Skip to content

science fiction

Interstellar * Christopher Nolan (2014)

Just back from seeing “Interstellar”. An impressive film! Perhaps I should better wait a bit before writing the review. On the other hand, why not just when I am still full of it?

At the opening titles I noticed that it took two Nolans two write this story, but the two also worked together on “Memento“, “The Prestige” and two Batman films. What you first hear about the new Nolan is how complex it is. Actually I think it is not more complex than “Inception” and having seen that film a couple of times the story is original, but not hard to follow. “Interstellar” shows an earth of which expiration date has run out and NASA is secretly trying to find a way to save the human kind on another planet. The search involves a worm-hole that seekers are sent through to find an inhabitable planet. The concept of the worm-hole allowed Nolan to play with the concept of time, since the gravity of the worm-hole also affects time. Also time is seen as a dimension and added to this is a fifth dimension.

The first three quarters you will hear a lot of scientific theories about gravity, time, worm-holes, etc. Then in the last quarter the film takes the turn that probably leaves a lot of people clueless. I must say that here the film becomes both brilliantly found, but also rather forced in complexity and not entirely credible. Yet, the story makes a wonderfull circle that may not be completely unexpected, but well done.

There is quite a bit of drama in the film. The cold, scientific facts are balanced heavily by human emotions of the love of a father for his children, the drama of loosing a loved one, lies and the like. There are quite some tear-jerking scenes that actually work.

All in all “Interstellar” is an impressive film and certainly a worthy follow-up for “Inception”. Contrary to “Inception” there is no necessity to see this film on the big screen (however some scenes will look better), but I do recommend to put this title somewhere high up your wish-list when you like space spectacle and especially when you like the work of Christopher Nolan.

Pacific Rim * Guillermo del Toro (2013)

A film of Guillermo del Toto with Ron Perlman, that has got to be something, right? Perlman indeed is great, but his character is in the film rather short. Of Del Toro I can only conclude that this is not his best film. By far…
It is not like “Pacific Rim” is a terrible movie, but here we obviously have a massive production in which a good director aims for the big, American audience. “Pacific Rim” is a scifi spectacle that might have been better without the big bucks.
A century ahead larger than life aliens are taking over the world. They come from the ocean where ‘our side’ of a wormhole is located, which is called “the breech”. In order to defend itself, mankind developped larger than life robots, operated by human beings. Of course these machines are human-formed, quite like the machines that are used in “The Matrix” to defend Zion. Del Toro came up with a highly unlikely way of operating that initially only seems to add some sort of “Inception”-like element to the film, but lateron it looks like he needed this element to explain another twist in the story, but it still makes the way of operating quite silly. The story is as predictable as a drive to work, but fortunately Del Toro managed to sneak in some elements of his own visually and message-wise.
The film is not boring or bad, but might have come from any Hollywood blockbuster director. Now I get a bit of a “Dune” feeling…

Man Of Steel * Zack Snyder (2013)

So this is a Superman film, right? Quite different from what I expected! “Man Of Steel” is actually a pompous scifi spectacle. It looks like it has to be some sort of prequel to the normal Superman films, but Snyder opens all registries to make use of each and every special effect imaginable. From computer animated weird worlds to Matrix-like fighting scenes. We do not see Superman helping people (well, not often), but fighting his adversary.

The result is a pretty much over-the-top science fiction film that may perhaps not be boring (there is little time for that), but has little to do with how we used to watch Superman. A true Hollywood production of our time.

Nineteen Eighty-Four * Michael Radford (1984)

I do not suppose that I read the book (perhaps for school, but I think not), but the story is famous enough that even I understood some of the unexplained details. It looks like I never saw the film either by the way.
I do not suppose I will have to tell you much about the story. In a totalitarian future regime, “the party” tries to brainwash people so that entire society will be the benefit of “the party”. A man and a young woman (consciously I think) rebel by developing an affair. Once caught, the brainwashing takes violent forms.
The film has a rather desparate atmosphere which fits well to the story. The story is in many ways still current, so I can definately recommend my and the next generation to watch it. Of course it all looks quite 1980’ies, but that is (to me) certainly no problem.

The Fly * David Cronenberg (1986)

Of course I have seen “The Fly” several times since it came out. My girlfriend had not so we ended up watching this Cronenberg classic. “The Fly” is not as dark and gloomy as “Videodrome” or “Naked Lunch”, but is it nonetheless a somewhat disturbing and still very actual film about experimental science.
Seth Brundle is a scholar experimenting which his self-designed “telepods”. In one of these “pods” he can have his computer decompose its content, send it to the other pod and put it back together. This works perfectly on dead things, but not immediately on living things. Brundle continues to ‘teach’ his computer until he can also transport living things. Of course he also tries this on himself, but when a fly unseen joins Brundle’s transportation, but result is quite unforseen.
Brundle talking to his computer which displays quite a level of artificial intelligence was pretty scifi in 1986, but in several ways it still is. The fact that for us today not everything is science fiction anymore may be the most disturbing part of the film. Storywise “The Fly” is a bit weird. How comes that the result of Brundle’s experiment develops after the proces has taken place? Of course this development allowed Cronenberg to make his gruesome special effects, combine horror and drama and add continues surprise for the viewer. As a film “The Fly” stands firm. Of course everything looks very 1980’ies, but the drama works, the sex-scenes are steamy, Brundle’s situation continues to appeal and of course, there are some gruely scenes.
Indeed, a classic.

Gravity * Alfonso Cuarón (2013)

However everybody says this film is great, it was not very high on my wishlist. Then there is this new theatre in town that we wanted to check out and “Gravity” seemed like a logical choice (I did not expect to find it in a filmhouse though). Well, “Gravity” is great!
I suppose the big screen adds to the experience and perhaps the 3D did as well, but this film is a magnificent spectacle. Three people are sent to space in a spaceshuttle to add something to the Hubble telescope. One is the doctor Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock), another the seasoned astronaut Matt Kowalski (George Clooney). The first part of the film the viewer is given magnificent images from space and a glance at the hard work without gravity. Things do not go as planned and Stone and Kowalski find themselves in space with only their spacesuits to protect them. Kowalski’s plan is to get to the ISS (International Space Station) to find a way to get back to earth. Of course this is not something they easily accomplish and some drama and action unfolds.
A large part of the film is just you watching Bullock and Clooney, but a considerate part is all about Bullock. With everybody who says the same, I can tell you that inspite me not being a big Bullock fan, she really manages to carry the film and get most of her emotions accross. What is more, inspite of being born in 1964, Bullock looks very good in her out-of-spacesuit-outfit. There are some little annoyances and especially some dramatic elements are overdone, but “Gravity” definately manages to raise the tension to high peaks and brought me a lot of ‘what would I do?’ moments. Story-wise there are a few elements that I am not too sure about they are factual, but however I tagged this film as ‘science fiction’, I think the director probably had ‘science fact’ mind.
Yep, “Gravity” has the grandeur and magnificence of a big Hollywood production, but the tension and emotion of a classic. A great movie indeed.

Thor: The Dark World * Alan Taylor & James Gunn (2013)

Obviously a follow up of the 2011 “Thor” film, but with other directors. Reading back my review of the other “Thor” film, I was not too enthousiastic, but this time I was! I do not know if it was the big screen, the 3D (which did not add all that much, but still) or the alcohol consumed prior to and during the film, the “The Dark World” is a true spectacle. The actors are the same so/and ‘mythological wise’ there is a lot to complain, but there are also nice, subtle mythological references. Besides, since the heathen Gods are victorious, this is a nice way to introduce new folks to the old ways, or…?
This time the dark alfs (leaded by a character with an unnorse name Malekith) try to take advantage of an allignment of the nine worlds. Thor’s earthly girlfriend of the first film stumbled upon the powerfull force called “aether” and Thor has to come and save her. Jane is taken to Asgard where war is waged.
Impressive scifi computer graffics and a lot of spectacle make “The Dark World” an entertaining Hollywood production. Do not get annoyed too much about the mythological inconsistancies, just enjoy the references that are there. Not a must-see, but a good option when you are up for some action spectacle.

The Thing * Matthijs van Heijningen (2011)

It must have been decades since I saw the original film, but I remember the story to be roughly the same. Looking at the IMdB information of both films, I wonder if that is really the case. In the new film there is a young, female scientist taking the lead, while the 1982 version does not mention a female scholar at all. Also the names of the characters differ greatly. The new version has Scandinavian scholars, the original not. Perhaps both films are just based on the same story, the new version not on the old? The story remains known and has been told numerous times. Scholars run into the remains of an alien which appears not to be dead and starts to take the lives of the scientists one by one. The original “Thing” was (as I remember) quite bloody for its time, the new one is not so much if you compare them to films of today. The tension is not always great, but there are a few nice scenes. Of course there is a new level of special effects with a pretty damn weird alien. Just an alright sci-fi.

Sunshine * Danny Boyle (2007)

Boyle goes from good films (“Trainspotting”, “127 Hours”) to boring films such as “Slumdog Millionaire”. “Sunshine” falls in the latter category. “Sunshine” is a blabla moralistic scifi film in which a spaceship is sent to the dying sun in order to blow it up and create a new star. The ship is called “Icarus” so the destiny is clear from the beginning. Of course the crew has to make the choices between their own lives and mankind and changing and debunking their mission for minor purposes. The entire film plays on the spaceship with a small crew which naturally consists of men and women, scientists of different professions. The story contains a bit too many ‘why’s and ‘yeah right’s. Nope, scifi is not really my genre. Boyle does not make “Sunshine” an exception either.

Scanners * David Cronenberg (1981)

An old Cronenberg featuring Patrick “The Prisoner” McGoohan, what more do you want? The “scanners” from the title are people with a psychic abilities. The story reminds of Cronenberg’s more early films “Stereo” and “Crimes Of The Future”. McGoohan is a doctor (Paul Ruth) who is specialised in the scanners and who works for the government. The government had no program for the scanners and thus an underground has been formed. An old acquaintance recruits scanners and those who refuse do not live to tell. Ruth finds the last unrecruited scanner and wants him to infiltrate the underground group. “Scanners” is not as dark and weird as some other of Cronenbergs oldies, but it contains some funny horror elements and an interesting story with a couple of twists that would later become obligatory in modern cinema. Also he managed to film at some futuristic locations and the use of computers is wonderfully dated. Recommended!