Oblivion [2013] = Sci-Fi for Chicks

Look, I'm just going to say it. Oblivion was sci-fi for chicks. 

The story goes like this:
It is 2077 and Jack Harper (Tom Cruise) is a drone repair man. He and his wifey are living at the top of a wicked-cool house above the clouds of earth. Earth, as we know it, has been destroyed after a war against an alien race. Circling the earth is a mahoosive space station apparently harbouring the survivors from earth. The human race is collecting water from our planet, ready to take it to one of the moons of Jupiter. Humans are going to start again.
Massive constructs are sucking up the water from the oceans and the drones protect them. Some aliens have apparently been left behind on earth and keep trying to sabotage the collection of the water. The drones are routinely attacked too, and so Harper must wake up every morning to go find missing drones, fix them up and send them on their merry way.

I have to admit. It's a pretty original premise! I was impressed!

To cut a long story short though, things start to go wrong and those aliens turn out to be humans and well, it's all just a mahoosive conspiracy and well - y'know, you'll find out. I don't want to give it all away.Apparently this film cost around $120 million. $120 MILLION FOLKS! The CGI at times was truly quite wonderful. The movie is full of beautiful mountain scenery, gorgeous canyons, deserts, clouds etc etc. It's a feast for the eyes; but it seems that the director/producers thought that excellent special-effects were going to have us completely oblivious to the holes in the story.

This film is full of plot-holes. When I say full... I mean spilling over with them. It's just shocking. I love good sci-fi, I do. I don't need to understand everything; but come on, the plot-holes were CATASTROPHIC. So glaringly obvious that it started to look like the story-line was rushed.

Credit where credit is due, Tom Cruise was actually pretty amazing. I know, I can't believe I'm saying this too, but it was an excellent performance. If you imagine, 50% of the movie is Cruise alone on screen, I think he carried the movie very gracefully and was believable. Of course it's full of fighting, so for anybody who just likes to see examples of his 'prowess' you'll certainly get your fill in this film.

This movie have all the regular sci-fi movie tropes; aliens, advanced-technologies, action, suspense, clones, conspiracy, action, space-travel, explosions and romance... 
...hold up. Did I say romance? 

And this brings me to why this movie is sci-fi for chicks.
The whole movie... we find out, all rests on a romance story. Yah, and some random love-triangle which lacked believability. It wasn't even believable romance. It was something else. Contrived. Forced. This movie could have been a beautiful homage to hardcore sci-fi fans but instead they decided to stick their middle finger up at true men and women of sci-fi and instead cater for chicks who were going to be dragged to watch the movie by their husbands/boyfriends. It just didn't make sense.

The Matrix, for instance, had a romance-plot, but it wasn't IMPERATIVE to the story, and they certainly didn't seem to decide a third in to the storyline that actually it is memories of lost love that will save the whole human race. The Matrix has a sci-fi romance-plot done right. 

Bah. Disappointing.
This could have been awesome; but it wasn't.

Read More

Re-Watching... E.T. (1982)

Haha! Yes, that's what I did! I totally rewatched E.T. to see if it was as good as I remember it being when I was a kid.

Come on, you all know E.T. right? It's the classic tale of spaceship landing in America... alien getting left behind, boy meets alien, alien creates telepathic link with boy, alien starts dying, boy starts dying too, spaceship comes back, alien goes home. Sounds familiar, right?

This is classic Steven Spielberg. It has a great score, a dynamic cast, an up close and personal movie 'monster' and of course suspense! 

What is mesmerising about this film are the children. Children in this film sit around playing Dungeons and Dragons, their bike rides are exhilarating rather than 'exercise', T.V can hold interest for a few minutes before it's boring, and the outside world is there to be explored and dominated by them. This film is a celebration of childhood even if it did not intend to be. Spielberg is just excellent at shooting children and depicting childhood, Hook (1991) and Jurassic Park (1993) are excellent examples of his craft.  

E.T. gets excellent reviews all round. I know this, and I understand why. It is a coming-of-age tale about an alienated boy and of course the Martian that he comes to love. Spielberg always manages to unite mundanity with the paranormal/otherworldly, he does this in other movies such as The Goonies* (1985), Poltergeist (1982) and Hook.

So the real question is how has it dated? Do I still feel the same way I did when I was little? Unfortunately, no, I don't. In fact there were times where I would go walk-about forgetting that I was even watching a film (no, that's not old age!). When I was little I remember being filled with so much awe, and being terrified in all the right places, but this time round the film felt a little stale. The strangest part is that when I started it, I had honestly  forgotten the majority of the film... after all, I had probably been around six years old when I first watched it. So although I had forgotten much of what would happen, I had not forgotten the score... not a wink. The score is just so amazing.

I can't rate it as high as I would have as a child I'm afraid. I know, I'm being harsh, but even though it's a film that creates such feelings of nostalgia, without it, the film is a little slow for my tastes... and not much really happens. 

Anywho - if you think I'm some crazy crackpot let me know down in the comments section. Of course you are also welcome to scream 'MOVE BLASPHEMY' at me over on Twitter @OrisiB 

Also! Here is a fabulous video of John Williams Creating the Score of E.T.


 

*Please be aware that Spielberg is a director but also a writer. Some of these films he wrote the story or screenplay for rather than directed

Read More

Les Miserables - A Review [Guest Post]

The fabulous Emma from Mab is Mab is our writer today. She's a pretty impressive character with skills ranging from the absurd to the down right brilliant - the most absurd is that she likes to cycle... a lot (of course this also makes her all healthy and stuff too), other skills worth mentioning are her awesome photography skills, writing and shopping skills, she's also a voracious reader, graphic designer and book-blogger extraordinaire; so all in all, her review could be nothing but fabulous. So, without further ado - here is Emma with her review of 2012's Les Miserables!

I am primarily a book blogger, and in no way a film critic, but when the two worlds collide I enter the arena with an open mind. Granted, films rarely amount to, and even more rarely surpass, their literary counterparts in my experience, but Les Miserables is something of an anomaly. It has been retold successfully and adored in many forms. It seems to be universally loved as a story and also an inspiration to many - including one of my favourite authors, Carlos Ruiz Zafon, who uses the book as a plot device in The Shadow Of The Wind; a book I recommend heartily to anyone.

I have read Victor Hugo's masterpiece, and loved every minute of it. I have equally enjoyed the London West End show on more than one occasion, having been lucky enough to witness the faultless Norm Lewis as Javert, and Alfie Boe in his rise to fame. Now, cinema goers have a fully realised film, created with all the lavishness modern technology and CGI allows.

At almost 3 hours long, the film packs in all the songs from the stage alongside the added bonus of brilliant scenery, bringing a depth to the vision of Hugo's 19th century France that the stage cannot. We are also treated to a host of well cast actors. On the face of things Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe are the perfect choices for Valjean and Javert, with their imposing build and rough, tough appearances, and Anne Hathaway embodies the fragile Fontaine beautifully.

Visually, the film is stunning. I actually wish I could have seen it on an even bigger screen so that it could fill my sight entirely. It was just beautiful to look at. I loved the use of long shots and closeups while characters were singing, and especially the decision to have the characters singing straight into the camera lens, breaking the "forth wall". I felt this was a brave thing to do, and disconnected the songs from the rest of the film almost. However, I have a feeling it is a "Marmite" thing. I thought it was particularly well used during "I dreamed a dream" - a song I have heard so often post-Sue-Bo that I felt I would never be able to connect to it ever again. How wrong was I?! Tears rolled down my face as Anne Hathaway broke apart in front of me, and I could not take my eyes away from her.

If anyone has read my blog before, you may be expecting a "but" about now, and right you would be... while moments of this movie soared in triumph, other parts of it never quite left the ground. What bugged me the most about this film was the wasted potential of Russell Crowe and Hugh Jackman. Everything said that these two, in these roles, should have been amazing. The set supported them, the songs were there and the characters were almost written for their acting styles... so what happened?! I sat in anticipation of two particular moments in the entire film: The Confrontation and The Bridge. I was left cold, and in disbelief that these two actors could not deliver the gravitas and tension of their shared scenes. Hey guys, waving a sword at each other does not substitute for a sense of argument in your voice!! I felt like screaming at them to get some balls, GO AT EACH OTHER! These men are not friends! As for the bridge scene... words honestly fail me. Disappointment does not come close. In fact, for anyone thinking I have over-exaggerated these facts, someone has conveniently made you this video to prove I have not: 

 
Onto my next moan then... let's talk about instalove. The dreaded instalove, of the kind favoured by authors of young adult novels with aspirations of Twilight. We find that young people just need a smile from afar to fall hopelessly, heedlessly in absolute I'll-die-without-them LOVE. And here within lies the roles of Marius and Cossette, two of the drippiest, most inconsequential, infuriating characters ever to grace your eyeballs. (The book portrays them a bit better, but this film had me choking on my popcorn). One day, Marius sees a girl smile at him and announces he is in love. If he doesn't find out who she is he might just stop being, goldarnit! Someone find out where she lives!!! Blah blah blah they falsetto at each other in the longest gazing sequence you will ever encounter. Romeo and Juliet "seeing her through the crowd" genius this is not.

I believe the biggest fault in this film was in the apparent process of "putting the stage on the screen, with added book". It seems that the film has forgotten it is cinema in all respects other than in technology enhanced visuals. And yes, it looks good, but when characters are singing little twiddley sentences (which are not songs and never amount to songs) instead of scripted prose, to tell us where they're going or what they're seeing, the film feels its length. I also think this film would have been all the better if there were no songs at all - call me blasphemous if you will! While some cast members do a notable job at telling the story of their lyrics, there is a distinct lack of emotion in some of the weightier numbers. The confrontation lacks urgency, Javert's final song makes his act feel like an overreaction due to a lack of madness and obsession in his delivery and "bring him home" seems like a foolish leap of faith.

Also, the stage version benefits from an interval. Without a reprieve in the film, the audience is plunged 9 years into the future into the laps of school boys plotting a revolution, right after a declaration of revenge on Valjean from Javert. Hang on a minute... what? Students? Who are you? Why do I care? (ie. you don't, no one needs to care about Marius) There is no sense of starting anew, no sense of a "part 2", just kabam! Revolution and barricades! Who will stand? Not bloody me...

So. While I didn't dislike Les Miserables, I didn't exactly hold it in, say, the ranks of Chicago and Phantom of the Opera, both of which were film versions of musicals that brought something new and different to their base material. I also don't think I would recommend Les Mis to anyone who has a vague uncertainty about musicals. The sentences-in-song thing just won't endear them to the concept. 

I do, however, recommend the black and white subtitled version of Les Miserables if any fan of the story wants a cinematic representation. Grittier, dark and with no musical content the story is beautifully told. Go vintage on this one guys, and see the London musical. It's epic.

Many thanks to Emma for the excellent review. If you'd like to read more of Emma - please take a visit over to http://www.mabismab.com you won't regret it! 

Read More

Cowboys & Aliens - A Review

Cowboys & Aliens (2011) has been a movie that has been on my to-watch list for a while. Everything about it is right up my street - a coupling so bizarre but so brilliant that there was no doubt about it being awesome. I'm very sad to say that I was wrong.

It is 1873 and out of the blue a bunch of gold-grubbing aliens have landed... and are attacking and kidnapping civilians. Cowboys and Natives come together to fight against the aliens - and get their people back. 

The premise is quite simply awesome, the effects weren't too bad, and Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford were great together. The main problem was that the plot line was just so weak! It was so disappointing. They could have done something AMAZING with this movie and it just lost its way.

The length was also a problem, as sometimes, the pace was desperately slow and was more about character development, whilst at other times, it was fast and engaging. 

Cowboys and Aliens also committed one of the cardinal sins of movies, at least in my eyes, by showing us the aliens... in depth. I'm quite OCD about not wanting to see movie monsters/ghosts/aliens etc etc. I'm quite Hitchcock-ish that way; I find things a lot scarier when they're obscured by the film makers. And so, the strange, amphibious aliens were a complete let down and the CGI wasn't mind-blowing enough to really enjoy the aliens.

It also starred the very annoying Olivia Wilde. I'm sorry to say it, but really, the film would have been fine if she hadn't been there. Her acting and the character she played was just so 'blah' and unnecessary. Her back story was so predictable and obvious that it was frustrating. Like I said, she really did not need to be there. 

So overall, this was a disappointment. The very title was enough to have me excited and I was totally let down. 
I recommend it to those who like cowboys... and those who like aliens! But, don't watch it hoping to be blown away. I love quirky movies but this was a waste!

Read More