Showing posts with label sci-fi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sci-fi. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 07, 2009

Revisit: Altered States



A Warner Brothers film 1980

Directed by Ken Russell

Written by Paddy Chayefsky

A Harvard scientist conducts experiments on himself with a hallucinatory drug and an isolation chamber that may be causing him to regress genetically.



William Hurt makes his film debut in this 1980 sci-fi/horror thriller that poises itself as an intellectual dissertation on consciousness and slowly descends into absurdity by its last act. Directed by British filmmaker Ken Russell, the film meshes video art style with practical makeup and special effects. The film is sort of a cross between Cronenberg's The Fly and something like A Beautiful Mind. At the start it appears to be a drama revolving around post-radical 70's academic elites, but slowly it regresses (quite literally) as Hurt devolves into an ape like creature, and then some.

Russell is often criticized as being overly obsessed with sexuality and the church, and Altered States is no exception. Hurt's scientist is obsessed with restoring his faith and externalizing his past lives, and his hallucinations are often riddled with religious and allegorical imagery, from depictions of hell to himself on the cross. As he genetically retrogrades, the idea of man's progression from nothing becomes literal, and downright bizarre. Russell's direction treats these events so matter-of-factly that it's hard to take serious; the whole thing almost feels facetious, just short of camp. But the film's strangeness is its greatest asset; each twist and turn leads down an unexpected path until the ultimate WTF? climax is revealed.

Of course the films final message is that humanity is the ultimate truth - outside existence is merely a vast, impersonal nothingness. The film really strains to bring this idea to the forefront, and a lot of questions/absurdisms linger at the end. But if you're into so-heady-its-campy sci-fi or simply bizarre films, this one won't disappoint.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Revisit: Transformers



A Dreamworks film 2007

Directed by Michael Bay

Written by Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman

An ancient struggle re-erupts on Earth between two extraterrestrial clans, the heroic Autobots and the evil Decepticons, with a clue to the ultimate power held by a young teenager.



Transformers is a big, loud, dumb movie. That would be fine - I'd expect nothing less, especially from Michael Bay - if it were fun. But it isn't. It's just big, loud, and dumb.

What's wrong with it? Two things, namely: the script, and the action. Writers Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman spend a lot of time dilly-dallying, wasting our time with corny jokes, backstory and general B.S. before getting to the action. When it finally comes, the robots move too quickly, with their 'transformations' so visually complex, that it's difficult to follow. The result: boring boring boring.

How hard is it to make giant robots fun? Get 'em smashing shit and we've got a movie! You would think pairing Michael Bay and giant friggin' robots would be a match made in heaven. Hopefully they up the ante with the sequel, due this summer, cause this first installment was quite the snoozefest.

Revisit: Starman



A Columbia Pictures release 1984

Directed by John Carpenter

Written by Bruce A. Evans & Raynold Gideon

While being pursued by the government, an alien takes the form of a young widow's husband and asks her to drive him from Wisconsin to Arizona.



Jeff Bridges scored an Academy Award nomination for his performance as an otherworldly being adjusting to life on Earth in this film from John Carpenter and producer Michael Douglas (yes, THAT Michael Douglas). Surprisingly, it's the only film ever made by John Carpenter to garner a nomination, and as a result, exists as proof that all you really need to do to get an Oscar is mix some ticks with a stutter and act like a retard. The film itself is fine, if not a little dated - Carpenter handles the romantic stuff surprisingly well, and the story is effective, despite more recent thematic advances in mainstream science fiction. If you're a Carpenter fan in need of another weapon in arguing why Carpenter was one of the masters of genre, Starman makes a great addition to your arsenal. Otherwise, I'd recommend it for a quiet night with the significant other, if they're down with older-type flicks with 80's nostalgia appeal.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Revisit: Fantastic Planet




An Anchor Bay release 1973

Directed by René Laloux

Written by Roland Topor & René Laloux

Based on the novel by Stefan Wul

On a faraway planet where giants rule, tiny humanoids must fight for their lives and their equality.



This surreal animated film was winner of the Special Grand Prix at Cannes in 1973. Decades later it still reigns as one of the premier surrealist animated features. The film lives up to it's title; artist Ronald Topor populates the story with a host of strange creatures and bizarre landscapes. A beauty to behold, the animation and artistry of images is what makes the film work. Without it, it's a bland tale about learning to live in peace with mutual benefit. But do check it out if you're an animation junkie.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Revisit: Lifeforce



A TriStar Pictures release 1985

Directed by Tobe Hooper

Written by Dan O'Bannon & Don Jakoby
Based on the novel by Colin Wilson

A space shuttle mission investigating Halley's Comet brings back a malevolent race of space vampires.



80's horror masters Wes Craven, John Carpenter, George Romero, and Tobe Hooper all enjoyed mixing pop genres with psychoanalytic sex, and Lifeforce is no exception -- in fact, it's entirely built upon that idea. Combining elements from Alien, Night of the Living Dead, and Nosferateu, Lifeforce happily borrows elements from sci-fi to horror and throws a bit of eroticism in the mix to create a silly mess of genre conventions, B-level special effects, and sexual commentary. The Species-like plot follows two British Secret Agents as they try to track down a (very) naked girl-alien-vampire-from-space who's sucking the life out of the unknowing public and turning her victims into bone-dry zombies who crave souls.

Really, this movie is only worth your time if you fall into any of these categories:

1) You're a sucker for mixed horror/sci-fi genre fare or enjoy the lesser known work of famed horror directors.

2) Constantly topless women and an insane amount of B-level special effects (explosions, people turning to dust, zombies, etc.) is your idea of a good time.

Keep an eye open for a young Patrick Stewart, and the fantastically hilarious faces he makes throughout the film.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Revisit: Heavy Metal



A Columbia Pictures release 1981

Directed by Gerald Potterton

Written by Daniel Goldberg & Len Blum, based on the short stories of various authors

A glowing orb terrorizes a young girl with a collection of stories of dark fantasy, eroticism and horror.



A sci-fi snuff film wrapped in colorful kid's clothing, Heavy Metal is about as silly as pulp stories can get. Crossing film noir with science fiction, erotica, action thriller, fantasy and grunt war genres, it's a hodge-podge of adolescent testosterone with a kick ass soundtrack.

The animation is circa 80's Bakshi style, back when studios still believed (somewhat) that there was an adult audience for such things. Crude but colorful, I actually prefer this style to the current CGI kick. I don't think I've seen so much animated sex in my life -- it actually gets kind of awkward -- and a lot of the stories are complete schlock, but it's pretty entertaining nonetheless. No doubt aided by the awesome soundtrack, which features some killer tunes by Black Sabbath, Blue Oyster Cult, Devo, Nazareth, among others.

Interesting production note: Ivan Reitman produced, with Harold Ramis, Eugene Levy & John Candy doing multiple character voices.

Revisit: Ghostbusters



A Columbia Pictures release 1984

Directed by Ivan Reitman

Written by Harold Ramis & Dan Aykroyd

Three unemployed parapsychology professors set up shop as a unique ghost removal service.



Ghostbusters is a classic, but it's always felt like one of those franchises that never really lived up to it's potential. The sequel is basically a rehash of the first, and while the cartoon was entertaining, the animation is barely passable by today's standards. Don't even get me started on Extreme Ghostbusters... extreme my ass.

What surprised me the most in revisiting this film is how paper thin the script is. The movie basically coasts by on the chemistry of its affable lead actors and the silliness of fake technical jargon. The special effects are spotty and the story is lose and ridiculous. But it's still wildly imaginative and entertaining, even after all these years.

Ghostbusters could seriously benefit from a revamp, assuming they don't go all Apatow and cast Seth Rogan and McLovin in it. They could do some crazy ghost effects and the possibilities within the concept are essentially endless. Here's to hoping Bill Murray gets his shit together and decides to don the old power pack for another go.

Monday, November 03, 2008

Revisit: Bad Taste



A WingNut/New Zealand Film Commission release 1987

Written & Directed by Peter Jackson

A crackpot team of agents investigate a group of aliens that chase human flesh for their intergalactic fast-food chain.



Peter Jackson made this film over a series of weekends across four years, starting in 1983. Hard to believe that twenty years later he'd be picking up a trove of Oscars. Continuity errors and goofs abound, but Jackson's distinct sense of humor and visual language finds its footing here. Lots of crazy close-ups and meandering hand-held pans.

The plot is paper-thin and there's a lot of scenes with characters just running through the woods, but Jackson's effects are stellar and the sound design is unbelievable. One of the grossest sounding movies I've ever seen.

If you're a fan of splatter, you've already seen this. Worth a gander if you're a fan of Peter Jackson or just enjoy cheesy horror.

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Review: I Am Legend



A Warner Brothers picture 2007

Directed by Francis Lawrence

Writing credits:
Mark Protosevich (screenplay)
Akiva Goldsman (screenplay)
Richard Matheson (novel)

After a supposed miracle vaccine turns the world's population into undead mutants, one scientist (Will Smith) fights for a cure.



This apocalyptic effects extravaganza suffers from the worst of Hollywood flaws - a poor script. The idea itself is great: a man, perhaps the last alive in the entire world, struggles to find a cure for a devastating vaccine that was supposed to cure cancer. One man alone in the world... think of all the things you could do with that concept! Well, this movie doesn't do anything interesting, and is riddled with plot holes and hokey movie-science.

SPOILERS! WARNING!

Legend sets up some basic facts for the environment and the effects of the virus: 1) Manhattan is completed quarantined, as the bridges were all blown up. 2) The virus is spread both air-borne and through saliva. 3) The creatures effected by the virus show no signs of human behavior, social skills, or human intelligence.

The film then systematically debunks all of these rules through action.

Questions:

If Manhattan has no road access, how do Anna and her son Ethan, Smith's supposed saviors, drive their car onto the island? Where do the deer and lions roaming the streets come from?

How come 1% of the population is immune the virus? Why are some animals effected by the airborne virus, but others are not? At what point did the virus stop curing cancer and start killing people?

The film spends time setting up this arch-nemesis type creature who appears bigger than the other mutant humans and seems to exhibit some basic behavior skills. For example, he runs after the woman creature Smith catches; he sets up a trap for Smith; he leads the creatures in the attack on Smith's fortress. But the script doesn't elaborate on this idea any further, and goes out of its way to suggest that this character is merely a freak anomaly. So what's the point? Likewise, why did Smith kill himself at the end? There's no reason for it - he could have easily tossed the grenade and hid with the woman and things would have turned out the same.

There is also a lot of coincidence and repetition of scenes. Smith's character just so happens to find the cure as the creatures are breaking into his fortress - just like how Anna just so happens to show up right as Smith is about to kill himself. Smith hunts deer at least twice. Why do we need to see this more than once? Why is he hunting deer in the first place? It's not like he needs them for food. Repetition is a tall tell sign of poor screen writing.

The landscape scenes look gorgeous - especially on IMAX - but the creature effects are extremely second rate. They could have easily just dressed up a bunch of people as zombies but for some reason they used this incredibly fake looking CGI.

Millions of people have already seen this movie and it blows my mind that no one has taken the time to just think about what the film presents. Two minutes of meditation on the story reveals that it's a pretty incoherent, illogical pile of crap - not even in a nit-picky sense, but on a basic transitional level. See it on IMAX, if you must see it at all.

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

WTF?



Darth Vadar Hot Air Balloon Takes Fandom to New Heights

I may be a Star Wars dork, but that thing is absurd!

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Barbarella to be Remade?



Casino Royale writers to remake Barbarella



A remake of Barbarella has been in the works for years now; originally Drew Barrymore had expressed interest in reviving the film, and now it seems like the writers from Casino Royale, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, are gonna be tackling the script. Personally, I wish they would leave this film alone - it's one of my favorite sci-fi flicks of all time, a sly mix of camp, eroticism, and absurdity. Part of the reason it works so well is because it's trapped in it's time. You can't recreate the cheesy, psychadelic special effects or recapture the sexuality of Barbarella. A remake would simply imply a sluttier, suped-up version, and that would be terrible. Not too mention that Neal Purvis and Robert Wade don't exactly have the best track record.

They just can't leave anything alone anymore, can they? Oh well. Go out and rent the original with a couple of friends - it makes a great group viewing experience, and is loads of fun. Plus, Jane Fonda is super hot.

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Review: Buffy Sing-A-Long



A Warner Brothers release 2002
Written & Directed by Joss Whedon



I've probably only seen about five episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. While the whole WB teenspolision ravaged the rest of our country's impressionable youth, I lay idle, content watching cartoons. Teen dramas never interested me; they all seemed so superfluous, so forced, so melodramatic. I wanted bright colors and absurdity, not bumbling, awkward adoloescents like myself.

But I have to admit, there's something about the Buffy Sing-A-Long that finally makes me interested to see more. The Sing-A-Long features the musical episode, "One More with Feeling", in which the characters break into song and dance at the will of a musical demon, along with a suprise additional episode and, in the tradition of Rocky Horror, performances and goodie bags filled with tools for audience participation.

If you're too shy to participate or aren't a dedicated Buffy fan, the episode is still worth checking out. It's one of the better musical-based moments made for television. Creator Joss Whedon wrote and composed all the songs, each one catered to the cast and character’s strengths, and even shot it in theatrical widescreen to emulate old Hollywood Cinemascope musicals. The result is a surprisingly effective and fun episode that doesn't disrupt the story arch of the show.

Buffy Sing-A-Long plays once a month at the IFC Center. It's also going on a national tour, so check out the dates here.

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Spielberg: 30 Years of Blockbusters part IV



Special effects play a large role in both War of the Worlds and Jaws. They reinforce the fear of the ‘other’ by revealing its physical characteristics in a spectacular fashion. In the case of War of the Worlds, these effects dominate the screen right from the beginning. From earth-shattering explosions to enormous alien ‘tripods’ to the Martians themselves, Worlds is an onslaught of big budget, state of the art wizardry. In fact, most of the excitement and thrills in War of the Worlds rely on the fantastic visuals. On the other hand, the special effects in Jaws appear sparingly, substituting shark POV shots for the actual beast. Part of this is due to budget restrictions (Jaws cost $10 mil., which even by today’s dollar would be significantly less than Worlds $132 mil.) and part to technical complications; according to Peter Biskind’s book Easy Riders, Raging Bulls mechanical malfunctions forced Spielberg to scale down some of the intense shark scenes he had originally planned (Biskind 265). Regardless, the use special effects mark a severe difference in rhythm between the two films. War of the Worlds moves at breakneck speed, hardly stopping the effects extravaganza, while Jaws is punctuated, building the image of the shark piece by piece until the beast is revealed in the climactic final act.



Ultimately, these posts might come off as a bit biased. They talk a lot about the ways in which Jaws succeeds as a film and War of the Worlds fails. It’s crucial to keep in mind that, in terms of Spielberg’s career, Jaws remains the template for many of his subsequent films. The structural similarities between Jaws and his other movies are certainly present and, after all, Jaws was a tremendous hit, so it would only make sense for Spielberg to retain its mold. Clearly, differences influenced by budget cost, social issues, source text, and technology have effected the ways in which Spielberg makes movies. His increased use of special effects also reflects the current movie market, in which audiences look for new thrills in the form of new technology. However, one element strings all of Spielberg’s works together: excitement.

Monday, February 26, 2007

Spielberg: 30 Years of Blockbusters part III






Politics play a large role in motivating the characters and events that occur in Jaws. Brody’s decision to leave the beach open after the first attack goes against his morals. Rather, he is motivated by pressure from the Mayor, who fears the town will “be on welfare the whole winter” if they close the beach. This results in a second attack involving a young child. However, the Mayor and local business owners yet again force Brody to keep the beach open. By the Forth of July, beach goers refuse to enter the water. An interesting scene unfolds between the Mayor and a local: worried about the fear stricken tourists, the Mayor assertively tells the man, “No one is going in! Please, go in the water!” The Mayor holds significant pull within the town, and though his plea sparks a rush of tourists into the ocean, his denial of the shark also results in another death, and endangers the life of Brody’s son. This vilification of the Mayor presents a post-Watergate assessment of corrupt authority, disdain towards the elected official, and reinforces the approval of the average American.



Politics are present throughout War of the Worlds as well; however, they do not function as character motivation. Rather, Spielberg uses the backdrop of an alien invasion to create a post-911 allegory. Images throughout the film recall the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center: mass destruction of buildings, raining clothing, people in large groups running down city streets, a destructive plane crash, clouds of dust comprised of human remains. In once scene, Ray Ferrier actually gets covered in thick layers of this dust, quite like those who witnessed the real attacks first hand. Later, a fence is erected with photos and memorials, signs searching for missing people, just like the ones established at Ground Zero. Blunt dialogue works to reinforce the post-911 themes as well:

Rachel Ferrier: Is it the terrorists?

Robbie Ferrier: What is it? Is it terrorists?


Perhaps Spielberg is attempting to counter balance the lack of audience alignment with the film’s characters by paralleling the effects of the invasion with 9-11. Following this logic, a sort of direct, “this could happen to you” form of horror similar to that of Jaws could be argued, particularly regarding the progression of imagery. As the characters move outward from city to suburbs to farmland, the violence and carnage of the attacks grows increasingly more graphic. For example, people simply burst into dust when attacked in Jersey City, while bloody dismembered bodies litter the rivers and farmland. This could be interpreted as an attack on the comfort of Middle America, dispelling the misconception that only cities are in danger by showing that even the heartland is not safe from destruction. However, these overt references to 9-11 do not add depth to the story or motivate characters, but rather justify the extravagant special effects that overrun the duration of the film.

Part IV Coming Soon!
Check out the rest of the article!

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Spielberg: 30 Years of Blockbusters part II

Both Jaws and War of the Worlds revolve around the concept of an ‘other’ invading and threatening the American way of life. Spielberg uses this ‘other’ in two ways: 1) to outline a political hierarchy, focusing specifically on the everyman in relation to familial themes, and 2) to generate escalating amounts of excitement with the aid of special effects. Essentially, if one were to boil the Spielberg blockbuster down to a formula, this use of the ‘other’ would stand as the crux of his films. In the case of Jaws and War of the Worlds, it acts as the template for plot design.



Jaws centers on the small beachside community of Amity, a town that relies on summer tourism to create revenue. When a Great White shark threatens the town’s shorelines, Police Chief Martin Brody (Roy Scheider) is faced with a dilemma – pressured to keep the beaches open by local businessmen and politicians, he must decide between jeopardizing public safety or destroying community income. Without ever drawing our attention away from the problem of the shark, Spielberg hints at the generic Americanization of Amity through the use of a non-star cast, subtle visuals and dialogue. Visually, Amity is characterized by white-wash buildings, wooden docks and picket fences. It is no mistaking that one scene takes place in front of a parade, another at town hall. And when we hear locals complain to Chief Brody about “kids’ karate chopping my fence”, “sick vandalism”, and “parking violations”, it only serves to remind us of the nonspecific American setting. Similarly, the destiny of those who ultimately take on the shark reflects Spielberg’s affinity for the average man; Quint (Robert Shaw), the right-winged macho shark hunter, is killed, while Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss), the intellectual left, is impaired, leaving Brody, the everyman cop, to successfully destroy the shark (Biskind 279). Ultimately, this works to effectively produce the true ‘horror’ aspect of the film. Spielberg’s assertion of the main protagonist as the generic everyman creates a direct connection with the spectator. When audiences see the Great White tear apart a young child near the beach, they realize that the people on screen are easily substituted: we place ourselves within the film.



War of the Worlds attempts to establish a similar sense of blue collar ambiguity, but ultimately fails to do so for several reasons. The film begins on the Jersey City docks, introducing protagonist Ray Ferrier (Tom Cruise). Like a modern Fred Flintstone, Ferrier operates a large crane, stacking loading boxes near the water. He looks grungy in a pair of jeans, a flannel shirt, and workman gloves. Dialogue establishes that Ferrier works long hours, and that he belongs to a workers union. This scene lasts about two minutes until a cut shifts to Ferrier’s small ranch style home, where he meets his kids, products of a failed marriage. This is followed by about seven minutes worth of character development which demonstrate that 1) Ray neglects his kids and 2) the kids do not like Ray. Spielberg isn’t working very subtlety here; unlike in Jaws, where the blue collar-ness weaves in and out of the story, War of the Worlds very bluntly places its small-town emphasis right at the beginning, failing to resonate throughout the rest of the film, resulting in a lack of connection between the film’s characters and its audience. In addition, the presence of megastar Tom Cruise detracts from the believability of the story. One of the highest paid actors in the world, Cruise generally portrays upper-class aggressors (Eyes Wide Shut) or pretty boy action heroes (Mission Impossible, Top Gun). With this iconic connection already firmly planted in the audience’s mind, it makes it difficult to see Cruise as a dead beat union worker, negating the effect audience alignment with characters in the film.



Part III Coming Soon!
Check out Spielberg Part I!

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Spielberg: 30 Years of Blockbusters part I



The 1975 release of Steven Spielberg’s Jaws coincided with the arrival of the New Hollywood, a golden age of American film production in which creative power transferred from studio heads to film directors. Despite being a product of this artistic flourish, Jaws represents several milestones in Hollywood business practices. By twisting its now legendary shooting fiascos into hype, saturating theaters through wide release, and expanding promotional advertising beyond traditional print and radio into television – an advertising medium still in its infancy – as well as commercial tie-ins, Universal Studios formed the archetype of blockbuster advertising out of Spielberg’s action/horror hybrid (Schatz 24). The resulting success not only set the precedent for current modes of movie marketing, but launched the career of director Steven Spielberg.

Thirty years later, Spielberg released War of the Worlds, a high octane special effects extravaganza based on the classic novel by H.G. Wells. LikeJaws before it, War of the Worlds served as summer popcorn fare, escapist cinema functioning solely to entertain, excite, and encompass audiences in the wizardry of special effects. Unlike Jaws, however, which was generally praised for being an effective thriller, War of the World met several detractors, dismissing it as one of Spielberg’s lesser films, a soul-less “exploitation of tragic iconography” (Stephen Whitty, Newark Star Ledger). What, if anything, about Spielberg’s cinematic approach differs between these two films? In analyzing the thematic and stylistic content of both Jaws and War of the Worlds, one notices that, though the formula remains the same, subtle disparities make a World of difference .



Before I begin to closely examine these films, it is necessary to explore the circumstances surrounding their individual productions. The production of Jaws revolved around a novice director, a cast of unknowns, and unreliable, untested special effects. Spielberg resisted casting any star power, acquiring actors whom he felt reinforced the realism of the story. According to a quote attributed to Spielberg in Peter Biskind’s Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, he “wanted somewhat anonymous actors to be in it so you would believe this was happening to people like you and me” (Biskind 265). Similarly, Spielberg’s visual aesthetic reinforced this idea of realism. Refusing to work within a studio, production moved to the open sea, where technical problems and production delays pushed the budget well beyond the initial projected $3.5 million. Ultimately, shooting went 104 days over schedule and nearly $7 million over budget (Biskind 267). Alternately, War of the Worlds quick production reflects a confident, assured director. Initially set for a 2007 release date, the film was abruptly green-lit in August 2004, and released summer 2005. Unlike with Jaws, the presence of megastar Tom Cruise was crucial to getting Worlds off the ground. Spielberg shot the film within four months on a gargantuan budget of over $132 million. Pre-publicity for the film focused on the large budget – an August 18th 2004 article on IMDB.com reported “Steven Spielberg's upcoming movie War of the Worlds is poised to make history in Hollywood as the most expensive film ever made - surpassing Titanic's $198 million budget... No expense will be sparred” – as well as the large profit Spielberg, Cruise, and the studios stood to make from the film’s success (imdb.com).

These two radically different productions reflect a director refocusing his priorities despite making similar movies. Spielberg’s budget problems and production delays onJaws rose out of the need to tell the story realistically and effectively. His choice to use unknown actors and real sets reinforced the blue-collar, everyman feel of the movie. Contrarily, Spielberg used budget and star power to the extreme while producing War of the Worlds. He ignored the stigma surrounding actor Tom Cruise, and focused his attention on the extravagance of effects, producing aesthetically different results.



Spielberg Part II Coming Soon!

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Review: Children of Men



A Universal Pictures release 2006
Directed by Alfonso Cuarón
Writing credits:
Alfonso Cuarón (screenplay)
Timothy J. Sexton (screenplay)
David Arata (screenplay)
Mark Fergus (screenplay)
Hawk Ostby (screenplay)
P.D. James (novel The Children of Men)

In 2027, as humankind faces the likelihood of its own extinction, a disillusioned government agent (Clive Owen) agrees to help transport and protect a miraculously pregnant woman (Claire-Hope Ashitey) to a sanctuary at sea where her child's birth may help scientists to save the future of mankind.



Children of Men is easily the best science fiction film of the past year. As director Cuarón's follow up to Harry Potter 3, the film is expertly handled, convincingly portraying a dying world some twenty years into the future. What makes this film work is the use of a 3rd person style hand-held camera - it follows the characters around, immersing the viewer in the world as if they were running with Clive Owen. Quick pans and sweeping camera moves allow for a rich, realized atmosphere that is grounded in realism. That said, the story has some holes and could have been stronger, particularly in terms of characterization. While none of the performances are bad here, the characters simply feel like sci-fi stock. But if you're looking for the cinematic equivalent of a roller coaster ride, this may be as good as it gets.