It would be naive to assume that Avatar only works because of the technology. There is little doubt that, in this case, the 3D aspect enhances the filmic experience. However, as Michael Bay and George Lucas, and countless others, remind us too often, placing most of the focus of a film on CGI and visual effects while neglecting everything else, can have disastrous consequences.
James Cameron, while not king of the world, is probably one of Hollywood’s princes of perfection. His reputation as a very hard man to please make him a respected, yet also apparently often disliked director who is not afraid to ask for expensive sets to be completely redone in a very short amount of time and for staff members to be dismissed right away if they fail to comply. It is somewhat unfortunate that these types, whether in Hollywood or not, are often rewarded for being unpleasant but the positive side is that it is exactly what makes them difficult that also allows them to create interesting works.

Avatar provides a fairly average story with extremely cliche characters. The acting is nothing special, the soundtrack is over the top, even a bit annoying, and some of the dialogues are ‘cheesy’. So what works? As mentioned earlier, despite the fact that the CGI and visual effects are of the highest caliber, this in itself is usually not enough to carry a film. Cameron has succeeded in creating an overall experience that is so enthralling that the mediocre aspect of some of its parts is forgiven. A bit like Star Wars in 1977, a film which after all was fairly amateurish at times, Avatar immerses us in a very believable world of fantasy, legends and myths. The acting may not make much sense but the details of the world do. It is this meticulously crafted visual and non-visual environment that succeeds in transporting us to a very interesting place for 160 minutes or so.

While i like intelligent, cerebral and artsy cinema, i also love when cinema just entertains and when it does it well. Avatar has sucked all that it could from the little book of entertaining cinema and offers perhaps the best visual effects ever created on film. But more importantly, it works thanks to the clarity of an artistic vision and thanks to the perfectionism of James Cameron.

Some films continue to be made as they were meant to, that is, within an artistic and philosophical framework and mindset. Some others are developed as products, with profit and entertainment as the main objective. Clearly some artistic films can be entertaining but rarely is a ‘product’ film very artistic or philosophical.

When Robert Wise directed Star Trek: The Motion Picture in 1979, the blockbuster was only a few years old and auteur films were still prominent. Wise’s effort remains today one of the most serious undertakings at meaningful, earnest and reputable Sci-Fi. 30 years later, one of Hollywood’s hottest properties, J.J. Abrams, has tried to bring his magic touch to your parents’ favourite space saga. Undoubtebly inspired by the success of rejuvenated James Bond and Batman, the producers of Star Trek felt that it was time for the franchise to become more ‘modern’ and to draw on current cinematic trends and on overall changes in cinematic tastes

As I discussed this latest instalment of Star Trek with a colleague who had really enjoyed the film, I struggled to articulate why a movie filled with quality action, decent acting, top-notch visual effects and with an overall obvious respect for the franchise and what it represents, could have left me so disappointed. But it became clear to me after a while that the reason was simple: this film was developed as a product, and not as a piece of art. As such, it felt convenient, easy, and at times superficial and fluffy. It was made of pre-existing parts that one can assemble together to shape the product. Now, it must be said, Hollywood can produce both good and bad products and this Star Trek happens to be a good product, a well-crafted one built by experts. But it is a product nonetheless. A product for entertainment purposes, for immediate consumption and limited cognitive depth. The creativity goes into the action sequences and the special effects but is barely present in the script and in the overall storyline. There is nothing fresh about time travel and parallel universes, at least not in the way it was presented to us in this film. And as a friend of mine pointed out, there was little creativity in coming up with an interesting enemy or nemesis. Let’s just put a bit of make up on Bana’s face and have him snarl at the camera.

A few sequences made me whinge, as when Spock saves the members of his family who looked like they were having tea and cookies nonchalentely while their planet crumbled around them. Thank god Spock showed them how to exit their own cave or else it appears that they would have gone on with whatever it is they were doing before Spock barged in. And then there is the whole sequence about old Spock meeting Kirk miraculously in some cave. Somehow Spock happens to have a torch to repel the monster that had been chasing Kirk through the snow (Empire Strikes Back anyone?). Spock also knows about the outpost next door where they find, you guessed it, beam me up Scotty. So that’s how it all happened. Just like that. People who liked the film will say that it had to be all explained and that Abrams did just that. But i will say that it should not have been all explained, not if it means having to stich sequences together in a way that feels forced and artificial. Indeed, Abrams explained it all and he still managed to provide 120 minutes of jokes and action. I say, something had to give.

Star Trek is far from being a bad film, and i might even watch it again some day. It is definitively better than many films i have reviewed on this blog. Yet, it is also quite inferior to recent Sci-Fi efforts such as Watchmen or The Dark Knight or even to the Battlestar Galactica series

I can’t claim to have the pulse of the younger generation but i sincerely hope that Push has not been received too warmly by teenage girls in awe of Chris Evans or by teenage boys who may find the thought of watching Dakota Fanning walking for 90 mins around Hong Kong with a very short skirt on appealing. I am actually wondering if reaching for the teenage market was in fact the intention of the director, Paul McGuigan, or if it just seems this way due to the mediocrity of this film.

Push is one of those movies that is so bad that one can’t help but to wonder how it was even greenlighted in the first place. One can also legitimately ask how a director who, although far from being considered good, has managed to make a couple of not-too-terrible films, can so easily spiral out of control into an abyss of cliches, predictability and, well, stupidity…It is as if his entire carreer had just been erased and he was back in film school, trying to make the cool film that everyone will be impressed with. Except that, because he is a mediocre student, his film is the last thing from cool and instead is filled with atrocious acting, silly and amateurish editing and obvious and poorly chosen music.

Because the subject matter of paranormal abilities is burried so deep below several layers of trash, there is no opportunity to even discuss it in the context of this film.

As a critic, i know my limitations. That is, i must remain aware that directors create something and that critics do little other than praise or bash what has been created already. I respect the act of creation (and of creativity) and i keep it in mind at all times when i appraise a film. However, there are times when even this awareness is not enough to keep me from thinking that with the same resources and with a short training, i could have done better.

Benjamin Button is a weak entry in the otherwise very impressive resume of David Fincher. The man who built his well-deserved reputation with edgy, post-modern and existential thrillers decided to go the epic love story direction and ended up suffocating us in a bath of sucrose for almost three hours.

Every year, the Academy Awards surprise us by nominating and even awarding mediocre films for reasons that have more to do with politics than with quality. While i have yet to see Frost/Nixon and The Reader, i can already say that Benjamin Button had no place being nominated this year for best film.

The Curious Case tells the story of a man who ages in reverse. A beautiful and interesting concept (the film is based on a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald), which Fincher unfortunately fails to turn into a consistent and solid experience. Some moments are touching, mainly when BB is either very old or very young, but everything in between (when Brad Pitt is being Brad Pitt) is filled with cliches, strange editing, poor acting and just feels amateurish and predictable. Fincher tried something new but stretched himself too far. In addition, the film’s length could have been cut by at least one hour and no substance would have been missed. On the contrary, it would have made the film stronger. Directors should only go for epic length if they are 100% sure they can fill it with quality, and not with cliches and cheap sentimental rubbish. For example, skip all that Forest Gump stuff with the mad captain as well as most of the scenes between Blanchett and Ormond. These scenes were excruciatinlgy bad and tiresome: how many times have we seen this set up before, the old woman telling her story to her mystified daughter and who miraculously manages to hang on until the last sentence has been read?

As i have stated before, i enjoy Brad Pitt when he plays a certain kind of role. But BB is not one of these. Here, he is back to his stoic worse, the type of performance we have seen from him in Meet Joe Black and Seven Years in Tibet. Cate Blanchett looks a bit confused throughout the film and her voice as an old woman was so grueling to listen to that i knew from the start i was going to have problems with this film. Tilda Swinton and Faune Chambers, on the other hand, provide welcomed moments of relief.

Perhaps The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is not as bad as i make it sound. It is afterall somewhat entertaining, the cinematography deserves a nod, as do the Make-Up and Costumes. And perhaps i am letting my disappoinment with Fincher get in the way of a fair appraisal of the fillm. But when even my wife, who is much more of a sucker for these types of films than i am, finds faults with it, then at least one thing is clear: this is not the Oscar-worthy film that some have talked about.

For your viewing pleasure, a fun short from the masters at Pixar …

Georges Melies is considered the father of visual effects, and quite understandably so. Le Voyage a Travers L’Impossible, like Melies’ more famous Le Voyage dans la Lune (1902), is a fascinating use of a medium that was only a few years old at the time.

I can only marvel at Melies’ creativity and courage for taking the moving image out of what must have been a pretty conservative context and for turning it so quickly into a canvas for storytelling, visual experimentation and imaginative ideas. Based on a Jules Verne story, this film may not make much sense by today’s standards and can feel a bit hurried (Melies directed over 500 ‘films’ in his short career) but it deserves our admiration nonetheless.

I suppose it is only natural to dismiss documentaries such as Zeitgeist for being overly sensensionalistic, deceitful and for making the viewer feel powerless in the face of such potential truths. Most ‘official’ critiques that I have read regarding Zeitgeist speak only of fear-mongering and distortion of truth, but very few, if any at all, speak about the implications that are raised were any of what Zeitgeist discusses to be true. These implications are so far-reaching and mind boggling that it is indeed far easier and much more ‘rational’ to just dismiss them as conspiracy theory nonsense and to move on with one’s life.

Like the hamsters on a wheel portrayed in the documentary, we live our lives based on a set of assumptions that we accept as facts. These help us keep a certain stability and they allow us to make sense of the world. We are permitted some level of questioning and we can move the boundaries of these assumptions in various degrees, depending on one’s inclinations towards rebellion, anarchism and non-conformism. But questioning the foundations themselves upon which our definition of truth and reality is based, that is the stuff that most ‘normal’ people will usually associate with the delusional and less intelligent other.

Through my work and interests over the past 3 years, I have begun a process of questioning the reality in which I have been living most of my life. What if most of what I knew about health, agriculture, politics and finance was a lie, a mirage placed upon me to serve the purpose of a few with delusions of world domination and whose main interest it is to profit and to control?

With such thoughts regularly on my mind, it is no wonder that I found Zeitgeist fascinating and powerful enough to make me think: why not? Why isn’t it possible for example, that, for the past 100 years or so, a few very powerful people (Illuminati anyone?) have been trying to control world financial markets and foreign regimes and have even started wars and engaged in terrorist attacks on their own people, in order to obtain more power, control and money? Could it be that the financial system that regulates our planet is based on lies and fraud, a master plan to enslave and impoverish the large majority of the people of this world? Was Christianity created by the Emperor Constantin for the sole purpose of keeping social order, turning in the process what had been so far only recycled myths and traditions into the divisive doctrine that it is today? Are wars started with financial gain in mind? Is what we were led to believe about 9/11 really the truth?

Most of the content in Zeitgeist is not new. Bits and pieces can be found on the net and in various documentaries such as Loose Change, Why We Fight (2005), The War Profiteers (2006), The Corporation (2003), and America: From Freedom to Fascism (2006). What Zeitgeist does is bring all this content together in a way that is compelling and clear. I am not knowledgeable enough about these issues to determine how much the truth has been distorted and how one-sided some of the arguments in the documentary are. It is clear that Peter Jospeh, the filmmaker, is presenting us with his views of things and that in the process he is omitting a lot of valuable counter points. Yet, what is most important here i believe is to keep an open mind and to ask one’s self: what if? What if all of this or much of this content is true? What does it mean for the human race and what does it mean for you as a person? Will you just ignore these possibilities and continue as is or will you start to question and, for some, to act?

Winner of the Grand Prix at the 2007 Montreal film festival, this directorial debut by Nic Balthazar deserves credit for creating an interesting experience for about 80% of the duration of the movie. Unfortunately, he throws it all away at the end with a cheesy feel-good ending that feels very poorly handled.

BenX is the story of a young man who suffers from Asperger Syndrome, a milder form of autism. Bullied at school, unable to ‘blend in’ and to socially relate to his peers, his principal means of interacting, and really, of existing, is by immersing himself into the game Archlord (Overlord) where he becomes the character BenX and where he has the freedom to do what he can not do in ‘traditional’ reality. Although he has a good friend in the world of Overlord (Scarlite), his increasing inability to deal with life prompts him to contemplate ways of commiting suicide.

BenX is not a small challenge for a first time director. Taking on autism, school bullying, teenage angst, and the influence of the internet and of video games on our lives and on how we interact with each other, is indeed a tall ordeal. Balthazar manages pretty well on the whole, although his sometimes hectic cuts and camera movements can feel overly eager and ambitious. The acting is solid enough but nothing more. And the script holds together decently until the last part of the film, at which point it falls apart in ambuiguity and clumsiness. Overall, a respectable film that nonetheless still feels too often like a first time effort.

I recently read about Luc Besson’s growing empire and felt a bit disheartened about the rise of French-sponsored trash and brainless cinema. So what do i do? I go and watch Taken, the latest film from Besson’s Europacorp, hoping perhaps to confirm my worst fears, but also curious about Liam Neeson, an actor i respect, playing the tough guy who stops at nothing to find his kidnapped daughter.

And the result was not overly disappointing. Less fluffly than Ransom (1996) but not as decent as Frantic (1988). Neeson makes for a credible ex-secret service (or something like that) guy who is well-versed into the art of finding foreign baddies and killing them swiftly. Taken has a violent and direct intensity that brings the last two James Bond films to mind, and it could be said that Liam Neeson would make a good older version of Bond. He ends up carrying the film and allows it to become a somewhat enjoyable experience.

Taken doesn’t fly very high but it is not made to. It is cheap cinema (literally, since one of the ways Europacorp is making a profit by keeping budgets low) aimed at a specific audience. If this sounds like Business Class 101, it’s because it is. Increase profits, keep costs low, go after a target market, spend heavily on marketing…cinema has always been a business for studios in countries where the government offers little or no subsidies. This state of affairs only becomes a serious problem when the art component of cinema is completely left out of the equation and when films become synonymous with commodity and production. Which is clearly what Europacorp is doing and that is indeed regrettable.

Novels are notoriously difficult to adapt successfully to the screen. It is not so much a question of whether the visual language of cinema can tell more or less than the written word but rather that it does it in a different way, touching on different connection points to our emotions and intellect. Most people who have read a novel and watched a film based on that novel end up usually disappointed as there is little chance that a film will be able to entirely re-create the world that the written word can sometimes open to us. But great appreciators of cinema will know when the writer and director of a film have succeeded in utilizing the power of the moving image to best interpret and render the essence of a novel. Not necessarily to literraly and faithfully adapt it, but to transport the meaning, intention and atmosphere in the best possible way, based on the possiblities of the cinematic medium.

That is not to say that all novels can be turned into films, nor that it should always be attempted. Especially when the essence of a novel is closely dependent on a very particular style of prose (little punctuation and lack of quotation marks around dialogue) and when the author (a Nobel prize winner) specifically removes many traditional frames of references such as character names and cultural and geographical points of idendification to enhance the power of his message. In short, Fernando Meirelles should probably not have attempted to turn José Saramago’s influencial novel into a film.

Blindness tells the story of how humanity suddenly loses its sight. One by one, the nameless residents of an unnamed city become blind and must learn to live with one another under extreme conditions of chaos and lawlesness (and of course, of blindness). One woman, played with usual consistency and intensity by Julianne Moore, retains her sight and is confronted with the question of what it means to be the one who sees in the kingdom of the blind.

Watching as many movies as i do means that i get exposed to a lot of different styles and cinematic experiences. And through my emphasis on ‘Sci-Fi’, i get my fair share of the disturbing and the unnerving. But that did not prepare me for how tough of a film Blindness is. I found the film so disturbing, and unfortunately at times, so cheaply disturbing, that i had to stop halfway through it to take a break. Saramago and Meirelles illustrate our collective spiritual blindness and lack of empathy by using examples of the absolute worst evil that Man can do. For about one hour, we are subjected to scenes of human degradation that reach a level of such intensity that one can’t help but wonder if the point couldn’t have been made equally as well without resorting to such extremes. I personally found some of the scenes insulting and even perverted.

Yet, there is something haunting about Blindness, something that stayed with me long after the film was over. No longer anger but rather fascination and curiosity towards a message which, although cruel, offers a glimmer of hope and presents the possibility that we as humans have a choice, the choice to learn how to live with one another and to create a better world for all.

A regular topic on this blog is that of bad versus good trash. What makes, for example, Eagle Eye (2008) and The Day the Earth Stool Still (2008) bad trash and what makes Wanted good trash? Why are the cliches acceptable in the later but not in the first two? Even though there are many reasons why a film can be bad, there is however usually one overarching common reason: bad trash films tend to take themselves seriously and try to reach emotional and intellectual heights that are far beyond what they can achieve based on the resources available (such as skills and intelligence of the director and actors and quality of the screenplay). There is nothing more annoying than directors who have no understanding of their abilities and who end up inserting childish and immature emotional and philosophical nonsense in their action flicks.
Good trash, on the other hand, tends to know its limitations and has the intelligence to try not to pretend that it can be more than what it actually is.

Thus, Wanted does not attempt to tell us about emotions or human frailty or love or what makes the world go round or this or that. Wanted just wants to entertain through action, dark humour and visual effects. It makes no apology for what it is and it does not try to marry this action with any kind of depth; it is what i would call good and honest superficial entertainment.

One feels several influences in this film about an average young man (played perfectly by James McAvoy) who learns that he is the son of an assassin, himself a member of a secret guild that dates back hundreds of years. Part of the overall concept and many of the action scenes are reminiscent of The Matrix (1999), some of the gun-fighting sequences bring Equilibrium (2002) to mind and one can detect attempts here and there at a bit of a Flight Club (1999) pace and feel. Other action flicks will undoubtedly be mentioned in connection with Wanted, but in the end, Timur Bekmambetov who previously directed Night Watch (2004), manages to come up with enough visual candy, good acting, great action sequences and just the right amount of dark humour to make Wanted a fun experience.

Perhaps they should have added a disclaimer that no rats were harmed during the filming of this movie…

Utterly pointless and excruciatingly bad.

Along with Christopher Nolan, Sam Mendes must be the most talented English director to have emerged on the Hollywood scene in the past 10 years. When he is not directing for the stage, Mendes is busy coming up with thought-provoking and beautiful films such as American Beauty (1999), Road to Perdition (2002), Jarhead (2005) and now Revolutionary Road.

This latest one is perhaps Mendes’s most accomplished film to date, although its intensity and lack of warmer characters may prevent it from ending on many critics’ top ten lists. It has certainly not been that warmly received by the general public, probably due to its disconcerting tension and forcefulness. It is also likely that many people might have found a bit too much of themselves in the Wheelers, this couple that self destructs under the weight of unfulfilled dreams.

If American Beauty may have seemed a bit tame at times in its depiction of a conservative middle class mentality, placing accessibility before depth, Revolutionary Road tries its best to detach itself from any such notion by creating a bleak and uncompromising film that just keeps hitting you in the stomach until it really hurts. DiCaprio and Winslet (Winslet won several awards for this role) are terrific, a younger version of Burton and Taylor in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966). Although a very different couple from the one played by Burton and Taylor, DiCaprio and Winslet work so well of each other that their passion and agony become ours. The characters they play may not be the most likeable human beings but that certainly did not keep me from understanding them and from identifying with some of their desires and fears. I suspect many people of a certain age will find a little bit of themselves in what the Wheelers go through, and if that is not the case, then these people are either very lucky, uninterested or too afraid to look too deeply into their own life. Clearly, none of these three things is conducive to appreciating this great movie.

Revolutionary Road should have been nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. It is a tragic and depressing film, beautifully told and remarkably well-made. It is not for everyone’s taste but it is powerful cinema.

If you enjoy the format of Michael Moore’s documentaries, then you will certainly appreciate Religulous, Bill Maher and Larry Charles’ (who directed the incredibly funny Borat (2006)) take on the state of religion in today’s society.

If on the other hand, you tend to idolize documentary filmmakers such as Marcel Ophüls, Errol Morris, or Jean Rouch, it is then likely that the selective and superficial approach that Charles and Maher use to portray everyone they meet as dumb and confused will not leave you impressed.

While i am a little put off by Moore and Charles’ techniques, i find their documentaries nonetheless extremely entertaining. I can see clearly how they manipulate and edit out everything that does not serve their purpose, thereby providing a very black and white view of the topic, and a part of me condemns this as easy and one-dimensional filmmaking. I also think that this strategy is clearly not ideal if one wants to try to convince ‘the other side’ or simply to try to broaden their horizons a bit. In fact, it seems that these types of documentaries mainly preach to the choir. But another part of me also enjoys these cheap manipulations of these people who i so strongly disagree with. A low emotion perhaps, a shadenfreude-type pleasure at seeing bigots be put on the spot, which is perhaps the best we can get since in most cases we will not be able to change their perception of reality.

Bill Maher is not known for mincing his words and he certainly lets loose nicely in Religulous, bombarding incredulous believers with facts that that should make anyone think twice about everything they may have ever been thought or may have ever believed about religion. Religion may have some positives, but when one looks at history and at the state of our society today, it is difficult to see the benefits of a world being ruled by religion. Wherever one turns, there is the intolerance and the prejudice of religion being forced onto others. Whether after watching Gus Van Sant’s fabulous Milk (2008) and being reminded that so many people consider their fellow human beings abnormal because of their sexual preference, or after reading the story of how the Vatican and that clown Berlusconi tried to stop a mother and a father from letting their daughter die after she spent the last 17 years in a coma, it is so unfortunately clear that religion is not making the world a better place and it is not helping people love one another.

Would a world without religion be better? I can’t say that i know for sure, but we have tried religion already and it’s not working. So, why don’t we try something new?

Outlander is an expensive B-movie that tries to be more than that. It fails at it but does not feel overly arrogant while trying. That is not to say that it constantly deals with its subject matter in an effective way but it seems to be satisfied with targeting a certain audience and to provide this audience with as solid of an experience as possible. Of course, when it comes to a story about a man from the future crash landing in 8th century Norway, there is plenty of room for subjectivity in how one appraises the merits of such a film.

What makes Outlander better trash than for example Eagle Eye (2008) or The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008) is that it does not pretend to know how to deal with big philosophical questions and it does not tie its story to the ‘real’. By releasing itself from the shackles of reality, that is, by taking place in a fantasy world, Outlander does not have to meet the stricter believability standards of films that relate to our modern society.

That being said, Outlander is still a very average film. Instead of aiming for the level of The Navigator (1988), or even better, for the level of Planet of the Apes (1968), the best time travel movie ever made, the movie turns into some kind of Predator-type monster flick with weak undertones of Excalibur (1981), a Beowulf (2007) that can not use animation as an excuse for its weaknesses. A strange but interesting mix that could have worked better had the director not decided that an avalanche of gore was in order. And that James Caviezel should play in the lead role…

Something happened about 10 years ago. Oliver Stone, who had been one of North America’s most interesting and provocative directors in the 80s and early 90s, suddenly started making boring and average movies. Any Given Sunday (99), Alexander (04) and World Trade Center (06), all felt like the work of a director who had run out of ideas, and out of rage. Perhaps wounded by the constant scorn of critics and by accusations of a lack of patriotism, Stone has turned to facile cinema to continue funneling his political ideas. Unfortunately, the result is a far cry from what he used to be capable of.

His latest film is something not often seen in this medium: the biography of someone who is still alive. This represents quite a challenge as the film must compete in the reader’s minds with the information and knowledge they already have about the person being portrayed, information which is current and much more relevant than if the subject had been dead for 30 years. And if in addition that person happens to be the most hated man in the world over the past eight years, the level of complexity rises even further for the filmmaker and his screenwriter. But that obviously did not stop Stone from wanting to try to tell the story of George W. Bush and how this little insecure man went from alcoholism and skirt-chasing to the highest post in the world.

Regular readers of this blog will know that i hold much contempt for George W. Bush and that i am always very much in favor of exposing his lies and deceit. I have posted several times before about excellent documentaries and filmmakers who have done their best to show the world the damage the Bush administration has done and the amount of corruption and illegal activities it has engaged in. But W. does little to expand on this great work. Instead of confronting the viewer with the brutal truth of Bush’s lies, idioticism and corruption, this fluffy romanticization attempts to be fair and to show Bush, as an idiot yes, but as an idiot who grew up in the shadow of his brother and who was constantly seeking the approval of a distant and critical father….

W. ends up being just like a nice Disneyland ride. Move over Pirates of the Caribbean, here comes W. the ride. Here is George getting pissed during his Yale fraternity induction. Over there is George working in an oil rig. And look over there, it’s George meeting with Rumsfeld, Condy, Powell and Cheney. Don’t they look like nice muppets, all these actors chosen because they resemble so closely the actual protagonists (with the exception of Rumsfeld who looks like the odd piece in the puzzle)? Whether they all act well or not becomes irrelevant, as their actions and manners are made to resemble exactly that of these politicians whom we have come to know so well because we have watched them so often on TV. How can these portrayals compete with the real thing, how can they not appear as wax puppets playing out a script when we have all already been bombarded by videos and cartoons and images of Bush and Cheney and of their every mannerisms? To make matters worse, too many fairly well-known actors have been chosen to play these politicians, creating an even further distinction between the reality of W. the film and the reality of W. as we have acquired it individually over the past 8 years of ‘living’ with him. It is no longer a question of Cheney playing Cheney but of Richard Dreyfuss playing Cheney playing Cheney. As i have commented on before regarding Bobby (06), i consider using too many well-known actors in one film a risky proposition that very few filmmakers can pull off. The effect is simply too distracting and it adds a clear level of superficiality to the experience.

Which brings me to my last point. The above could have worked, perhaps, if Stone had stuck with one direction in his film. Is W. a parody, is it a bit comic, is it serious, didactic, pedagogic, entertaining, a criticism, an apology, a fair portrayal…? W. is confusing because it seems to want to be all of this. But by the time the end credits start to roll, one has every right to feel confused and to wonder what that was all about.

One of the many wonderful aspects of Cinema is its ability to reflect a culture’s present tendencies and fears. When studied in the context of history, Cinema offers an evolutionary roadmap of the various social and economical trends of a society. Whether German cinema of the 1920s or American cinema of the 1950s or French cinema of the 1960s, they all have something extremely powerful to say about the societal changes that took place in those times in these particular countries.

If you ask an American today which themes define her society, it is likely that terrorism, war, paranoia and the increasing ubiquitousness of technology in our lives and its impact on our privacy will feature prominently. In a way, the nature of the paranoia has only slightly changed from what it was in the 60s and 70s when Frankenheimer and Pakula crafted remarkable films such as The Manchurian Candidate, 7 Days in May, Seconds, Klute, The Parallax View and All the President’s Men. But the means and methods have clearly evolved and we today live in a society that is greatly reliant on technology and where the rise of social networks and of global interconnectivity are making us vulnerable to Cyber crimes, the consequences of which have the potential to be more dangerous than what our most conservative estimates can predict. What the web knows about you today is already frightening enough to rightly justify concern for the future.

With Eagle Eye, Hollywood is showing its ability to capitalize on modern trends and on the public’s fears. Unfortunately, as is often the case, it does so in a superficial way that distorts and simplifies the issues being presented. In a film that Tony Scott would have been proud of but that would have made Stanley Kubrick vomit, an AI created by US Intelligence (a term which the film makes clear can be an oxymoron) looses its marbles and decides to take action against its own government. In doing so, it hijacks the lives of ordinary citizens and, in a series of completely preposterous and nonsensical events, assumes control of everything from airports and subway systems to cell phone networks. Only Shia LaBeouf (who seems to have a knack for playing in really bad movies) can save the world from doom. And also the ingenious idea to empty the cooling fluid that the AI depends on to survive…Even a bit of criticism at the Bush administration can’t save this film from its own mediocrity.

Despite my clear lack of knowledge regarding the inner workings of a film studio or of a production company, this is nonetheless how i envision the approval for City of Ember must have happened:

Pitch Guy: So picture this. The world has destroyed itself but a group of people survives and builds a new society underground…
Studio Exec: you mean like in Logan’s Run?
PG: Yes. Well, no, not exactly. Time passes of course, but the society is cut off from progress so it is more based on technology from the past and on old-fashioned values
SE: I see. So a bit like A Boy and His Dog?
PG: Hmm, i suppose so. But just a little bit. It is not a suburbian mentality like A Boy and His Dog. This takes place in a small, dystopic, claustrophobic and buzzing city with strange architecture and
SE: Sounds like Dark City to me…
PG: Hmfff, kind of, but it is not dark, well not really dark, it is more rusty and old and dusty and…
SE: Did you ever see The City of Lost Children? Amazing production values….
PG: Yes i did. Nice film. But you see, City of Ember is also a great adventure because two kids find out how to get out…
SE: Kids? Kids as in Jumanji, The Goonies, Narnia, The Golden Compass, Lemony Snicket, The…
PG: Yes, yes, but the angle here is slightly different because…

At this point, the Studio Exec chokes on his Latte Machiatto and gasps desperately for air. The Pitch Guy understands that this is his only chance, grabs a pillow and places it over the Studio Exec’s face who dies shortly thereafter. Before calling for help, the Pitch Guy manages to fake the Exec’s signature and places the pitch page in the Go Ahead tray.

Anyone got a better explanation?

At the risk of losing whatever little credibility I have in the dark and obscure circles of amateur film critique, I am going to come out and say that Tom Cruise is an interesting actor to watch. I am not going to go as far as Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian who stated that he is a brilliant character actor and a great actor, but I think Tom Cruise deserves more credit than he usually gets. His off-screen antics have gotten in the way of people’s fair appraisal of his acting talents. And while these are still limited (I noticed years ago that one of his favourite methods for acting surprise and disbelief is to repeat his lines twice, a la Jimmy Two Times), he is nonetheless able to sometimes deliver some exciting performances as he did in Born on the 4th of July (1989), Magnolia (1999), and Lions for Lambs (2007).

In Vanilla Sky, based on the better Spanish film called Open your Eyes (1997), Cruise shows that he is not afraid to be a bit more edgy, although, in all fairness, we are still talking about a Cameron Crowe film. The first half of the film is artificial and annoying, depicting mostly an exasperating romance between a rich and vain playboy played by Cruise and a Euro artsy-fartsy girl played by the other Cruz, Penelope (whose acting charisma only seems to come out whenever she is not playing in an American film). This hollow yarn appears to have been taken over the top deliberately (I hope) to provide a starker contrast to the second half. Cameron Diaz’ scenes offer the only interesting moments until the film kicks into second gear, at which point Cruise starts to let loose and takes us into darker and edgier territory.

Attention Spoilers Ahead
The reason I enjoyed Vanilla Sky is not because I thought it would be interesting to be the only person in the world who does. Rather, it is because it deals with a subject matter rarely encountered in cinema, at least in mainstream cinema: using technology to defeat death. This is the story of a dead man who has used his wealth to be preserved cryogenically until, at some point in the future, technological progress will allow for his body to be brought back to life. Now, this would make for a pretty boring film if this man were not able to continue ‘living’ in a simulated world that feels exactly like reality. Is it not clear how exactly the technology to enable a dying person to upload his mind into a perfect virtual reality has come to exist so quickly before the technology to keep one alive after a particular car crash…but who cares, it still allows for some interesting speculations, provided that one enjoys thinking about such things.

Cryonics may still seem like the stuff of Science Fiction to most people, but several companies today offer such services, although without the mind uploading bit which I suspect will take a while longer to develop, and their mastery of the process is improving every year. For around 120,000 dollars one can get his body preserved with the hope that some future technology, probably nano-based, will be able to bring that body back to life, along, somehow and hopefully, with the consciousness that used to accompany it. This may not be as crazy as it sounds. Rapid and mind-boggling advances related to what are known as the GRIN technologies (Genetics, Robotic & Cognitive, Information Systems and Nanotechnology) are reshaping the health and socio-political landscape of our society on an exponential scale. What we have achieved technologically in the past is only a fraction of what we will achieve in the future. According to Ray Kurzweil, who believes in the coming of The Singularity, the exponential increase in technological advancement that our world is witnessing means that we will not experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century. Instead, we will experience ‘20,000 years of progress, or about 100 thousand times greater than what was achieved in the 20th century’ (Kurzweil. The Singularity is Near. 2005). At this rate, who knows what will be possible in 500 or 2000 years. Therefore, no one can say for sure today that reviving the frozen dead will not be possible in the future. Personally, I see no reason to doubt that it will happen. My concerns are more based around the difficulty of bringing back a person’s consciousness. What would be the point of coming back if one has no recollection of the past and of one’s self? Traditional reincarnation can already provide for this, so Cryonics, or a field working in association with it, need to go beyond and allow one to preserve his or her self throughout the ages. But memory implants, mind uploading or a yet-to-be-thought-about technology should overcome this obstacle, leaving only ethicists, sociologists and politicians to debate the pros and cons and the impact of such a massive revolution on society as a whole.

Vanilla Sky is not a great film. It is probably not even a good film. But I found it very entertaining nonetheless and the possibilities associated with keeping one’s mind and thoughts alive in a simulation of the real world until that person’s body can be brought back to life, left me thinking and wondering.

Alfonso Cuaron’s remarkable Children of Men (based on the novel by P.D. James) is an extremely bleak film about a dystopian and sterile near-future where no children have been born in 18 years. This results in extreme forms of lawlessness, inequality, poverty, violence, and illegal immigration and in an overall breakdown of society as a whole. But these problems are the very same ones that currently plague our society as the world tries to understand how to handle the continued rise of capitalism in light of the increasing economical and social instability that seems to accompany it.

A short documentary on the changes that are impacting our society, The Possibility of Hope provides interviews with some of the leading thinkers on globalization, human migration and social and environmental justice (John Gray, Naomi Klein, James Lovelock, Slavoj Zizek…), intercut with footage from various existing newsreels and documentaries and with footage from Children of Men. While offering an interesting montage of visuals on the themes mentioned earlier, The Possibility of Hope has little new information to present, and does not provide any ground-shattering insights on the costs of globalization. It also feels that it was done very quickly, almost as an after-thought.

Nevertheless, it is good to see a prominent (and talented) director who operates within the Hollywood establishment caring for such issues and trying to do something about it.

The Day the Earth Stood Still is a pathetic film. As I much as I love Hollywood for its mystic, history, glamour and for the fact that it continues year after year to enable the creation of marvellous films, I also sometimes hate it for being able to not only green light such trash but also for purposefully creating in the first place such a non-sensical and emotionally deficient waste, tailored to please the common denominator, thus totally disregarding in the process good acting, scene plausibility, intelligent dialogues and well developed characters. I won’t even get into the dishonour a bad remake does to the original film upon which it is based, in this case, one of the best Science Fiction films of all time.

Stiff Keanu Reeves as the stoic Alien already tells us that we are embarking on a risky adventure. Some might see a certain logic in casting someone who does not know how to act (although once in a while Reeves is capable of raising his acting to the level of ‘enjoyable enough’ as in The Gift (2000)) for the part of an alien who supposedly does not initially understand emotions, but I would rather classify this as bad and naïve casting. Or more likely as marketing-based casting. After all, Brad Pitt, who has since shown that he is capable of good acting in such films as Kalifornia (1993), Fight Club (1999), Snatch (2000), 12 Monkeys (1995), The Assassination of Jesse James (2007) and Burn after Reading (2008), proved through his horrid performances in Interview with a Vampire (1994) and Meet Joe Black (1998) that playing blasé and stoic characters (as well as an Austrian character in Seven Years in Tibet (1997)) is not the stuff of average actors.

With the addition of the money-driven and inappropriate casting of Keanu Reeves, The Day the Earth Stood Still also boasts an impressive list of clichés, issued straight out the bad blockbuster manual: the racially mixed infuriating child who will do the most maddening things at the most inopportune moments but who, as even the average viewer will have guessed from the start, will finally overcome his emotional issues and become only slightly less annoying; the bright and single mother who has problems raising that irritating little…mentioned earlier and who seems to know all the right people since she will become the main point of contact for the alien (someone in this whole disaster of a production still had enough good sense to ensure that she does not end up falling in love with the alien); the know-it-all and closed minded politicians who will of course make all the wrong decisions; the beyond repair and impotent military establishment which, as usual, will find bigger and bigger rockets to throw at the problem; the good, tolerant and just scientists who, if it weren’t for the politicians and military, could make the world a much better place; and last but not least, the alien who is so intelligent that, after some small, uninteresting and morally infantile chats with a couple of people, discovers the meaning of emotions and realizes that humans are not such a bad lot after all. My son is 19 months old and has an EQ far superior to the level of this film.

In comparison to the relevance of this film to contemporary environmental issues (its superficial message that we are killing our earth and its ending that seems to lightly suggest – and this was not made very clear - that stopping all technology is the answer to these issues, are an affront to the problems we truly face), Emmerich’s The Day after Tomorrow (2004) seems like a scientific treatise, which of course does not say a whole lot about Hollywood’s ability to take these issues seriously.

I am a lover of great cinema but also of great cinematic trash. This, on the other hand, is bad trash and as such deserves every single bit of negative press it has so far received. In the meantime, I shall pull out the 1951 version of The Day the Earth Stood Still from my DVD shelf for a little trip down nostalgia lane…

An incredibly powerful documentary that explores the collapse of Enron.

As with most documentaries that deal with socially relevant issues, the greater theme of human nature and what makes people do the things they do is explored indirectly, through the depiction of a small group of people who thought they could exploit the system to enrich themselves at the expense of others.

Aside from being a very well made documentary, Enron is an intense experience that can only leave one shaking his head in disbelief at the greed, selfishness and lack of empathy that some people are capable of.

It also shows us once again that some corporations can easily get out of control, monstrous money making machines without a heart or a soul, only instructions for making a profit at any cost and without regard for the well-being of society as a whole. A priority for the 21st Century should be to work with the business establisment to ensure that a more socially responsible form of capitalism emerges.

Another film to be filed under the ever-popular Snow & Disturbing category. But in the case of Let the Right One In, the constant dreary and eerie atmosphere is not just a stylistic exercise applied to an already troubling story, but rather a simple reflection of certain aspects of everyday life in Scandinavia or in any other northern region of our planet. An entire winter in such as country as Sweden is not for everyone’s taste: only a few hours of sunlight per day, constant cold temperatures and few possibilities for social activities outside…unless you are a cold-blooded vampire, in which case it might in fact be just the perfect place…

But Let the Right One In is not just another vampire film. This is a very serious vampire film, not necessarily interested in scaring us as much as in showing the realities of what it might entail to be a vampire, especially if you are a 12 year old.  The film is a coming of age story with a provocative insight into the fragility of 12 year olds, an age at which various influences will decide the course of the years to come.

Minimalist, slow, disturbing, nicely shot. well acted, Let the Right One In is a stimulating and enjoyable film that does the vampire genre much justice.

Watching a film by Werner Herzog is never an easy task. It is the antithesis of the traditional Hollywood entertainment-driven movie. Herzog’s films make you work and think, they force you to participate by investing your strength, your intelligence and your entire emotional being into the experience. Through his subject matters, his startling use of imagery and his haunting scores, Herzog demands constant involvement from his audience. An unfortunately too-rare form of cinema, his films continue to raise pertinent questions about some of the most interesting issues today.

Lessons of Darkness captures the devastation of Kuwait in the aftermath of the first Gulf War. More specifically, it is a portray of a wounded earth that is left shedding tears of fire due to the greed and savagery of Man. Not content to decimate and to ruin, Man also turns his bestiality towards other men and engages in horrible crimes which for any reasonably sane person are impossible to comprehend.

As i watched Herzog turning ugliness into beauty with his camera, music and editing, i could not help but weep at a world gone terribly wrong. 14 years before Edward Burtynsky made his Manufactured Landscapes (2006), Herzog used stunning visualization to show only one of the myriad of ways in which Man is impacting this Earth and is redefining the landscape and the entire ecosystem to his liking. Unfortunately for all of us, this redesigning comes without a plan and is driven by selfish motives rather than by a desire to develop a system where Man’s constant desire for progress can co-exist harmoniously with Nature.

While a Technogaianist myself, and thus a believer in technology as a means to achieve this harmony, Lessons of Darkness made me long at times for some of the scenarios that Alan Weisman so eloquently depicted in his seminal book The World Without Us (2007). It is comforting to know that Nature would eventually reclaim what is rightfully hers. But wishing it all away won’t make it go away and we must move forward and attempt to reconcile our innate propensity for greed and egoism with the need for ecological health and stability.

Trouble is a documentary about the events surrounding the G8 Summit that took place in Heiligendamm Germany in June 2007. It received the 2008 Cinema for Peace Award for Best Documentary and was entered into competition at the Milano, Zurich and Braunschweig Film Festivals.
I had the chance of being involved in the making of this film through the organization Mindpirates for which i have worked on and off for the past 3 years. I have a screenplay credit, which is quite flattering considering that the film was made by a large group of volunteer activists. Nonetheless, Trouble provides an interesting look at the various sides that come together during such political events: different opinions, motivations and sometimes, very different means of expressing these views.

It should soon be available online, in the copyleft spirit that underlines all of our work at Mindpirates.

‘The 2007 G8 Summit in Heiligendamm/Germany - A summer fairytale, a blooming corn poppy, a brilliant blue sky. An unbelievably large and menacing fence cuts through the picturesque landscape. Police caravans, journalists, and activists face off for days in these fields like medieval armies. Elsewhere, artists despair over a public tht confuses pop with protest. Bob Geldof, Bono and Herbert Groenemeyer preachon the “Your Voice Against Poverty” stage, while Rostock locals would obviously rather be eating a bratwurst. Left-wing anarchists try to set everything on fire, though they only manage to get to one car and a few trash bins. Interviews with the likes of Muhammad Yunus (winner of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize), filmmaker Wim Wenders, Susan George (former vice-president of ATTAC France), U2 frontman Bono, and Campino (singer of Die Toten Hosen) are mixed in with questions and commentary from police, activists, and locals. A regional documentary pop film that critically and playfully explores the egoism of a confused protest generation.’

http://trouble-der-film.de/

http://mindpirates.net/

http://www.cinemaforpeace.com/

http://www.milanofilmfestival.it/2008/catalogo/colpe/trouble.php

The name M. Night Shyamalan is starting to sound very pretentious.

Although the name is a bit difficult to remember, people usually still manage to mumble something about M and Night followed by some uncomprehensible nonsense. But this confusion adds to its mysterious and intriguing aspect, as it did for the people of Eastwick who tried hard to remember the name Daryl Van Horne. The mystic increased as the director gained international fame with The 6th Sense (1999) and then with Unbreakable (2000). After these two films, M. Night Shyamalan could fully live up this his name by having it displayed in large print above the title of his films, with studio marketing people proudly displaying ‘a film by M. Night Shyamalan’ or ‘M. Night Shyamalan presents’ as if the director, after only less than a handful of films to his credit, could be compared to a Hitchcock or to other Hollywood directing legends.

Unfortunately, Shyamalan has failed to live up to the mystic of his name and to the hype of his reputation. While The 6th Sense was a good, not great, movie, Unbreakable started to show a few weaknesses while Signs (2002) clearly demonstrated that the director was either going through a really bad spell, or that, and this is more likely, the 6th Sense had been a fluke. His films since have proved the later and his most recent, The Happening, is just one more nail in the coffin of this so called new master of horror.

The Happening, about an unknown and never explained suicide-inducing toxin spreading across the North East of the US, has some good moments, especially in the first 30 minutes, and offers an interesting take on man vs nature. However, Shyamalan can not keep it up and proceeds to ruin the next 55 minutes by instering silly comic scenes whose purpose is a total mystery to me and by using so many cliches that one can not help but to feel that the director is trying very hard to scare us. The desire to scare overcomes to need to remain realistic with the result being that the viewer questions rather than feels. In addition, Mark Wahlberg, whom we know is capable of pulling some interesting performances as he did in The Departed (2006), feels totally lost and confused as a romantic scientist and the chemistry between him and Zooey Deschanel is equivalent to mixing bleach with vinegar.

This family adventure is apparently much better in 3D. Supposedly, putting on a pair of the funny looking glasses has the effect of directly placing the bad acting and silly script in the background, emphasizing instead the action and visual effects. Now, I am all in favour of the democratization of 3D and of its increased use in modern cinema. However, let us hope that it does not lead to a overabundance of bad movies. After all, there are already too many of them.

Journey to the Centre of the Earth is loosely based on Jules Verne’s novel of the same name, and feels more like a bad version of The Goonies (1985) than a serious attempt at honouring the memory of the father of Science Fiction. As I winced during several of the poorly written scenes, I could not help but to be reminded of the cheapness of At the Earth’s Core (1976) and of First Men in the Moon (1964), which is a real shame since Verne’s story, in the right hands, could be turned into a fascinating and highly entertaining film.

Still, there are a couple of good moments in Journey to the Centre of the Earth, Brendan Frasier does his thing, and there is enough escapist entertainment to convince one to watch it until the end.

For reasons unknown to me, as I tried to recall the various Batman films and their progression over the past 19 years (excluding the 1943 and 1966 versions), I began to draw a very loose association with the James Bond franchise. Not in terms of content naturally, but rather in terms of tone and mood. First came the darkness of Sean Connery, then the silliness of Roger Moore, followed by the suaveness of Pierce Brosnan (I am conveniently omitting two more James Bond, I know) and today we once again have rawness and darkness with Daniel Craig. It feels to me that the Batman franchise has followed a similar path, with Christopher Nolan’s two Batman films picking up where Tim Burton’s left off, and possibly even going further. In between, we had the very forgettable and silly Batman films of Joel Schumacher, which I am sure Clooney and Kilmer are still to this day trying very hard to erase from their memory and filmography.

At my own peril, I will take the comparison between the latest James Bond film (I have not seen Quantum of Solace (2008) so I am referring to Casino Royale (2006)) and The Dark Knight further.
They both try to demark themselves from the legacy of the franchise and try to create something fresh. They both attempt very hard to emphasize human conflict and to marry emotional depth with raw and effective action. And last but not least, they are both extremely minimalist in their approach. While both running at 2 ½ hours, there is little fat in either of them, with the accent being on relentless pace and action. Only the bare minimum of information is given as scenes are trimmed for speed and progression.

Christopher Nolan’s relatively brief career has been remarkable so far. The brilliant and already cult classic Memento (2000), the moody and visually striking remake of Insomnia (2002), the decent but provoking The Prestige (2006) and the two Batman films, all are clearly the marks of someone with a high level of control, skill and understanding of the cinematic medium and of its techniques. Darkness also seems an underlying thread of these films, in visual terms and through their subject matters.

With The Dark Knight, Nolan delivers a very accomplished film that epitomizes the high quality entertainment film. Most aspects of the movie are solid and the result is a non-stop thrill ride. Unfortunately, this focus on pace means that occasionally, the scenes flow from one to the next in a somewhat abrupt and not always logical way, leaving the viewer with some unanswered questions. Like a comic book that has a limited capacity for background information, The Dark Knight jumps from major scene to major scene, leaving out many things in between.
As a closing note, it is worth mentioning the performance of Heath Ledger. His death prompted a wave of calls for an Oscar nomination, with people stating that his performance had been no less than magnificent. I initially took this with high dose of skepticism. However, having now watched the movie, I can say that Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker is indeed spectacular and when considered together with his performance in Brokeback Mountain (2005), hints at what could have become a very very fine actor.

It is difficult to dislike films such as La Antena, films that demark themselves so clearly from the mediocrity of the average, films that experiment and push the envelop of the medium. La Antena, an Argentinean film about a dystopic Dark City (1998)-like world where a TV mogul plots total control of the city is so visually arresting and creative that one can only applaud such artistic inclinations.

La Antena has been called an homage to silent cinema since there are indeed no words being spoken, with the exception of the occasional and deliberate sound. The constant music, appropriate but at times trying, also has its roots in the piano accompaniments of the 1920s. And the visual style relies on black and white, intertitles, grainy textures, and other tricks and tools that are more or less reminiscent of a silent film. The eccentricity of the style and the playfulness of the ideas bring Bunuel and Dali to mind rather than Lubitsch or DW Griffith.

Yet, for all of its visual candy and dystopian intrigue, La Antena feels a tad flat. Like Guy Maddin’s Brand Upon the Brain, its lightness of content and the weaknesses of its screenplay become exposed once the initial visual intrigue begins to wear off. At that point, the viewing experience becomes superficial, a mere exercise in visual stimulation, with the content itself bringing little reward.

Still, from an experimental point of view, La Antena is well worth watching.

The French have a love affair with Science Fiction.

Along with that of the US and of Japan, French comic books, known by the more credible name of BDs (Bande Dessinee) and which can be found in abundance across French stores, are a continuous source of inspiration and creativity for artists and Science Fiction lovers everywhere. Ridley Scott has claimed that much of his inspiration for Blade Runner (1982) came from the work of Moebius in the 1970s and the rest of the crew of Les Humanoides Associes and of Metal Hurlant, the influential comic book that would later become Heavy Metal in the US .

Yet, when it comes to literature, aside from the common and more or less accurate claim that Jules Verne invented Sci-Fi, France has rarely produced science fiction writers of quality. Perhaps an obsession with comic books (considered by some to be the 9th art of France) is a way to compensate for this lack since a genre such as science fiction could probably never gain enough credibility in the country that produced Voltaire, Hugo and Balzac and where the ‘integrity’ of the art of literature is defended with so much fervor and passion.

A similar lack is evident in the history of French cinema. With the exception of Melies, L’Herbier, Jeunet and Caro and the two attempts by Godard and Truffaut, France’s sci fi output when it comes to cinema has been less than meager. But France clearly loves science fiction as seen through the lens of the cinematic medium. Sci Fi flicks, the majority of which come from the US or Asia, are always prominently displayed on the shelves of French stores, reflecting their capacity for attracting a large number of buyers. Cinema sci-fi magazines such as Ecran Fantastique and Mad Movies have been holding their own next to Premiere and Cahiers du Cinema for many years now and, contrary to what many may think outside of France, French TV runs a fair amount of Hollywood trash, including sci-fi.

On the subject of trash, which is regrettably often interchangeable with sci-fi, Luc Besson, the most American French director of the 90s, released The Fifth Element in 1997. Despite being a silly hollow film with high production values, The Fifth Element, along with much of Besson’s other trash inspired productions, has had an impact on the French collective psyche. Or perhaps it simply exploited contemporary social trends and gave a certain part of France the release it needed from the shackles of its past. Unfortunately, while providing some of the younger French filmmakers with the ability to think beyond France and the possibility for reaching out to new influences and styles, this break in tradition in French film making, this popularization of a previously somewhat elitist medium, has so far not resulted in anything good at all. It is mainly with its ‘traditional’ films that France continues to impress.

Films such as Chrysalis (2007), Renaissance (2006), Immortel (2004), Dante 01 (2008) and Vidocq (2001) are beautiful to look at but are for the most part completely devoid of substance. Their comic book approach explores new visual opportunities but forgets basic film making principles such as strong acting, appropriate casting, realistic and intelligent dialogues, proper script and scene development and professional editing, all of which are essential to the process of making a film of quality (Dante 01 stands slightly above the rest in this regard). Banlieue 13 (2004) marries the athleticism of Parkour with the ever increasing popularity of martial arts in France, but fails on every other levels. Babylon AD, the film supposedly reviewed here. is a travesty of a movie, an overindulgent and amateurish farce that deserves to join the Olympe of the worst that Hollywood has ever produced. Directed by Matthieu Kassovitz, the French actor and director who somehow managed to direct the gripping and enthralling La Haine (1995), it touches on futuristic subjects such as artificial intelligence, cloning, human enhancement, reanimation, overpopulation and global warming, but it does so in a way that is unbelievably childish and ignorant. I can’t help but thinking about how Kubrick had done his research to prepare for his next film, Napoleon, by filling entire rooms with books, paraphernalia and by slowing indexing on paper cards every piece of information he had ever read or obtained about his subject matter. Kubrick might be an extreme case, but it seems to me that any filmmaker should at least do a minimum of research before tackling a subject.

Babylon AD is another failure for French Sci-Fi cinema, sadly following in the footsteps of the films mentioned above, but also of previous efforts by French directors working within the Hollywood establishment: Catwoman (2004 - Pitof), Hulk 2 (2008 - Letterier), Alien Resurection (1997 - Jeunet), Gothika (2003 - Kassovitz).

There is something about thrillers and winter, or at least about psychological suspense and winter. There have been plenty of effective thrillers that take place in warm exotic places, but when it comes to the bizarre and the psychologically disturbing, there is nothing like a cold, dark and wintry setting to enhance the fright factor and overall unsettling effect. The Jacket, Insomnia, Misery, A Simple Plan, and Affliction come to mind, as do The Shining and Les Rivieres Pourpres.

This second film based on the successful and inspirational series of the same name that ran from 1993 to 2002, has left a lot of its paranormal frills at the door and instead uses a trimmed down, modest approach that revolves around Stem Cell Therapy, genetic engineering and organ trafficking. It also offers the usual Mulder Scully debate between science and religion, rationalism and empiricism and whether any of it is in fact enough to satisfy the need that humans have to believe in something to explain what they don’t understand…

The X Files 2 is one of those films that in spite of being well crafted and entertaining for two hours somehow manages to leave the viewer with very little at the end.

The parallels with The X Files are unavoidable. A wide reaching conspiracy of paranormal and unusual phenomenon that appear to have their source in the not so legal scientific activities of one of the world’s biggest corporations; A female FBI agent who seems more than willing to embrace the unusual and to accept that the truth can sometimes come from the bizarre and the abnormal; and an unwilling partner who provides the required dose of skepticism and reductionist rationalism.

Yet, J.J. Abrams, the producer of the new hot series ‘Fringe’, and the brain behind the hit TV series ‘Lost’, is right when he states that Fringe is not The X Files. Based on the first episode, Fringe is clearly far inferior to its predecessor.

There is something about this new series that feels a bit artificial and stitched together. It is as if the producer had assembled a group of the best writers of hip TV series, and ask them to come up with a new hip TV show, using as reference the Big Book of Hip TV Series Writing. The result is entertaining enough but it does not have enough to take it to that cult levels status. Many characters feel cliché, like the black tough FBI boss and the reluctant super intelligent soon-to-be lover, and the action seems hurried, occasionally moving the plot in awkward fashion from one scene to the next. The editing has completely transcended time, but unfortunately, this does not serve any deeper purpose than to get this first episode finished within the allocated time frame. In addition, some of the ideas brought forth are simply not explored realistically enough. A scene reminiscent of Altered States in which the lead character is immersed in a tank while on LSD feels very tame and the experience conveniently over and done with in a matter of minutes, as required by the narrative (after all, she has only 24 hours to catch the bad guy!). Haven’t these writers ever read that taking LSD is an experience that lasts for several hours, if not days? In addition, most of the scenes involving the scientist, a genius before his time we are told, are also not very plausible, from the speed at which he is let out of jail and allowed to reassemble his lab at Harvard, to the nonchalance with which he operates computers that did not exist when he was incarcerated. In summary, it all feels just very convenient.

Still, episode 1 has built enough of a mystery around the activities of the strange corporation that one is compelled to know more. One can only hope that the writing of future episodes will have improved.

I must be getting old. Everyone seems to be raving about Del Toro’s sequel but I found myself bored at what I consider to be a lame attempt to take Hellboy mainstream.

Oh sure, there are plenty of gore and gross, albeit not in the least scary, moments, but that clearly falls under mainstream these days and does not in any ways grant Hellboy II with coolness or cult credentials. Whereas the first Hellboy seemed content to target a geeky and comic book audience (and that was one of the film’s strengths – that it did not aim to please too many people) and kept the silly one liners to a minimum, Hellboy II just goes way overboard and noticeably goes after the common denominator Hollywood blockbuster crowd. The monsters and creatures come and go as Hellboy robotically blows them to smithereens, removing in the process any type of tension and suspense and leaving us with a feeling of frustration and boredom at this gratuitous spectacle of recycled ideas. Hellboy is no longer the cool, dark and misunderstood fallen devil, he has become simply a circus clown, made to deliver as many ‘comic’ lines as possible for our cheap amusement. And the acting also seems to have taken a step back with Selma Blair in particular being quite excruciating to watch.
However, credit must go to what Del Toro’s and his crews usually excel at: creating fantastical and magnificent decors as well as sublime costumes.
Disappointing for a director whom we know to be much more talented than this.

A sometimes poorly structured and organized documentary with a moderator whose voice would put you to sleep if the topic wasn’t so interesting, The Future of Food nonetheless provides an interesting look into the dangers of genetically modified foods and is a good companion piece to the better We Feed the World (2005).

As people across the globe slowly become accustomed to hearing about genetically modified corn, canola or soybeans and fail to fully understand how it impacts them, corporations such as Monsanto are busy patenting seeds (and thus life; a horrifying thought to ponder. Big pharma is now beginning to patent genes), developing and planting new genetically modified crops, unbeknownst to most, and suing farmers in an effort to pressure them to use these corporations’ seeds. These corporations are also consolidating the food supply, thereby reducing the diversity of our crops and produces and driving many farming communities out of business, both in the Western and Third Worlds. In a word, everything awful that you have ever heard about what motivates corporations is unfortunately also applicable to the world of agriculture and genetically modified foods.

But this is not new. Monsanto’s main pesticide and herbicide, which has been used widely for decades in numerous countries, is based on military technology from World War Two, particularly on nerve gas and on the famous Agent Orange. Has Monsanto ever bothered to try to really understand what this means in the long term for the people eating crops or eating the animals that eat the crops sprayed with this stuff? Probably not. As one Monsanto executive stated about genetically modified foods, their only responsibility is to sell their product and to make money, not to ensure their safety, which they regard as the responsibility of the government. Unfortunately for all of us, most of the individuals with the real power in the two branches of the government that are supposedly looking after our safety (Federal Drug Administration and Department of Agriculture) are ex-Monsanto employees or are directly affiliated with the corporate world, in a manner reminiscent of the Bush’s administration’s various ties to many corporations that benefited from the war in Iraq. We live at a time when compassion and empathy are badly needed, but these are clearly not a corporation’s forte.

Therefore, it is up to us to ensure the safety of our food by living an organic lifestyle, by informing ourselves and by putting pressure on these corporations to increase the safety of their products and to provide us with more transparency on their actions and on which foods contain GMOs. The most naïve thing people can do is to assume that their voice or actions do not count. In the same way that something as simple and easy as replacing the light bulbs in your house can make a difference and reduce your energy consumption, buying organic produces, supporting your local farmers and encouraging sustainable farming can have an impact on the system, as well as on your health.

As I have stated before, we live at what I consider to be the most important and interesting time in our history. Our mastery of science is increasingly enabling us to consider new horizons and to change our destiny in ways that would have seemed impossible not so long ago. I believe in technology and I believe that it can have a positive impact on society. As a futurist, I also believe in the inevitability of progress and that whatever we fear today, we will accept tomorrow. For this reason, I am not opposed to genetically modified foods in the long run, in the same way that I am not opposed to genetic engineering in general. Yet, I believe that we are at the early stages of these developments and that they are currently not safe. Consequently, it is out duty to ensure their safety by pressuring the system. A year ago, driving back from the G8 demonstrations in Northern Germany, a friend asked me why I resisted GMO’s if I loved technology. I answered that I fight it to ensure its safety as quickly as possible, before it does too much damage, rather than to try to ensure that it never happens. I also do it because corporations are out of control and are ruling too many aspects of our lives. Their power must be reduced and their greed controlled. It is our choice to decide if we want to try to make a difference.

http://www.thefutureoffood.com/

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto

http://www.thecampaign.org/

http://www.monsantowatch.org/

http://www.ucsusa.org/

Back in 1989, i went to The Rolling Stones’ Steel Wheels reunion concert, and i remember feeling torn between accepting that some people feel the need to ‘do it again’ or to ‘do it one more time’, and not understanding why some do not seem to realize that their best is behind them and that by refusing to let bygones be bygones they run the risk of destroying something that was previously precious. It turns out that The Stones still had a few years left in them, and not everyone had been as unimpressed as i was.

Unimpressed is also the word i would use to describe my reaction after watching Indiana Jones 4. Or perhaps unenthusiastic. Or unconvinced. Or indifferent. There is enough quality in IJ4 to keep one fairly entertained, but there is also something crucial missing, something that was at the core of the previous Indiana Jones films (at least number 1 and 3). Like the Star Wars prequels, which emphasized action and visual effects over character development and dialog, Indiana Jones lost its heart (and wit) and became an unemotional succession of well-choreographed but soulless and stereotypical action scenes.

It is hard to believe that it took so long for Ford, Lucas and Spielberg to agree on the script and to finally end up with this sub par effort that for the most part recycles previous material.