barely sci-fi at all

Here in the good ol’ US of A we’ve come to equate sci-fi with big action, blockbuster summer movies to the point that you really don’t see the genre getting much attention outside of that department. Ever since “Star Wars”, we’ve been accustomed to stories that focus mainly on explosions, alien invasions, special effects-laden chase scenes and lone wolf superheroes that save the galaxy. I can only guess that’s why people seem to scratch their heads when I tell them that my favorite sci-fi movie of the last decade is a Chinese art-house film set in the 1960s called “2046”.

“That’s a sci-fi movie?” people ask me when I recommend it to them and at that point I must admit that no, it’s not strictly sci-fi, but it’s still the best sci-fi movie I’ve seen in a long, long time.

“2046” is a complicated movie on many fronts. First of all, it is a sequel to director Wong Kar-Wai’s earlier film “In The Mood For Love", which itself is a spiritual successor to one of his first films, “Days Of Being Wild". But unlike most sequels, it’s not necessary at all that you see either of these previous films to enjoy “2046”. All you need know is that the main character in “2046”, Chow Mo-wan (Tony Leung) is a genre writer/journalist who used to rent an apartment, #2047, next door to a woman named Su Li-Zhen (Maggie Cheung), who occupied #2046. Both characters were married with spouses that were always away on business and after becoming close friends, they began to believe their spouses were both cheating on them. As a result, the two of them have a very awkward affair in which they never actually consummate their relationship for fear of being guilty of what they accuse their spouses of and then eventually part ways, never fully succumbing to their feelings for each other.

“2046” takes places years after their parting, in swinging 1960s Hong Kong where Chow Mo-Wan is now masking his woes with a flamboyant playboy lifestyle. He spends most of his nights in clubs, drinking booze and chasing a new woman each night.
Now I know what you’re saying – “Chris, this sounds great and all, but where the hell does this get sci-fi?” Well, through all of this, Chow is still a writer and the story he’s crafting in private is set in a far off futuristic world called 2046 (pronounced two-zero-four-six), contrary to the popular belief that the title refers to the film taking place in the year 2046, which isn’t the case.

In Chow’s story, 2046 is a mysterious place where nothing ever changes and so there is never any loss or sadness. Lost souls often travel there to reunite with loved ones and the common trend is that people who go to 2046 rarely return. However, the story’s main character Tak is returning because somehow (that’s not explained in the story), he lost the woman he loved in 2046 and now must take the long, cold train ride back home. If you’ve ever seen Leiji Matsumoto’s classic anime series “Galaxy Express 999" – that’s what this train to/from 2046 reminds me of, though how it works and whether 2046 is a place on Earth or another planet or another dimension is never explicitly stated in the movie.

Throughout the film’s different sections set in the ‘60s, Chow meets many women and encounters many scenarios that remind him of his own experience with Su Li-Zhen in room 2046 and those experiences inspire the story he’s writing. The story is also how he analyzes and processes many of the emotions he’s feeling and tries to make sense of them all. Characters in the story mirror people in Chow’s life and are often portrayed in the story world by people from his real life.

The beauty of “2046” is that it is one of the best portraits of an artist ever committed to film. This is a film that can be read many different ways and given so many meanings, but to me the most brilliant aspect is the way it weaves Chow’s life into the lives of his characters and how he uses those characters as a way to outwardly express things in his life that he himself is incapable of expressing or even understanding fully. In a way, that’s what makes this movie so purely sci-fi, even when it’s not.

Sci-fi is all about being able to dissect and discuss hot-button issues in a safe, removed environment. Since the dawn of the genre, authors have always used the banner of science fiction to address concepts that would otherwise prove too touchy to address head on – racism, sexism, the effects of capitalism, of oppression, pollution, the ethics of science, etc. 2046 is Chow’s way to dissect the hot-button issue in his life, which ultimately keeps coming back to his would-be affair with Su Li-Zhen, how he chose to deal with that event in his life and how that choice has come to dominate much of what was to come for him.

Conceptually, the film is incredibly dense with many of the characters speaking different languages to each other, further representing the artificial walls that divide us from each other and the obstacles that stand between two people and a potential relationship. The story cuts between different periods in time, different cities and different characters who sometimes share traits with other people in Chow’s past that draw him to them. Through it all, the common theme that arises is the idea that people often experience events in their lives that stay with them forever and mold who they become from that point on, whether directly or indirectly, and that attempting to dwell on those moments and live in them forever only invites sorrow, loneliness and pain into one’s life.

Though I’m just as much a sucker for huge CGI explosions and high-octane gobbledygook as the next guy, it’s rare that I discover a movie that delivers that same “wow factor” in the form of good, old fashioned storytelling. To me, the goal of any great sci-fi is to make your mind wander, to make you think about things that you might have never considered and to present things you’ve already considered in a new and amazing light. That’s the feeling I get from “2046”. It makes me think about the nature of human relationships - how we use people for our own needs, how we can stare at something every day of our lives and never actually see what’s there until we experience something seemingly unrelated that makes us reevaluate it. It makes me ponder how we go through our lives re-inflicting ourselves with the same trauma again and again, subconsciously punishing ourselves for the choices we’ve made, the paths we’ve taken, the mistakes we can identify in hindsight.

With all that said, you’ll still probably have to watch this movie two or three times before you really start to get it. There’s a lot to take in and you’ll want to consume it all, which will unfortunately prevent you from really grasping all the film has to offer on the first go.

Visually, this is one of the most beautiful films ever made. Each shot is a work of art, full of vibrant color, deep shadow and intriguing composition thanks to Wong Kar-Wai’s long time collaborator, the brilliant cinematographer Christopher Doyle. Fans of “Blade Runner” will surely be in awe of the mood this movie sets with its visual style alone. The costumes are amazing, the settings feel gritty and stylized all at once and the soundtrack only adds to the spooky, lonesome quality of the character’s personal and fictitious journey.

“2046” is truly an amazing film that reveals more and more with each viewing and though it’s not strictly sci-fi from start to finish, it uses the genre more effectively than most films we deem sci-fi these days. It’s likely that you will have a completely different interpretation of the film than I have, which is something else I love about it. It’s a film that forces you to draw the connections yourself and determine their significance through metaphor or poetry. It’s a challenging movie to grasp, but ultimately a very rewarding one as well. In my book, it’s one of the most profound sci-fi films of all time, worthy of standing next to “Blade Runner” or “2001: A Space Odyssey”…and there ain’t a gun, spaceship or explosion to be found.

Land of the Lost (2009)
Comedy/Sci-Fi; USA
101 mins



I'll say right off the bat that I'm not a Will Ferrell fan. I've got nothing against the guy, but his humor never really strikes a chord with me. That said, I didn't hate "Land of the Lost" at all. It wasn't funny - I probably laughed about 2 or 3 times throughout the whole movie, but I still had an alright time watching it. Don't know if I'd ever bother watching it again because obviously there's not a whole lot of substance to it, but I was really surprised by the overall look of the film. Lots of cool looking surrealistic landscapes and fantastic set designs, the monsters were all cool in that campy costumey kind of way (which worked for me). I went in expecting this movie to be really stupid and it was to an extent, but if I had to rate it on the stoner comedy scale - "White Chicks" being the absolute lowest and "Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle" being instant classic caliber - "Land of the Lost" would fall somewhere in the middle...let's say it's a "Knocked Up" or "Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay".

Give this some time if you're into: Will Ferrell, Judd Apatow's supporting casts, set design, classic sci-fi

Michael Jackson

Did the "King of Pop" spawn an entire generation of sci-fi fans?

---

I’m sure many of you are getting a little sick of all the Michael Jackson coverage – frankly I am too. But the sheer amount of press the King of Pop’s death has attracted is an inevitable byproduct of the loss of someone who has had so much influence over the lives of so many people. Michael Jackson was more than a man, more than a singer – he was a cultural institution.

As sci-fi fans, the loss of MJ also means the loss of quite possibly the geekiest pop star that’s ever walked the Earth. Fantasy, horror, magic and futurism were ever-present throughout Jackson’s career in his videos, his stage performances and his fashion sense. Michael always looked like he just stepped off a space ship from the future, even until the end of his life (though I’d categorize that look more as Galactic Emperor than his usual Han Solo).

The guy single handedly invented the concept of the mega-star pop idol – a concept that has since taken root in many a sci-fi story. He introduced a whole generation to zombies and techno-futurist fashions. He got everybody thinking about walking backwards on the moon. He insured the brilliant John Landis an eternal spot in the collective consciousness. He slept in a pressurized oxygen chamber. He made an epic 3-D space adventure movie that (though cheesy) still looks pretty cool to this day (and inspired Star Trek: TNG’s Borg). In short, the mofo did more than enough for sci-fi to ensure a place in the geek hall of fame…quite possibly a lifetime achievement award, even.

Of course, you can’t talk about Michael Jackson without mentioning the plethora of controversy surrounding him. From the skin thing, to the chimpanzees, to Peter Pan, to little children…there was no shortage of weirdness from the man. But you know what, people? That’s what it’s like when you come from the future – people just don’t get what you’re all about and they eat you alive because of it. I mean, look what happened to David Bowe in “The Man Who Fell To Earth”.

The most important thing to remember about the gossip and controversy is that 99% of it is unfounded and unproven and the other 1% is just a result of him being so damn weird. The oxygen chamber? Whatever, that’s not even that weird – it was cool when it was in “Alien”, but somehow it’s creepy when MJ does it. Bullshit. Bubbles the chimp? That’s not weird, that’s awesome! I would totally have a chimp if I could. I wouldn’t name him Bubbles, by any means, but we’ll chalk that up to taste. Speed Racer had a fuckin’ chimp and people loved that guy. The sexual abuse allegations? If they were true, they’d surely be unforgivable crimes, but come on…the circumstances surrounding both of the cases were more than fishy in terms of the true motivation behind the lawsuits and that’s before we even consider the fact that Jackson doesn’t fit the profile of your typical child rapist whatsoever (acting more like a regressed child himself at times) and that he was never found guilty of any of the accusations.

A lot of people also suggest that Michael Jackson was ashamed of being black and therefore bleached his skin and got plastic surgery to make himself look white. I just don’t buy it. This is the guy who portrayed Egyptian kings as blacks in his “Remember The Time” video (which isn’t exactly the norm), called Tommy Mottola a white devil, almost always cast himself opposite ethnic females in his videos, spearheaded the “We Are The World” campaign for Africa, talked about the white man needing to make a change, sang African chants in his music and donated countless millions to the United Negro College Fund, but somehow he also had such a deep seeded self-hatred that he would counteract all that racial pride he displayed by bleaching his skin in such a drastic and obvious fashion and then blame it on a skin disease in order to cover it up. That makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?

Just leave the poor guy alone and stop doggin’ him around, for fuck’s sake. Yea, he was a goddamn weirdo, but so was Salvador Dali, so was DaVinci…every great artist is a weirdo. How else do you come up with weird shit, if not from your fucking weird-ass brain? You know what else is true of most great artists? They’re overly sensitive individuals with traumatic, troubled pasts who usually end up becoming reclusive drug addicts in order to cope with the fact that they can’t seem to make sense of the blatant contradictions and cruelties of our world. Sound familiar?

My only hope from all of this is that the resurgence of interest in his career will put the spark back in people’s eyes and get them celebrating the uniqueness and forward thinking vision that made Michael Jackson such a massive success in the first place. Michael was never a trend follower – he made his own path. Our culture has become so stagnant these past decades, relying too heavily on nostalgia and reinventing old ideas, that what we need more than ever is a visionary to lead us through and show us the wonder in new ideas. We need someone to blow our minds and show us that anything is possible. If Michael can’t be that guiding light, then hopefully his legacy will inspire others to step up and take his place, blazing their own trails instead of blindly following the ones already trodden.

Much respect to the man who personally opened up my imagination and inspired many of the lofty goals I’ve set for myself in life. R.I.P.

Star Trek

A Naysayer's guide

Some people might call me a “Trekkie”, but I’m far from being a purist or some kind of psycho who can’t stand to see my beloved franchise tainted. I loved “The Next Generation” and “Deep Space Nine” most of all and (feel free to call me a pansy, but) I’ve always been more of a Picard guy than a Kirk guy. There have been episodes I’ve loved and episodes I’ve hated, spin-offs that have worked and spin-offs that have embarrassed the hell out of me - same goes for the movies, and while the latest attempt at a reboot of the franchise certainly has it’s moments, all-in-all, it offers very little other than pretty CGI to the versed Trek fan.

First thing first, despite all the bells and whistles, the swirling camera shots, the lens flares and the Hollywood heartthrobs, this movie is basically “Star Trek: Nemesis” with a few roles reversed. Swap Spock for Picard and Nero for Shinzon and you have basically the same general premise – a maniacal villain that’s been wronged by the vast workings of the universe, but focuses his malice mainly on a Starfleet captain and wants to force said captain to watch as he destroys his home to avenge the wrongs inflicted upon his peoples…or something like that. Even Nero’s costume was pretty much exactly what Shinzon was rocking in Nemesis, with a little less goth-fetish and a little more of an old-timey chimney sweep look going on.

But aside from some plot similarities and the carrying over of characters from the original series, this “reboot” of the franchise is not really Star Trek. I’m not saying that simply because it sucked, but because the fundamental elements that make something Star Trek were absent. To me, Star Trek was never about Captain Kirk or Spock. It was never about Picard or Warf or Data or Janeway. Star Trek is about a universe in which humanity has gone through their absolute lowest point, when all seemed hopeless, and yet they powered through, overcame their petty differences and strove to create not only a world where people could live in peace and prosperity, but a unified universe free of money, greed and the corruption and exploitation that they spawn.

In the Trek universe, nobody gets paid for what they do, they work together for the betterment of society and all their needs are satisfied by technology. There are, of course, varying view points on what constitutes the betterment of society and thus there are conflicts between planets and species, but the Federation is supposed to represent something like the UN, where all are welcome and all are equal under the law. In this new vision of “Trek”, however, that is not the case. If you’re human, then you’re kosher – no worries there – but if you happen to have large eyes that are slightly skewed on your face or if you have a weird buggy look about you, then you can expect a life of second-class citizenship aboard the Enterprise or any other Federation vessel. Verbal abuse, constant belittlement, racial slurs and even physical violence are just some of the friendly obstacles you’ll come up against as a non-human alien in JJ Abrams’ “Trek”. Ethnically diverse background characters don’t have it much better unless, of course, they have some stereotypical cultural trait that can be exploited for gags, such as a funny accent or a background in martial arts.

If you think that Star Trek is about Captain Kirk being a cocky womanizer or Spock being an angsty emo then you’ve completely missed the point. Trek is about the universe itself, not just the characters that populate it.

The problem I have with this movie is that JJ Abrams admittedly has tried to turn “Star Trek” into “Star Wars” and they are just two completely different things. I’m not saying that you can’t bring Trek into the modern age or make it more action packed and accessible, but if you’re doing it at the expense of the true core of the franchise then you’re better off just naming it something else and starting fresh. When Ron Moore rebooted “Battlestar Galactica”, he completely changed the tone of the original, but at it’s essence they were the exact same concepts, just treated with a little more seriousness and realism. There was a real reason to approach that material again and give it the respect it deserved and it resulted in some incredibly groundbreaking writing and filmmaking. I would have been very happy to have the same thing done for “Star Trek”, but in this case it wasn’t necessarily the material that needed revamping, it was just the packaging. The only thing wrong with “Star Trek” was that the average Joe associated it with being a low-life social reject. But instead of taking Star Trek somewhere it had never been before, all they did was recast it, recycle familiar storylines and Michael Bay up the visuals. Did it make it more accessible? Sure. But did it make it better? While “Battlestar” went back and treated Glen Larson’s creation with more respect, Abrams does the opposite – this Trek is much hokier than it ever was before. The best comparison I can make is to the Batman franchise. This Trek is like Joel Schumacher’s take on Batman. It’s what someone who isn’t into comics thinks comics are supposed to be: campy, overly-stylized and aimed at twelve year old boys.

I hate to be this guy, I really do. It’s not that I’m out to piss on everybody’s parade or be that guy that’s always talking shit and never satisfied…I just calls ‘em like I sees ‘em. So please don’t start flooding my inbox with hate mail about how I’m just a lonely virgin who has never left my mother’s basement and therefore couldn’t possibly be qualified to pass judgment on “normal people entertainment”. Now granted, I am a bit of a grizzled old man at heart, but I’ve been known to experience this thing called “fun” every once in awhile. I get it and I’m not against it in principle. But if there’s one thing I absolutely hate is when movies try to blindside me into having “fun” by amping up the tension to a ridiculously over-the-top level, artificially creating situation after situation where the hero(s) must overcome some life or death obstacle or another in rapid succession that serve no purpose other than to take up space between one plot point and the next. It’s what I call “Indiana Jones-ing” a movie. You know, Indie gets to the top of the mountain, but “Oh no!” now he has to cross the dilapidated hanging bridge to the other side, but “Oh no!” the bridge is starting to give way and he uses his whip to grab onto an old tree trunk, but “Oh no!” the tree is coming loose, so he backflips through the air and somehow manages to grab a narrow ledge, but “Oh no!” now the dark-skinned antagonists are shooting flaming arrows at him, how will he ever survive?!?! “Oh my God!” his trusty sidekick jumps in on a motorcycle and saves the day, but “Oh no!” some other pointless thing happens to keep the tension going to distract you from the fact that the only thing that’s really happened in the last 40 minutes is that Indie walked into a temple and grabbed an ancient jeweled thing of some sort.

There’s a lot of that going on in the new “Star Trek”. Something is always happening, whether it adds anything to the story or is suitable for the moment at all and that’s another one of the film’s problems. Was there any purpose to Kirk encountering huge snow monsters on a frozen planet? Other than the fact that someone thought “Star Trek” needed more big monsters, not really. I’m of the school of thought that creating balance and context are the keys to making anything worthwhile. Danger means nothing unless you can compare it to safety, fear means nothing unless it can be contrasted with happiness. In order for something to have an impact, it has to shatter perceptions somehow, but if a film is balls-to-the-walls at every moment and the characters are always facing random dangers at every turn when it finally comes time for the hero(s) to face the real deal, it ceases to have the impact it’s supposed to have because we’ve already been there several hundred times already. The ending of this film suffers from just that problem and as a result feels very anticlimactic. Instead of leaving you with that “wow factor”, it becomes what feels like another in a long list of gags.

And speaking of gags…those were aplenty as well. Slapstick has never really been a huge part of Star Trek, but it’s plastered all over this film, from Kirk hitting his head on a steel beam getting into a space ship or Bones getting accidentally beamed into a sewer pipe, to an extended gag sequence that involves Kirk growing oversized hands and a speech impediment – a scene very reminiscent of Will Smith’s brilliant turn in “Hitch” (sarcasm is hard to inject into the written word, but yea, that was a hefty dose right there). Again, I have no problem with fun in movies if it suits the story or is relevant somehow, but that didn’t feel like the case here. It felt like the creators weren’t confidant in the strength of the material alone and felt the need to cram in any and everything that might keep the viewer from having too much down time to really let any of that material actually set in.

Then, of course, there is the junk science. I’m not going to dwell too much on this because I know only the geekiest of us actually care, but it does need to be pointed out. Number one - total lack of knowledge as to what a “black hole” actually is and how they work. You can’t just drive through the middle of a black hole like it was some kind of giant garage door. Number two – livable planets generally have atmospheres that would prevent someone from say, jumping out of a space ship and free-falling in a straight line down to an orbiting platform. Even if the pressure and friction of the atmosphere didn’t set them ablaze, orbiting structures are not stationary, they’re moving through space at incredibly fast speeds. On top of that, if a structure were low enough in the atmosphere to allow people to take off their helmets and not freeze or suffocate to death during their choreographed sword fights, then suffice it to say it’s probably too low to maintain orbit and keep from being pulled down by the planet’s gravity. And finally – is there sound in space or isn’t there? Make up your damn mind, JJ.

I must admit, I’m being pretty negative towards this movie here, but it did have some redeeming qualities. The aforementioned space jump scene was cool despite the improbability. Visually, the film has a lot of style and “flare” (if you know what I mean). The spacescapes are all beautiful, the ships looked great and many of the shots were framed well to create interesting compositions. If I were reviewing the film based solely on watching the whole thing on mute, then it would undoubtedly get a high ranking and in all honestly, if this hadn’t been labeled a “Star Trek” movie, I probably wouldn’t have many of the complaints that I have. But they decided to make it Star Trek instead of…oh, I don’t know…coming up with something original for once, so here we are.

One of the things I feel is necessary in a case like this is to put things into perspective and say exactly how this film stacks up in the grand scheme of things. It’s not as bad as, say, “The Pacifier and it’s certainly not straight-to-DVD quality. This movie is akin to Michael Bay’s “Transformers” in many ways. The stories to both films are inconsequential compared to the real stars, the effects, the action and the merchandising. Both claimed to be about things they weren’t – “Transformers” was more about high school students than Transformers and “Star Trek” was more about the zany adventures of James T. Kirk and his special destiny (not to be confused with the famed coverband Starbuck & Her Special Destiny) than it was about Star Trek. They both have throwaway pop music soundtracks, which isn’t exactly unexpected from “Transformers” since it is set in the present day, but it really felt out of place in “Star Trek”. As much as I love “Sabotage”, I have a hard time believing that people will still be ubiquitously bumpin’ that jam throughout the ages. I don’t even know all that many people who still have that in regular rotation now. Personally, I’d be interested to hear what kind of fist-pumpers people might be creating in the future, but I understand that such things would be problematic for fast-food chain tie-ins and high-octane TV spots, which we all know is the real point of making this movie.

Most of the time, after a Star Trek movie finishes and I’m walking out of the theater, I’m thinking about something grand, like whether there might be some validity to the Borg’s collective way of living, whether androids really could develop to understand emotions some day, if Spock and Kirk really should have saved those whales or if it was right of the Federation to get involved in such and such conflict on such and such planet, but walking out of the theater after JJ Abrams’ “Star Trek”, the only thing I was thinking about was the quickest route to Jack in the Box to get some curly fries. That about says it right there. It’s eye-candy and mindless distraction, nothing more. So if you’re looking for a “rock ‘em, sock ‘em good time”, a “roller-coaster ride of thrills and spills” or a “dazzling, high-octane whiz-bang of summer movie madness” then by all means, go see “Star Trek” and enjoy the hell out of it. As for me…I’ll be in my room watching “First Contact” and weeping.

Watchmen

Not another damn 'Watchmen' review

---

Like many of you, I was squirming in my seat this weekend trying desperately to make it through the final twenty minutes of "Watchmen" without experiencing complete bladder failure. To me, it says a lot about the quality of a film if I'm willing to risk the embarrassment of self urination because I simply can't bring myself to walk out and possibly miss something awesome.

Part of what made "Watchmen" so successful in my eyes, despite the fact that it’s really long and doesn't flow in the way we've come to expect from conventional filmmaking, was the complete and utter devotion to bringing the world to life. It's something that happens very rarely in the age of quick turnarounds and bare minimum effort, but when it does happen, it's something truly magnificent to behold. Zach Snyder's obsessive desire to do justice to his source material rivals that of the great genre filmmakers of the past. James Cameron and Ridley Scott come to mind when I look at the attention given to even the most minute details of the film and that's a pretty damn good category to be in.

It's really hard to find fault with that kind of dedication. In fact, if I had one major complaint about "Watchmen" it wouldn't have anything to do with the actual film, but rather the fact that it wasn't Zach Snyder's own original creation. I've stated before in previous episodes of Dangerous Days that I have a real problem with the lack of creativity in Hollywood at the moment. The constant reliance on remakes, sequels and adaptations of already successful franchises has spawned a slew of lazy, uninspired pseudo-blockbusters that are generally more successful as trailers than they are as films. In part, the reason these movies fail so frequently is because the people behind them simply don't care all that much either way about the films they're creating. It's about making the returns, not about making a piece of art. But then something like "Watchmen" comes along and does it right and still, I can't help but wonder why we can't see this kind of dedicated filmmaking tied to an original concept.

Before I actually saw the movie, the reviews I'd been reading were all starting to sound strangely familiar. Critics threw out terms like: soulless, boring, long, meandering, all style-no substance...all things that people originally said about Ridley Scott's "Bladerunner" when it first came out. I'm not going to compare the two films because they don't have all that much in common, but from a directorial standpoint, there are many similarities between the obsessive eye behind "Bladerunner" and "Watchmen". I think that like Scott's film, "Watchmen" will gain appreciation when taken out of the popcorn-eating theater context and eventually people will hail it as the great achievement it is when they have the ability to pause and relieve their bladders at will, but can an adaptation of a graphic novel truly reach the level of being deemed a "masterpiece" the way "Bladerunner" has in recent years? Does the fact that it's a very literal translation of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon's comic hold it back from true greatness as a film?

Put the fact that "Bladerunner" is based (albeit a bit loosely) on a Philip K. Dick story to the side for a moment because adapting a book is much different than adapting a graphic novel. With a novel or story, there is only the written word and the imagination to draw from and there is a lot of room for interpretation, but with something like "Watchmen" you're adapting something that could easily act as your film's storyboards - word for word, image for image. Though I truly enjoyed the film, I'm starting to really understand Alan Moore's point of view. The graphic novel already exists and it's great - why do we need to make it a movie? In that respect, the only real purpose it serves is to flex artistic muscles and perhaps act as an extended commercial for the comic to those that might not otherwise find it. The book is a masterpiece, for sure, and the movie recreates the book extremely well, but just because you paint a flawless copy of the “Mona Lisa” doesn’t mean you’re DaVinci.

Looking back at some of my favorite sci-fi films, "Alien" and "Aliens", "Terminator", "The Abyss", "2046", "The Thing"...they all share something in common. Even if they are adaptations or sequels, the worlds they depict exist only in those films. John Carpenter's "The Thing" is of course a remake of "The Thing From Outer Space", but you can't just pop in a copy of the 50s original and get the same effect. If you're itching to watch "Aliens", there is no substitute. You can't just go pick up another movie, even the first one, and expect to get the same experience. They are true films - the experience is fleeting, it sucks you in and when it's over, it's over, never to be regained again except from repeat viewings. With "Watchmen", however, I don't know if that is going to be the case. You can't really separate the film from the comic, which in a way acts to lower the impact of both pieces.

I guess what I’m saying is, we’ve seen Zach Snyder reinvent other people’s art to great effect three times now. He’s proven that he can deliver a solid film if his source material is strong enough, but are we ever going to get a true cinematic masterpiece out of him? He’s obviously got the chops. Will we see his obsessive eye focus on his own pet project or is James Cameron’s “Avatar” the only original piece of American sci-fi filmmaking we can expect to see in the near future? As much as I love Jim and Ridley, it would be nice to see a successor to their throne come out of this new generation of filmmakers so we don’t always have to rely on the old timers to see some worthwhile sci-fi.

Remakes, sequels and reboots

You are Hollywood's bitch and you're too weak to do anything about it

---

Being a science-fiction fan in this day and age is a lot like being on the losing end of an abusive relationship.

Ever since Hollywood discovered that us nerds would gladly open up our wallets on nothing more than a wink and a promise of an epic spaceship battle, or a little bit of alien side-boob, they've been milking us for all we're worth. And we're so eager for the love that we just smile and take it.

They churn out disappointing rehash after disappointing rehash, recycling concepts that Asimov would have considered outdated, thinking that if they just throw in enough explosions or CGI monsters that we won't notice. And the sad thing is that most of the time, we don't.

Our abusers are consistently letting us down, falling short on their lofty promises and yet we always take them back, no matter how severely they've embarrassed us in front of our friends. Why do we do it?

Take "Transformers" as an example. Even if you were never a fan of the cartoons or the toys back in the 1980s, the basic concept of giant, shape-shifting alien robots battling for supremacy itself just sounds so damn good on paper that it's hard to imagine how it could ever go wrong. And indeed, with all the possibilities that arise out of that basic premise, it really should have been a no-brainer.
Yet somehow, Hollywood found a way to widdle all that promise down to nothing. How, you ask? By completely ignoring it to focus instead on the petty relationship problems of a teenage boy and the object of his newly pubescent lust. Don't get me wrong, Megan Fox is a hottie for sure, but given the choice to watch her run around cock-teasing in a skimpy T-shirt or witness a gang of badass robots waging all out war across America, I'd totally go for the epic robot battle.

Hot birds are a dime a dozen, but how often do you see a diesel truck transform into a huge mech and then throw another huge mech into the side of a skyscraper?

So why the hell are we watching these high school students awkwardly trying to put their genitals together when there is robot destruction to be had? High school students are the people I push out of the way to get on the train in the morning, they're the people I have to explain my Carl's Jr. order 15 times before they finally get it. They are not cooler or more interesting than Megatron.

I'm sorry, but in no version of reality would that ever be the case. So why did Shia LaBeouf get more screen time than Optimum Prime? Why was the main character in a movie called "Transformers" not, how do I put this, a Transformer?

But like the reliable punching bags we are, we all still went and saw it, and most of us will even make the same mistake a second time around when the sequel comes out. they show us a flashy trailer of all of the coolest parts of the movie in rapid succession, and we ignorantly think that they've changed, that somehow this time things will be different. And maybe, just maybe, there will be an original script, a fresh perspective, a unique vision at the end of that rainbow.

How long has it been since that happened? I honestly can't remember the last new sci-fi movie I wasn't merely settling for in some way.

Let's take another example, "Alien vs. Predator," Like "Transformers," this one should have been a no-brainer, but somehow the filmmakers made the strange choice along the way to try their hardest to not give the audience what they wanted to see. Not only was the movie rated PG-13 when neither franchise had yet turned out anything less than a hard R, but the battles between the Xenomorphs and the Predators were poorly filmed and wildly unsatisfying.

We went in wanting to see aliens take on predators, and what we got was cartoonish predo-human buddy cop shenanigans and a Tomb Raider-esque pyramid of booby traps.

Regardless of how entertaining these films may or may not have been, they both failed on a fundamental level. They just weren't about what they should have been about for no good reason. If this was a school assignment, they both would have been given F's because they wrote 10-page essays on ancient Egypt when the assignment was to solve a math problem.

The main connection between these two films is that they both rely on non-human characters to tell a story. The writers and producers in Hollywood gave been operating for a very long time under the idea that no audience will be able to enjoy a movie unless they are able to directly relate to the protagonist and thus the "useless story vessel" is born.

The main character in "Transformers" is a teenage boy not because it has anything to do with transforming robots, but because Hollywood just doesn't believe giant CGI robots can carry a movie on their own. The concept that audiences who came out in droves would somehow leave the theater severely disappointed that their Transformers movie didn't focus enough on human issues is completely ludicrous.

Nobody came to see anything but Transformers, so why would they be let down if the story was told from the Autobots perspective? They can talk, they have personalities. What's the problem?

"AvP" is a little different because neither species can communicate in English. But seriously, off the top of my head, I could think of 20 cooler setups for that movie than the one that was delivered. They even had a better concept built right into the movie that they totally slept on -- the ancient Aztecs' first encounter with the Predators. It was right there in the movie and would have been a way cooler story. But instead, they went with the more generic "scientific expedition encounters unbelievable horror" route.

Personally, I think "Apocalypto" meets "Alien" meets "Predator" would have been much more satisfying and much more original, but hey, nobody's paying me to write this crap, so what do I know? All I really know is what I like and what I don't like. I don't like movies that water down their subject matter for the sake of mass appeal.

When will Hollywood open its eyes and realize that people like sci-fi just the way it is? People love "Terminator," they love "Alien." They love Star Wars. But what they don't love is watered down sci-fi that's afraid to commit.

As the victims of constant letdown by the Hollywood system, how can we geeks take back our self respect? How can we break the cycle of abuse?

The answer is fairly simple -- don't believe the hype! Don't let The Man's smooth talking ways seduce you. If they want to get into your pants, make them work for it!

An awesome trailer does not make a good movie. In fact, the more awesome stuff you see in a trailer, the less impressed you should be because it means they're trying to pull the wool over your eyes. If you show up at the midnight screening already wearing the officially licensed T-shirt on your back before you've even seen the first five minutes of the movie, then you're playing right into their hands, and they're going to keep on shafting you time after time. They'll only try what they think they'll be able to get away with.

Support independent filmmakers. With blossoming genre scenes growing out of Korea, Japan, Spain, Mexico, Russia and many other countries, there really is no shortage of alternatives to the big Hollywood blockbusters that have become so stagnant lately. With the cost of special effects and CGI slowly becoming affordable to small production houses, the playing field is being leveled and it's no longer necessary to have a Hollywood budget to get Hollywood-level production values.

A year or two of poor box office turnout might cause the big studios to re-evaluate their game plans, and maybe try a little bit harder to make them worthwhile films.

Predator 2

Now with more Jamaicans!

---

With the country's first African-American president taking office last week, it's easy for most Americans to start getting the idea that racism is dead in this country.

But though our nation is finally ready to let a black man run the country, America still has a hard time with the idea of ethnic heroes being portrayed in our movies, comics, magazines and television shows.

My friends and I have a game, it's called "The Name 10 Black Actors Game." It's fairly simple. There are no rules. You just ask a friend, a co-worker, a random person in a bar, etc. to name 10 working black actors off the top of their head.

I guarantee the first answer will be Denzel Washington, the second answer will be Will Smith and the third answer will maybe be Samuel L. Jackson if they've really got their thinking cap on. The fourth answer may take awhile ... it may not ever come, depending on who you're talking to.

There just aren't that many prominent black actors out there, sure, but more importantly, there aren't that many mainstream movies that want to acknowledge that black people are anything more than sidekicks.

That's why, whenever I get the chance, I pull out my trusty old copy of "Predator 2" and slip it in the DVD player. It's one of the only movies I can think of where the hero of the story, the real hero, is a normal guy that just happens to be black. He doesn't have a snappy retort to everything, he doesn't talk jive, he isn't a caricature of what white people think black men are like - he's just a dude with a shit job in a really fucked up city with some seriously messed up stuff going on around him.

It's refreshing to see in a world where black characters in movies have to basically walk around with a shirt that says "Hey, I'm the Black Guy!" in huge day-glo letters, or where roles have to be re-written for Will Smith by his own private writing team because he couldn't just play any old character - he has to be sassy-talking and street-wise or the world just wouldn't know what to think of him.

Danny Glover got a lot of attention for doing the Lethal Weapon movies because, well, Mel Gibson was standing right there next to him the whole time and people were bound to notice him sooner or later. But that audience didn't follow him over to "Predator 2," which really is a shame because he's great in it. Glover's role obviously wasn't written for a black guy. The filmmakers could have just as easily cast James Caan - his character's name is Mike Harrigan for chrissake - but that's part of what makes this movie such a one of a kind achievement.

The role was written for a white guy, it could have easily been played by a white guy, the movie it was a sequel of starred a white guy and it still went to Danny Glover! Against all odds. When the hell does that happen? Almost never, folks. Almost never. Hollywood Rule No. 5: Never cast a black actor unless absolutely necessary.

But our cultural stereotypes don't stop with race - a lot of people will ignorantly argue that sequels are never as good as the original movies that spawned them. But you know what? A lot of people think Britney Spears is a good singer. A lot of people think George W. Bush was a good president. A lot of people say a lot of shit, but it doesn't make it true.

The reason most sequels fail is because the people involved are just trying to recreate the magic that succeeded for them the first time around. It's an easy pitfall.

Unfortunately, what the filmmakers fail to realize more often than not is that it was probably the uniqueness of the original that was appealing to the fans in the first place. This is just another area where "Predator 2" defies all odds.

"Predator 2" is nothing like "Predator." Sure, the alien is the same, and sure, they're basically both about lone badasses outclassing said alien with nothing but their own bootstraps, but that's pretty much where the similarities die.

First difference: "Predator 2" abandons the jungle for a dystopic future Los Angeles. Second difference: it's basically a sci-fi noir flick, which as a film geek, I love. Third difference: the original "Predator" contains absolutely no Jamaicans, while the sequel - chock full of those rudeboys.

The point is, it would have been super easy to just hire another five or six roided-out beefhead b-list actors, give them some big guns, fly them to the part of L.A. that looks most like a jungle and had a "Predator" sequel knocked out in like ... two weeks, max. But they didn't do that, and I, for one, commend them for not taking the easy route. Instead, they created a whole new setting, a whole new backstory and a whole new set of characters.

They didn't have to, but they did. They broke Hollywood Rule No. 4: Never do more work than is absolutely necessary.

That's not to say this movie is completely, painstakingly original - it does follow a lot of the action movie formulas and lone cop cliches, but I don't have a problem with that. Point me to a movie that isn't cliche in some way and I'll gladly illuminate you as to something you overlooked. But what matters most to me when watching a movie is not whether I've heard someone express a similar sentiment in another movie, but that I can buy what's taking place on screen as being organic to the story being presented.

In this case, yeah, I totally buy it. If I was Lt. Mike Harrigan and this was happening to me, I can't say I'd react any differently than Danny Glover does. I'd be cussing my boss out, going off on my own and trying to get to the bottom of it.

Call me cliche, but that just seems like the logical thing to do. And, you know what? It worked! He caught the bad guy, solved the mystery and put an end to the problem. Can't argue with results.

"Predator 2" will always hold a special place in my heart because even with its cliches, even though it's a sequel, it's still more original than 99 percent of movies being churned out today. It reminds me that you don't always have to go the obvious route to make a great movie. You don't always have to cast the obvious guy that you think audiences will want to see, you don't always have to put forth the bare minimum of effort and you don't always have to beat a dead horse.

The film industry has a lot of crazy, self-imposed notions of what will bring them success. They don't like taking risks, they don't like standing on shaky ground when their money is on the line.

I can certainly understand where they're coming from in that approach, but the problem with that mentality is that it leads us to situations like what we're experiencing today where the same five stars appear in variations of the same five movies over and over again, year after year.

Nobody is creating anything, they're just trying to appropriate something that's already proven successful. Nothing changes.

But look around you. Things are changing in the real world and it's time that our media reflects those changes.

So now that Barack Obama is in the Oval Office, can we please get some color up there on the silver screen? Can we see somebody at least attempt not to follow the beaten path? Please?