Sci-Fi Cinema – Page 2

Sci-Fi Film Marathon, Saturday 5th July-Sunday 6th July, 2014

I\’ve said several times before that Sundays at our house have become a favourite of mine for sci-fi on TV and DVD, so much so that I\’ve taken to referring to the day as \”Sci-Fi Sunday\”. Well, this weekend was no different, with the local UK Freeview television channels coming up with the goods yet again, airing some excellent sci-fi films over the weekend. The only unusual exception was Channel 5, which most weekends has at least one sci-fi film on, but not this time around (but lots of Disney stuff on today, for anyone who\’s into that kinda thing).

The additional plus this weekend was that Saturday was almost as good as Sunday, for a change. This week it\’s not just \”Sci-Fi Sunday\”, but an entire \”Sci-Fi Weekend\”, during which Film4 hosted no less than four classic sci-fi films, and Channel 4, ITV2 and BBC Three aired one each. Add to that the two sci-fi DVDs that I watched with my friends on Sunday night, and that amounts to quite a sci-fi marathon over two days.

Unfortunately the BBC channels, particularly the two big ones, BBC One and BBC Two, are very poor when it comes to airing any kind of sci-fi, preferring instead to aim for the lowest common denominator and concentrate on an unrelenting garbage diet of soaps, sport and reality TV. I think the BBC considers Doctor Who to be their absolute limit for sci-fi these days, and tough luck if we want anything else. When there\’s no Doctor Who on the BBC channels, there\’s very rarely any sci-fi at all. If it wasn\’t for the news or documentaries, I wouldn\’t watch BBC One or Two at all. The same for BBC Three. Aside from a couple of episodes of Doctor Who on Friday evenings, it\’s complete crap.

Once again, Film4 was the undisputed champ, with two sci-fi films on Saturday, and two more on Sunday. Saturday afternoon started off well, with Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986). Then we did a bit of channel-hopping over to Channel 4 for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009), and then it was back to Film4 again for some Arnie in Conan the Barbarian (1982). Sunday afternoon saw Film4 picking up where they left off on Saturday night, with The Phantom (1996), running straight into Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989). The usual Sunday evening visitors started drifting in by that point, so once the Star Trek V film was over, we switched from TV to DVD, with the first part (of three) of the Sci-Fi Channel\’s excellent Dune mini-series (2000).

Then it was back to the TV for another film. Given what I said earlier about the BBC channels being very bad for sci-fi, I almost died of shock when BBC Three actually aired Tron: Legacy (2010). This was followed soon after on ITV2 by The Matrix Reloaded (2003), the very good second film in the Matrix Trilogy. Finally, and taking us from late Sunday night into early Monday morning, it was another DVD, the much underrated fourth film in the Alien series, Alien: Resurrection (1997). I\’ve heard many people whinge about how bad they think this film is. I disagree with them. I always enjoy it when it is re-run on TV.

I\’m slinking off to bed now at just after 4am, exhausted, but very satisfied after two days of great sci-fi films. Here\’s looking forward to next weekend!

Sci-Fi Cinema (Part 1)

I\’ve always loved all kinds of sci-fi cinema, starting with the \”silent\” movies, and going right up to the big-budget blockbusters of the modern era. It\’s hard to believe that\’s it\’s over a century since the very first sci-fi film was produced. When Georges Méliès unleashed Le Voyage dans la Lune upon the unsuspecting world in 1902, it was the beginning of a new era.

That film may have been very primitive and very short by modern standards, but it was unique, the first movie of its kind. It must\’ve been mind-boggling for the earliest cinema-goers to watch something like this. I reckon that even Méliès, visionary that he was, could never in a million years have dreamed how things would turn out. Imagine the poor man, taken forward in time and sitting in a modern cinema, watching any modern sci-fi blockbuster movie, with all the incredible SFX and pyrotechnics. He would been in complete shock.

From this point on, the film-making skills and technology improved at an incredible rate, through the earliest efforts of the first decade of the twentieth century, including the impressive Frankenstein (1910), produced by Thomas Edison (yes, THAT Edison), through the glory days of silent European cinema during the second decade of the century, in particular German gothic horror cinema, to the 1920s, when we were beginning to see much more sophisticated \”silent\” classics like Willis O\’Brien\’s classic The Lost World (1925) and Fritz Lang\’s epic Metropolis (1927).

Jump forward another decade to the 1930s, the beginning of the era of \”talkies\”, and things had taken a quantum leap forward, improving beyond all recognition. Two of the greatest sci-fi movies of that decade, and two of my personal favourites, were Willis O\’Brien\’s classic King Kong (1933) and Things to Come (1936), directed by William Cameron Menzies, possibly the first two true great sci-fi film classics of the \”talkies\” era. Let\’s not forget that this was also the decade that first gave us the great sci-fi movie serials with heart-stopping cliffhangers at the end of every episode. Starting with Flash Gordon (1936) and its sequels, it mushroomed and spawned an entire industry of movie serials. Kids (and grown-ups) flocked to the cinema every week, to catch up on \”The Next Thrilling Installment…\” of their favourite adventure serial.

The 1930s also saw the start of a new breed of horror films produced by Universal Pictures, beginning with Dracula (1931) and Frankenstein (1931), and stretching out over fifteen years until the movies petered out in the mid-1940s with House of Frankenstein (1944) and House of Dracula (1945). In between those years, there was a wide range of Dracula and Frankenstein sequels and other new additions such as Werewolf of London (1935), the first (relatively unsuccessful) werewolf film, soon joining the fold. The next werewolf film, The Wolf Man (1941), featuring new lead actor Lon Chaney Jr, was much more successful, leading to several sequels (usually co-starring with the other Universal monsters), and culminating in Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943), although he did pop up again in the comedy Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948).

These films made superstars out of B-movie actors Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi and Lon Chaney Jr.. And even though Dracula, Frankenstein and the Wolf Man were the three big stars of the Universal monster movies, there were other classics, such as The Mummy (1932) and its sequels and The Invisible Man (1933) and its sequels. The Universal monster movies were a phenomenon lasting almost two decades through the Thirties and most of the Forties. Actually, they were more like a separate industry within Hollywood itself. I loved those old monster movies. It\’s been far too long since I\’ve watched any of them.

Aside from the Universal monster movies, a few B-grade horror films, some of the daft comedies, and a very few occasional decent flicks such as Dr. Cyclops (1940) and Mighty Joe Young (1949), the 1940s were a barren wasteland for real sci-fi cinema. The Twenties had Metropolis, the Thirties had Things to Come and a plethora of sci-fi movie serials like Flash Gordon (1936), Flash Gordon’s Trip to Mars (1938), Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe (1940), and Buck Rogers (1939). But aside from maybe Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe and King of the Rocket Men (1949), I don\’t think there was anything produced in the Forties that remotely qualifies as real science fiction (heck, even these two barely qualify either).

The Forties was easily the worst decade for science fiction films. I guess that\’s not really surprising, as the entire world was at war for the first half of the decade, and trying to piece things back together again in the second half. Lack of budget during those rough years mitigated against spending money on films with too many technical special effects, plus there was maybe a not-inconsiderable anti-technological, anti-science bias among the movie-going audiences (which is quite normal during wartime). Science fiction on the Big Screen was no longer in vogue. Sure, Hollywood did continue to pump out the films, but there were no real sci-fi classics of note. If I was to write out a list of my favourite classic sci-fi movies of the twentieth century, I think the Forties would be the only decade that I\’d have real trouble finding something that I really liked.

It wouldn\’t be until the start of the 1950s that things would really start to pick up again. And what a decade that was. The first true Golden Age of sci-fi films, in which real science fiction movies (as opposed to horror) started to predominate. But we\’ll leave that until next time.

To Be Continued…

Yet Another \”Sci-Fi Sunday\”

Sundays at our house have become a favourite of mine in recent months, so much so that I\’ve taken to referring to the day as \”Sci-Fi Sunday\”. The reason for this is that the local UK television channels almost always air one or more sci-fi films in the late afternoon and evenings. Then, at night, my friends pay a visit and we always finish off Sundays by watching two, maybe three more sci-fi movies on DVD. Well, yesterday was no different.

Beginning with television, by hopping between two channels, Channel 4 and Channel 5, I managed to find three sci-fi films in a row. We started off with Barry Sonnenfeld\’s fun 1999 steampunk western Wild Wild West, based on the rather strange 1960\’s sci-fi TV series of the same name. It\’s not exactly a masterpiece, but is definitely a fun way to spend a couple of hours.

Next up was Simon Wells\’s 2002 reimagining of George Pal\’s classic 1960 film The Time Machine. I recall when I first watched this one that I wasn\’t very impressed, and considered it a poor remake of the original. But I\’ve mellowed over the years, and the film has definitely grown on me with each subsequent viewing.

Finally, we were treated to a real classic, George Lucas\’s epic 1980 Star Wars sequel, The Empire Strikes Back. As far as I\’m concerned, this one was EASILY the best of the original Star Wars trilogy, by the proverbial country mile. I\’ve seen it dozens of times, and I still enjoy it every single time.

That was it with the sci-fi films from the television channels, but there was still more to come, as the DVDs came out. The 1998 Alex Proyas-directed noir-sci-fi classic Dark City has always been a particular favourite of mine. It\’s moody, atmospheric and simply gorgeous visually. I hadn\’t seen it in quite a while, so it was an absolute pleasure to sit down to this one again. This film was probably the highlight of the evening for me.

Finally, to round off the night, we had the classic 2001 first film of Peter Jackson\’s epic fantasy Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Fellowship of the Ring. This one is a gorgeous Big Screen classic in every way. I really enjoyed all three films in the trilogy, which is the height of irony, as I absolutely hated the books (I dislike Tolkein and that particular brand of fantasy immensely). The films work for me visually, and distill everything that was good in the novels, while cutting out all the endless padding and rambling (in other words, most of the novels). I find it weird that I\’ve always liked fantasy onscreen, but not in books. Very strange indeed.

That\’s a few classic movies and many hours of fun movie-watching for one day (more than the rest of the week combined). Roll on the next \”Sci-Fi Sunday\”!

Some Sunday Evening Movies

Another quiet, relaxing Sunday afternoon/evening, sitting in, just watching sci-fi films on television and DVD. Sunday has become one of my favourite days for films. There\’s almost always something good on for sci-fi fans on a Sunday.

I started off this afternoon watching two-in-a-row on Film4. The first was an \”oldie-but-goody\”, AT THE EARTH\’S CORE, starring Peter Cushing, Doug McClure, and the absolutely gorgeous Caroline Munroe. Based on the classic Edgar Rice Burroughs novel of the same name, the monsters and special effects might (definitely) look a bit hokey compared to modern movies, but it was fun, and not a mess of explosions, fighting and SFX without a story, which is a problem afflicting many modern sci-fi films.

This was followed by CONGO, the first Michael Crichton-based film that I\’ve seen in a while that didn\’t have dinosaurs in it (I\’ve seen lots of re-runs of the various JURASSIC PARK films over the past few months). Not a bad film, even if carnivorous gorillas don\’t seem to have quite the same attraction as lots of raptors or the compulsory Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Finally, on DVD, something a little more modern. I\’m not usually a big fan of films based on computer or consoles games, but I gotta admit that I liked PACIFIC RIM. Firmly based in the Kaiju/giant monster vs giant robots genre, there are lots of great SFX and titanic fight scenes between the various kaijus and men in giant robot suits, but there\’s also a half-decent story, which is a major plus. Another fun film.

Well, the sci-fi films are all done now, and the evening is almost over, so it\’s back to Film4, and DIE HARD 2. All-in-all, a very good evening\’s viewing.

Sunday TV Viewing

I\’m just having a nice, quiet Sunday afternoon here, chillin\’, sitting at my computer and watching some TV. Sunday is always good for sci-fi films on UK television, and today has been no exception.

I\’ve just spent the past few hours watching the movie adaptation of Neil Gaiman\’s Stardust (2007). I\’ve got the novel and the graphic novel, but have only ever managed to catch bits \’n\’ pieces of the film before. Well, I caught it all today, and it wasn\’t bad. Not bad at all. Quite humorous in parts, and less mainstream fantasy than the likes of Lord of the Rings, which suits me fine.

The two leads, Claire Danes and Charlie Cox, as love interests Yvaine and Tristan, were pretty good, as was Mark Strong as the nasty bad guy Prince Septimus. But the best of the lot were Michelle Pfeiffer as the evil witch Lamia, and Robert de Niro as the hilariously camp Captain Shakespeare. He was brilliant, and absolutely stole the show for me.

At the moment, I\’m watching The Incredible Hulk (2008) on ITV2, whilst right now, over on Channel 5, is the very weird Zathura (2005), by the same guys who brought us Jumanji (1995). And that will be followed when it finishes by The Fifth Element (1997). Non-stop sci-fi film goodness, on a lazy Sunday afternoon.

Choices, choices. It\’s a pity that there aren\’t several of me, so that I could watch them all at the same time in different rooms.

Comic Books In The Movies – The Purist Conundrum

I\’m a life-long geek, and, like most other hardcore geeks, I\’m a huge fan not only of comics, but of films based on comics. I really enjoy most modern superhero films, and I\’m obviously also a huge fan of many of the original comics that these films are based on, particularly those based on characters created by Marvel Comics.

However, this love of superheroes in both the comics medium and the cinema poses a major problem for some of those more \”die hard\” fans watching films based on their favourite comics. Hardcore comics fans tend to be extreme purists, who can\’t abide even the slightest changes to their favourite comics and characters. These people are almost impossible to please when it comes to any kind of movie adaption of their favourite comic books.

I myself used to be like that, totally obsessed with films being \”exact reproductions\” of my favourite comics or books, but I\’ve wised up over the years and long ago given up any hope of ever seeing any direct translations from comic books to screen. Nowadays all I hope for is to get a decent, fun film.

I still have a few purist tendencies of my own, especially when it comes to my favourite comics. Hell, I\’m almost guaranteed to moan incessantly about any reboot of one of my old classic comics favourites (the Legion of Super-Heroes being a perfect example), let alone a loosely-based movie version. But, in general, these days I\’ve chilled greatly and now I do tend to be a bit more compromising than many of my more \”fanatical\” brothers and sisters.

I\’m also very lucky in that I have a really strong ability to compartmentalize, which means that I can still sit and enjoy a film, even if I spend most of the time criticizing the changes and omissions compared to the comic. If the film is a good FILM in itself, even if it\’s NOT a good adaption of the original comic, I\’ll probably still like it. Sure, I\’ll nitpick about all the continuity errors and differences, the little (and large) inconsistencies and the seemingly gratuitous and unnecessary changes made to the characters, continuity and story (hell, let\’s be honest, all geeks love to nitpick and complain). But if the film is a fun FILM, I\’ll still give it a thumbs-up.

Unfortunately, most of the hardcore purists are much harder to please. They want nothing but a direct translation of their favourite comics to the big screen, and no changes, however small, to the characters, story, continuity and history of the comic concerned are permitted. Well, listen guys, if that\’s what you expect from Hollywood, then you\’re living in cloud cuckoo land. IT AIN\’T EVER GONNA HAPPEN! Hollywood has always done things their own way, and they use comics and books as a vague basis for their films, rather than doing inch-by-inch faithful adaptions (only the \”classics\” get the premium \”don\’t mess with the story\” treatment, and I\’m not referring to classic comics here either).

Add to this the fact that these films are NOT aimed at hardcore comic book geeks at all, but at a completely different, more general cinema audience, and the reality is that you have to accept that superhero films will be completely different beasts to the original comics, with characters and plot ideas cherry-picked from all over the place, rather than from one story.

There are also a few other practicalities which make faithful adaptions a definite no-no. Comics and film are completely different mediums, and direct translations are often simply not possible. What might look or sound great in a comic might definitely NOT look or sound so good in a live action film. A perfect example of something that doesn\’t work at all in movies is comic book characterization and dialogue. It simply does NOT translate well to film. People just do NOT talk and behave in \”real life\” like they do in superhero comics, and anything like that appearing on film either has to be a crazy pastiche, or a comedy, otherwise it just won\’t work at all.

An even more perfect, and more visual example of this failure to translate across media is superhero costumes – the guys and gals wearing their underclothes on the outside. They look great in comics and animation, but my own strongly held opinion (and I\’m far from being on my own here) is that they almost always look ABSOLUTELY pathetic, stupid and laughable in live action movies. With the exception of a handful of \”iconic\” characters (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Spider-Man and a few others) who should NOT have their costumes messed with under any circumstances (do ya hear that Man of Steel? Damned flyin\’ condom…), it\’s almost always better to get rid of the silly \”men in tights\” costumes in movies if you want to be taken seriously. The X-Men films are a perfect example of how to do it right – those padded leather uniforms looked really slick and functional, and were much, much better onscreen than the original costumes. Wolverine definitely looked a heckuva lot better than he would have if he\’d appeared in the silly yellow or brown costume that he wears in the comics.

But let\’s face it, none of the above comments will sway purists at all. No matter what anybody says or does, the purists will never be happy. There\’s always gonna be someone who has to moan, and there\’s absolutely no pleasing these people. Look, all I have to add (aside from \”Chill, and get a life!\”) is this: if you\’re a die-hard purist, and you absolutely CANNOT abide these movies because they dare to alter some of your sacred comic book texts, then ignore them. Don\’t watch them at all. Go down the pub instead and relax with a nice, cool brewski.

Why put yourselves through all the soaring blood pressure, hair pulling, the swearing and frustration? Why do you continue to go to these films if you know you\’ll hate them so much? Do you enjoy torturing yourselves or what? Or is it that you\’re a bunch of drama queens and just LIKE to complain and kick up a fuss so you can get some attention? Y\’know what? Either judge the film as a FILM, not a comic book, because it ISN\’T a damned comic book, it\’s a M-O-V-I-E, or quit yer endless griping and don\’t bother watching the darned thing in the first place.

Or why don\’t you do something really smart and just go away and read some comic books instead? If you want the Real Thing, then read the real thing. Ignore the films altogether and go out and buy all those lovely trade paperbacks and hardback Marvel Masterworks or DC Archives, and other collections of classic Silver and Bronze Age Marvel and DC comics, and drift off into comic book nirvana. The originals will ALWAYS be out there if you want them.

Whether they were good adaptions of the comics, or not, recent years have given us a raft of truly classic superhero films, including the most recent Avengers film, Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger, X-Men: First Class, The Dark Knight, and Watchmen, among others. There have also been some truly excellent films based on non-superhero comics – the first Hellboy film and the absolutely brilliant Dredd, for example – both of them not only two darned good films, but two of the very best comic book-based films EVER.

If Hollywood keeps dishing out quality comic book films like this, I\’ll be more than happy, as will most fans. And sod the purists.

A Quiet Night In – A Few Good Movies

[I]\’ve been sitting in tonight for a change, having a nice, quiet Friday night viewing session, which certainly makes a change from a night out on the town, or visiting relatives, which is more like my usual Friday night.

At the moment I\’m watching a real gem of a late-night film on television, Gremlins, one of the true classic movies of the 1980s, and still one of the funniest films ever. I\’ve seen it at least twenty times, if not more, and I\’m still sitting here, cackling like an idiot. Just watching the scene right now with the gremlins in the cinema, watching Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, and the little terrors all singing along to \”Hi-ho, hi-ho, it\’s off to work we go.\” Hilarious!

Earlier this evening, I also watched a couple of very nice DVDs, starting off with Jaws, one of the real classic Steven Spielberg movies. Even with the dodgy-looking (by today\’s standards) shark, it\’s still a very scary film, and that atmospheric, frightening music each time the shark was about to make an appearance still sends chills up my spine.

Next up was James Cameron\’s fantastic Aliens, still one of the best bug-hunt sci-fi films ever. As sequels go, this one is a rarity, just as good as the classic Ridley Scott original, despite being a completely different type of movie. Most sequels very rarely live up to the original film.

Three old classic films, and still three of the best. Why the hell can\’t Hollywood make movies like this any more? All in all, a very nice night\’s viewing. I\’m going to bed a happy man tonight.

The cinema\’s just gone BOOM!! blowing up all the gremlins except for Stripe. He\’s a bad little mutha******.

A Quiet Night In – The City of Lost Children (1994)

On my old, long-gone SFreaders.com blog, I used to do short reviews of films and television programs that I\’d just watched. I\’d note down a few on-the-spot points and comments during the film, and put together a short review – just several paragraphs summarizing the comments and impressions I\’d jotted down – while the film was still fresh in my mind, either that same night or the day after. I\’d then post this mini-review to my blog under the heading of \”A Quiet Night In: (Title of Film)\”.

$\"Cover$

Well, I think it\’s long past time that I started reprising \”A Quiet Night In\” again for this blog. I had a nice, quiet night in tonight, and had a great time watching the DVD of a rather strange, yet enjoyable film, The City of Lost Children (1994). This is a fascinating and entertaining French surrealist fantasy from Belgian film-makers Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Marc Caro, the two guys who produced the classic and equally surreal Delicatessan back in 1991, as well as the more mainstream hit movies Alien: Resurrection and Amelie.

The City of Lost Children is a strange, whimsical, dark adult fairytale. Set in a bizarre, twilight, retro steampunk, dystopian cityscape, the story begins with a weird gang who kidnap young kids from a local harbour town, and take them by boat to an offshore oil-rig. This is the futuristic base of evil scientist, Krank, who is afflicted by accelerated ageing, apparently caused because he has lost the ability to dream. Krank believes that he can reverse the ageing process if he can start dreaming again, so he tries to do this by stealing the dreams of the kidnapped children, but all he gets are nightmares, because the kids are terrified of him.

Circus strongman One (played by Ron Perlman) and little orphan girl Miette, search for One\’s little brother, who was kidnapped by the gang at the start of the film. A series of crazy adventures and dangerous encounters with all sorts of weird characters lead to the final psychedelic climax and rescue of the children from the doomed oil rig.

The plot isn\’t exactly logical or based in reality (it is absurdist surrealism, after all), but it\’s great fun, full of crazy technology, imagery, schemes and ideas, and truly grotesque characters. There\’s not just one but TWO mad scientists; we\’ve also got Krank\’s six henchmen, who just happen to be clones (all played by Dominique Pinon) created by the other mad scientist (also played by Pinon); a giant brain floating in an aquarium; evil Siamese twin sisters (the Octopus) who control, Fagin-like, a small gang of runaway children, using them to steal money, jewellry and other valuable items; the weird gang (who kidnap the children), all of whom happen to be totally blind and who can only see with the aid of cybernetic eyes; and trained fleas and rats. Nobody could ever accuse these characters of not being memorable!

It seems that Jeunet and Caro have their own little group of favourite actors that they like to call upon whenever they make new films, and there are a few of these familiar faces in this film. Ron Perlman also starred in Alien: Resurrection, and Dominique Pinon and Jean-Claude Dreyfus were both major characters in Delicatessan several years before.

Dominique Pinon has starred in at least four Jeunet and Caro films that I know of – Alien: Resurrection, Amelie, Delicatessan and The City of Lost Children (as well as other cinematic classics like Betty Blue) – although he is mainly familiar to mainstream audiences because of the first two films.

I\’m a huge fan of \”foreign\” (non-English) films at the best of times, and this is a good one. But I\’d offer a bit of advice – watch the original preferred 2002 French-language DVD release with subtitles, and avoid like the plague the awful English dubbed later releases. The original DVD version is far superior.

Anyone who is tired of the endless, vacuous, formulaic Hollywood action flicks, or if they just enjoy off-beat, surreal fantasies such as Terry Gilliam\’s Brazil, could do a lot worse than try out The City of Lost Children. I certainly enjoyed it immensely.

The City of Lost Children (1994)

$\"Cover$

The Ninth Gate

Just been watching this movie on TV. It\’s a supernatural thriller starring Johnny Depp and Emmanuelle Seigner. Frank Langella and Lena Olin are quite good as the bad guys.

The movie, overall, is quite interesting and watchable, but what the hell was that ending all about? Beats me. Must watch it again sometime, to see if I can figure it out.