CFE's 100 Science Fiction Film Countdown

[CFE]

#40

Star Trek: First Contact (1996)

[YT]wxyZQR2d6yw[/YT]

Directed by … Jonathan Frakes
Story by … Rick Berman, Brannon Braga and Ronald D. Moore
Screenplay by … Brannon Braga and Ronald D. Moore
Based on characters created by …Gene Roddenberry

Patrick Stewart ... Captain Jean-Luc Picard
Jonathan Frakes ... Commander William Riker / Holodeck Musician
Brent Spiner ... Lt. Commander Data
LeVar Burton ... Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge
Michael Dorn ... Lt. Commander Worf
Gates McFadden ... Doctor Beverly Crusher
Marina Sirtis ... Counselor Deanna Troi
Alfre Woodard ... Lily Sloane
James Cromwell ... Dr. Zefram Cochrane
Alice Krige ... Borg Queen
Michael Horton ... Lieutenant Daniels
Neal McDonough ... Lieutenant Hawk
Marnie McPhail ... Lieutenant Eiger
Robert Picardo ... Emergency Medical Hologram
Dwight Schultz ... Lieutenant Reginald Endicott Barclay III
Adam Scott ... Defiant Helm Crewman
Jack Shearer ... Admiral Hayes
Eric Steinberg ... Lieutenant Paul Porter
Scott Strozier ... Security Ensign
Patti Yasutake ... Nurse Alyssa Ogawa
Victor Bevine ... Security Crewman #1
David Cowgill ... Security Crewman #2
Scott Haven ... Security Crewman #3
Annette Helde ... Security Crewwoman #1
Majel Barrett ... Enterprise Computer (voice)
C.J. Bau ... Holodeck Nightclub Bartender
Hillary Hayes ... Ruby
Julie Morgan ... Holodeck Nightclub Singer
Ronnie Rondell Jr. ... Nicky`s Henchman
Don Stark ... Nicky the Nose
Cully Fredricksen ... Vulcan Captain
Tamara Lee Krinsky ... Townsperson
Don Fischer ... Borg
J.R. Horsting ... Borg
Heinrich James ... Borg
Andrew Palmer ... Borg
Jon David Weigand ... Borg
Dan Woren ... Borg
Robert L. Zachar ... Borg
Jeff Coopwood … The Borg (voice)

Captain Picard and his crew pursue the Borg back in time to stop them from preventing Earth from initiating first contact with alien life.

--------------------------------------------------------

After the somewhat rocky start of “Generations,” the Next-Gen crew of the fabled Enterprise embarks on, in my opinion, there best cinematic adventure with 1996’s “Star Trek: First Contact.”

Since Roddenberry first came up with the idea of "Star Trek" there have been some legendary enemies. Khan Noonian Singh from the original series and 1982's "The Wrath of Khan", the Klingons, the Romulans and the Cardassians are just four of the enemies which different crews in this fictional universe have had to fight against. But perhaps the most fear inducing enemy of them all is the Borg. These machine obsessed beings who work as a collective hive unit of drones has certainly freaked out many a fan over the years and in this eighth film of the series, they take their rightful place as big screen adversaries.

It seems as if every few years Paramount releases a new "Star Trek" movie, and although they usually prosper at the box office, there are only so many ideas that can be portrayed involving the "Enterprise," the starship housing to our traditional characters on board, including Captain Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart), Lt. Commander Data (Brent Spiner), William Riker (Jonathan Frakes), Geordi La Forge (LeVar Burton), Deanna Troi (Marina Sirtis), Dr. Beverly Crusher (Gates McFadden) and the Klingon, Lt. Commander Worf (Michael Dorn). Screenwriters Brannon Braga and Ronald D. Moore breathe fresh air into the continuation, providing it with lots of energy, spirit, and engagement.

This time around, the crew of the Enterprise must travel back in time before mankind made its first contact with extraterrestrial life forms.

In 2063, there was a flight, piloted by Zefram Cochrane (James Cromwell) the brilliant inventor of the Warp Drive. Observed by an alien race, the Vulcans, who interpreted man had become advanced enough to meet another race of beings, it was a momentous occasion in history. The Borgs plan to travel back in order to prevent first contact and rewrite history. Another catch: the Borgs plan on populating Earth instead of humans. Only Capt. Picard and his faithful crew can prevent the Borgs from permanently altering history as we know it.

If not the best film of the series, “First Contact” is certainly the best film starring the “Next Generation crew.”

However, from my own perspective (and certainly following the monumental success of J.J. Abrams’ film) it's perhaps a sad fact that, no matter how many films this crew appears in, they will never be as popular as the original crew of characters, certainly on this side of the Atlantic. There's something about the denizens of the “Next Generation” that come off too smug, too anorakky, and far, far too banal. Rather than the identifiable characters of the sixties, this crew is a group of token weirdoes and narcissists.

Major exception to this rule is the delightful Patrick Stewart, the RSC actor who gets to practically carry this film…a welcome development. Rather odd that the captain with arguably the most depth should have the most shallow crewmembers.

Unless you count “Voyager” of course…but let's face it, who does?

Jonathan Frakes, a man who is more valuable behind the camera than in front of it, has a lessened role. So too do the lacking female crew, including a Marina Sirtis who seems to have forgotten she once had a "Betazoid" accent and now talks in broad Cockney. And it's a testament to the producers' lack of faith in Gates McFadden that they cast Alfre Woodard to act as a counterpoint to Picard (although there is a great moment between the two when thrown into a 40s nightclub scenario…complete with Picard dishing out Tommy Gun fire!!!). This, however, does more to highlight how sadly missed Whoopee Goldberg is from this encounter.

Another welcome addition to the film, however, is in the incredible performance brought in by James Cromwell (“L.A. Confidential&#8221 in his first ‘hero’ role post “Babe” as Cochrane. I found the reinterpretation here of Cochrane (the character had previously been depicted by a different actor in the “Next Generation” episode Metamorphosis&#8217 bordering on the cliché - the re-used and re-hashed 'loser-turnaround-to-redeem-himself' plot; this type of story always makes me wonder how a guy who is out-of-his-mind drunk half the time manages to out-think all the clear-headed scientists. Thankfully, Cromwell plays it so convincingly that I can forgive it.

The largest problem for the series is the need to develop the characters, yet not so much that they distance newer audience members. Thankfully, Data's emotion chip is more or less dropped, while Geordi's high-tech contact lenses are unobtrusive.

There are still flaws in the film, of course. The vital exposition for casual viewers isn't dealt out before the first fifty minutes, giving non-fans no clue as to who the Borg are, and what “First Contact” actually is. Yet all of it - including Picard's absorption into the collective - is explained before the duration is over. ‘The Next Gen's somewhat sanitized, brightly-lit surroundings also lend little towards what could have been an effective horror. Woodard at one point describes them as "bionic zombies", and a little more Dawn of the Dead homaging could have gone a long way. That said, the Borg's drilling appendages are genuinely frightening, and their catchphrase - "I hope the Cybermen don't have a good lawyer", er, I mean, "you will be assimilated" - is chilling.

Despite these shortcomings, “First Contact” is a visual thrill…following the basic format of “Wrath of Khan” with action, action and action.

The film is pretty decently directed by Jonathan Frakes, who went on to direct the less then stellar "Star Trek: Insurrection" in 1998. However, Frakes at least manages to give ample development time to each of his characters to at least remind fans that they are present; hell, he even manages to provide a brief but funny cameo by semi-regular fan favorite Dwight Schultz, as the terminally shy Lt. Reggie Barclay.

Like all previous “Star Trek” movies, this one stimulates a believable atmosphere aboard the Enterprise drifting amongst deep space. Everything from the long, stretching corridors to winding hallways, to the convincing futuristic technology and profound decks, the locations on the set are entirely credible.

The parallel edits of Riker and Geordi working to inspire Cochrane to succeed with his flight combined with Picard and Data doing battle with the Borg Queen are very reminiscent of the technique as it was used in the “Star Wars” trilogy…particularly the ending of “Return of the Jedi.” It’s certainly a ride of tension that continues to build…right up to that pinnacle moment of the flight succeeding as Data laments “Resistance is Futile!”

One place in which this film strongly succeeds in is special effects, costume design, and make up effects; several of these variables were nominated for an Oscar in 1996. Probably one of the most evident examples of the movie's convincing visual arena resides in the Borg race themselves.

The Queen is a perfect villain, with slippery, slimy texture, deliciously portrayed by Alice Krige (delivering one of the most iconic villains in the film series). The aliens look as real as you and I. She induces a kind of sensuality I have never seen before, and don't expect to again. "Star Trek: First Contact" offers visual stimulation of a quality audiences seldom witness.

The quality of “First Contact” is also brought up a considerable notch with the triumphant return of composer Jerry Goldsmith to the proceedings…bringing with him is classic “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” (and, consequently, the “Next Generation&#8221 theme in all its glory. A powerful orchestration of the theme begins the film but is only a taste of the musical odyssey that follows throughout the rest of the film. Many excellent and always mood setting melodies along with the most beautiful theme ever featured in a “Star Trek” film dominate both “First Contact” and the emotions of the viewer.

Basically one non-stop shoot 'em up with very nice special effects and achieved on a modest $45 million budget, “Star Trek: First Contact” is incredibly appealing and a lot of fun to watch. True some points in the script and the dialog aren't exactly witty, but for the series as a whole this above average…relishing in references to both Mark Twain and Herman Melville.

Overall, “First Contact” is a blast…Full of fantastic action, atmosphere, characters, and so much more, the picture easily ranks among the very best of the Sci-Fi genre.

--------------------------------------------------------

 

[cerealkiller182]

this was my first introduction to Star Trek and I was surprised I liked it.

 

[C. Lee]

Is that HyperCube?

Yep....and the third one is called CUBE ZERO.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

FIRST CONTACT is far better than that strange new Star Trek movie.

 

[El_Citrus]

FIRST CONTACT is far better than that strange new Star Trek movie.

While I love First Contact, it has plenty enough flaws that it's only third or fourth best of all the Trek movies. I admit though that the villain and development of Picard and Data were superb, though.

 

[Vengeance]

Probably my favourite Star Trek movie & only TNG film which clicked just right like the show (if not better than the show).

 

[El_Citrus]

Probably my favourite Star Trek movie & only TNG film which clicked just right like the show (if not better than the show).

I agree that it's the best TNG film, since the character depth was just through the roof for Picard and Data. It felt bigger in scale than the show, but I didn't feel the urgency during the scenes on Earth and, as CFE said, this was a zombie movie in space that could have felt a bit more like one. (I won't mention a few technical nitpicks that I have with the movie).

 

[CFE]

#39

The Fly (1986)

[YT]k2c0dKzMWLE[/YT]

Directed by … David Cronenberg
Written by … Charles Edward Pogue and David Cronenberg
Adapted from the short story by …George Langelaan

Jeff Goldblum ... Seth Brundle
Geena Davis ... Veronica Quaife
John Getz ... Stathis Borans
Joy Boushel ... Tawny
Les Carlson ... Dr. Brent Cheevers
George Chuvalo ... Marky
Michael Copeman ... 2nd Man in Bar
Carol Lazare ... Nurse
Shawn Hewitt ... Clerk
David Cronenberg ... Gynecologist

A brilliant but eccentric scientist begins to transform into a giant man/fly hybrid after one of his experiments goes horribly wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------

Now THIS is how you remake a movie!

Despite the successes of “Scanners” and “Videodrome,” director David Cronenberg broke down Hollywood’s door permanently for his own brand of “body shock horror’ by bringing it to the mainstream in his grotesque interpretation of Kurt Neumann’s 1958 thriller with 1986’s “The Fly.”

Scientist Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum) has created a matter transporter to create a sort of teleporting system. During tests he finds it turns his monkeys inside out and kills them, until he gets it to work. He immediately tests it on himself and everything appears to work well. However he soon finds himself going through a series of changes, much to the concern of his girlfriend Ronnie (Geena Davis), that see him becoming fitter and stronger. However it isn't long until the changes become more concerning and it is clear that he is changing beyond his control and beyond recognition…into a ghastly fly-man hybrid!

Cronenberg’s take on the material, which in its initial incarnation is originally a film featuring a man with the body of a human but the head of a fly, is stark as all hell…with one of the bleakest endings in any movie of the 80s. Cronenberg is also working at one of his driving thematic forces as a filmmaker, though not as something that feels forced per-say…which is the overlapping concept of two sides to things…sides at war…within people, within relationships, and within what science can provide in new breakthroughs.

Cronenberg is famous for his body horror and here is no exception. “The Fly” loses a lot of his usual social comment prevalent in “Videodrome” and “Naked Lunch”…but still leaves him open enough to do a great science fiction horror that has some intelligent touches dabbled within it.

For example, we're given the character of Seth Brundle…a shy but massively accomplished scientist who's come upon the breakthrough of a lifetime- teleportation of matter from one spot to another. But a moment of relapse in his emotional state…the vulnerability of his feelings for a woman he gets close to…send him to test the experiment himself, unaware of the little creature that's going along for the ride with him. It's a gradual change, but one that is not in the physical sense; we're not getting a man with a body of a man and the head of a fly, but a man who we're seeing in a slightly "altered" Kafka perspective.

Instead of the man waking up to discover he's already been transformed, we're with him as he goes through this horrifying metamorphosis step by painful step…all the more-so because unlike in Kafka's tale he's very smart and can speak his emotions throughout the story, but at the same time it's a comment on the tragic unraveling of humanity (a nod to the political climate of the times perhaps?).

For Cronenberg, this makes up the crazy dilemma of Brundle, who is truly half human and half insect…and it provides for him little moments of the macabre comedy he's famous for (such as when Brundle rips a guy’s hand off during an arm-wrestling match…yeesh!) while still keeping strong to the darker implications of a story this implicit. It's a tale that starts out in romance as much as in science, with two characters we immediately care about because they're not simple cardboard genre movie cut-outs. They have their consciences, but for Brundle it gets turned up-side down by a force that is essentially instinctual.

The story is about embodiment, as it happens. Cronenberg in his absolute prime…where ghastly shapes were derived from organic forms. Contrast this with the insect-derived monster in "Aliens" of the same year. Those are all angles and plates and jutting sharp things. This is modeled, organic, moist…truly terrifying.

The story is not just some dumb horror-creature feature…but an intelligent science fiction tale commanded with excellent leading performances.

For an actor like Jeff Goldblum, going from straight-laced (if albeit eccentric) scientist to half irritable/half deformed bugman isn’t exactly a walk in the park. Fortunately, he's daring to go for that physicality straight-on…it’s tricky not to make this transition too terribly over the top, and Goldblum walks a very fine line that is expertly uncrossed. This is especially important considering the last Act of the film in which he is, of course, totally disguised by loads of wretched (yet excellently executed) make-up FX.

Geena Davis is the true shocker of the picture though…the display of her anguish over Seth’s deteriorating mentality is absolutely palpable and her emotions over the entire scenario feel very authentic to me.

Also be on the look out for Cronenberg alum Les Carlson as Dr. Brent Cheevers…and even an appearance from the man himself as David steps in to play the role of…what else…a Gynecologist.

Irony, they name is Cronenberg.

The Oscar winning make-up effects are fantastic, extremely gory and beautiful in a morbid sort of way. The make-up effects are one of the main reasons why the horror elements of the movie work out so very well, especially toward the ending. It's probably also the reason why this movie is regarded by many as the best of its kind.

Howard Shore’s score is also a very welcome macabre treat and one of my favorite collaborations between him and David.

What makes “The Fly” hold up isn't just its horror show aspect. Very much like John Carpenter's remake of “The Thing,” we're given an atmosphere of true terror…that atmosphere is less for the simple facet of spooking the audience with the next ghastly effect…it’s more about human beings not being able to have trust in one another…Fear of the unknown and that unknown manifesting as paranoia.

Funny enough, it very much seems (at least to me) that Cronenberg and Carpenter seemed to feed off of one another in the 80s. It seems clear when you look at films like “The Fly,” “Videodrome,” “The Thing” and “Big Trouble in Little China” as both of them continued to pioneer and advance shocking practical visual and make up effects in these respective titles. Clearly, these two men pushed the boundaries of tangible effects to their limits in these movies, and it’s something every film and effects enthusiast should be grateful for.

“The Fly” remains, along the lines of “Blade Runner” preceding it and “Batman” succeeding it, as one of the pinnacle achievements in the creation of the ‘Practical Effects Film.’

Practical.

Embodied.

And incredibly worth it.

“The Fly” is a very well constructed movie that can't really be defined. A typical Cronebergian gem, with more layers, meanings and elements in it then you would see at first sight. Almost everything about it is unique. It makes the picture a one of a kind movie that is an absolute must-see…at least if you have a strong enough stomach.

Simply put, this movie definitely isn't for the faint of heart…or gore tolerance.

--------------------------------------------------------

 

[Evil Twin]

I suspect we're getting to the part of the list where the surprises will be limited. Which is fine, the idea isn't necessarily to be surprising.

But, I definitely think there have been some omissions to this point. I'll wait until it's finished, but there definitely are movies I expected to see by now and not much wiggle room left.

 

[Kahoot]

FIRST CONTACT is far better than that strange new Star Trek movie.

I agree 100%, but First Contact is my favorite Star Trek movie.

 

[Obi-Ron]

"The Fly" is a great movie. Just ask the makers of "Heroes" -- they totally ripped this flick off when they decided to give Suresh powers.

The Fly II was good just for the line "I'm getting better." I quote that all the time.

 

[omid17]

The Fly

 

[Ace of Knaves]

With such a glowing review I would of thought it'd be much higher up. There isn't really one single criticism, yet it just squeaks into the top 40?

But nevertheless nice review CFE.

 

[Evil Twin]

With such a glowing review I would of thought it'd be much higher up. There isn't really one single criticism, yet it just squeaks into the top 40?

But nevertheless nice review CFE.

Which should tell you just how strong the top 40 is going to be. I've done some figuring on what's left out there and it's going to be a very strong run from here on out.

 

[CFE]

#38

Gattaca (1997)

[YT]m_nkVmRSpfE[/YT]

Written and Directed by … Andrew Niccol

Ethan Hawke ... Vincent Freeman
Uma Thurman ... Irene Cassini
Gore Vidal ... Director Josef
Xander Berkeley ... Dr. Lamar
Jayne Brook ... Marie Freeman
Loren Dean ... Anton Freeman
Ernest Borgnine ... Caesar
Tony Shalhoub ... German
Jude Law ... Jerome Eugene Morrow
Alan Arkin ... Det. Hugo
Maya Rudolph ... Delivery Nurse
Una Damon ... Head Nurse
Elizabeth Dennehy … Preschool Teacher
Blair Underwood ... Geneticist
Mason Gamble ... Vincent Freeman - Boy
Vincent Nielson ... Anton Freeman - Boy
Chad Christ ... Vincent Freeman - Teen
William Lee Scott ... Anton Freeman - Teen
Clarence Graham ... Personnel Officer
Carlton Bembry ... Gattaca Hoover
Cynthia Martells ... Cavendish
Grace Sullivan ... Sequencing Customer
Ken Marino ... Sequencing Technician
Gabrielle Reece ... Gattaca Trainer
Ryan Dorin ... Twelve-Fingered Pianist
Dean Norris ... Cop on the Beat
Steve Bessen ... Blood Test Detective
Russell Milton ... Gattaca Detective
George Marshall Ruge ... Beaten Detective
Lindsey Lee Ginter ... Mission Commander

A genetically inferior man assumes the identity of a superior one in order to pursue his lifelong dream of space travel.

--------------------------------------------------------

The mark of tremendous science fiction is its ability to openly speculate on where society is going…through research and what’s happening and developing at the time.

1997’s “Gattaca” takes a definite stab and predicting the advancements of cloning and genetics while simultaneously hitting the issue of social intolerance by creating an entirely new breed of it on the molecular level.

In the not too distant future, genetic engineering is the most common form of childbirth. Those born naturally in an uncontrolled fashion form a social underclass.

Gattaca is a futuristic space station that employs perfectly engineered people to work on perfect missions to space. Vincent (Ethan Hawke) was a rare child, an embryo not edited in any way, shape or form to improve characteristic traits. As soon as the child is born, blood is taken and analyzed. It is predicted that young Vincent will be overweight, suffer from heart problems and die by the age of 30.

It never happens.

Vincent, as a young man, is healthy - physically and emotionally. He doesn't suffer any breakdowns, his heart never fails, and he is simply a normal human being. He wears glasses on his weak eyes, and that is the only indication that he is somewhat human after all.

Other children, including his brother, are taken after conception and placed under the care of scientists who can alter genes and take out such unwanted traits as obesity, harmful physical conditions, and damaging addictions that could cause the soon-to-be-born individual's future self.

Vincent dreams of becoming a space explorer, of joining Gattaca and traveling to distant planets. His dreams are all ruined, though, because he is not perfect like everyone else. So what do you do if you can't fit in? Buy your way in.

Vincent pays a crook (Tony Shalhoub) to find an individual with good traits who would be interested in swapping identities. He does, and presents Jerome (Jude Law) to Vincent. Jerome used to be an Olympic Silver Medal swimmer until he became paralyzed from the waist down. His injury was not reported in the United States, but rather overseas, and so Vincent assumes Jerome's identity, copying his features and mannerisms and so on and so forth so that he can pass as Jerome and be accepted into Gattaca.

Tricky stuff is involved, such as occasional urine samples and daily blood checks (to see if the workers at Gattaca are "Valid" or "Invalid"). Jerome pees into bags and draws blood, and Vincent pays the rent in exchange for his favors. They both think they may have a chance at a future when Irene (Uma Thurman) starts to suspect something and begins a dangerous love affair with Vincent, that only ends in truth.

Andrew Niccol's flair for technological advancements of the future shines through in "Gattaca." He's the man responsible for the Jim Carrey vehicle "The Truman Show" and "S1m0ne" starring Al Pacino. “Gattaca,” however, remains his finest achievement, a story deeply rooted in both the present and the future. It bears a message that everyone should be given a chance, regardless of physical conditions, and it also presents us with amazing futuristic contraptions and settings. In simple terms, it’s a very good movie.

From a technical and artistic point of view, this film is pretty close to perfection. Obviously paying an aesthetic debt to Aldous Huxley’s incredible novel “Brave New World,” “Gattaca” is beautifully shot and almost devoid of special effects. I remember a total of three explosions in this film (perhaps this is an all-time low for recent Hollywood sci fi?) - all of which were normal parts of rocket launches. Since this is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an action-oriented film, there is no need for the typical sci-fi gimmagery. Some of the artistic choices are a little over-the-top with symbolism - such as the anachronistic use of 1960s and 1970s sports cars. I think I understand this choice - as it emphasizes the fact that, had things gone differently in our own history, we could easily be living in a nightmare ‘dystopia-posing-as-a-utopia’ world like Gattaca today.

The cast is a lovely exercise in the practice of getting the best actors.

Ethan Hawke did an excellent job portraying Vincent's quiet determination to achieve his goals and overcome his 'disability' of being genetically-imperfect and in showing that genes don't take into account hard work and a fighting spirit. Uma Thurman provided an interesting character in Vincent's love interest Irene, who comes to understand that a person's DNA doesn't make a difference. Her off-screen romance with Hawke at the time seemed to compliment their on-screen chemistry rather well.

But Jude Law works at his sarcastic and tragic best as the dark-toned Jerome, delivering perhaps the finest provoking performance in the piece…his death scene is so incredibly poignant and perfectly encapsulates the message of the entire film.

Ultimately the plot boils down to Vincent and Jerome's symbiotic reliance on one another, with certain themes of loyalty, brotherhood, acceptance, identity, mistaken-identity, as well as the genetics debate central to the plot all presented within this central relationship. It is this relationship that also acts as the emotional centre of the film, and the main reason why you should experience Gattaca, away from the impressive design and prevalent social themes. The eclectic supporting cast is rich tapestry of famous faces, character actors and cult performers, with appearances from Gore Vidal, Xander Berkeley, Ernest Borgnine, Alan Arkin, Blair Underwood and Tony Shalhoub. Add these factors to Idziak's sumptuous photography and one of Michael Nyman's most heart-wrenching scores and the film's closing moments transcend the usual limitations of science-fiction cinema, with its emphasis on action and special effects, to create something entirely moving on a completely personal level.

The idea that humans will be designed and evaluated according to their genetic constitution is a very plausible pitch. Already IVF babies have passed from disease screening to characteristic selection, for such things as eye-colour and so forth. And insurance companies are all very eager to get their hands upon clients' genomes as an in-depth guide to health risk assessment. As indeed are employers and snoopy governments. It's a frightening prospect and this movie pulls very few punches.

The interesting question asked by “Gattaca” is, for me, ‘could a caste system based on genetic endowment be our future?’ My vision of the future is that of a "brown society" in which everyone strives to be the same, but in which small subtle differences of appearance are increasingly appreciated.

If every movie star looked like, say Jennifer Lopez, however beautiful she is, I would nonetheless find particular delight in a Penélope Cruz or an occasional Reese Witherspoon.

This sort of pressure would keep some variety in the gene pool.

I also think that a society in which the genetic endowment of its members is too widely separated can only lead to class hatreds resulting in violent conflict and ultimately genocide, most likely by fiat, so that the survivors will be genetically rather similar. Possibly humanoid types will be genetically engineered to do the baser work of society. These creatures may be thought of as organic robots, not as bonafide members of society, thereby raising another question, what is it to be human? A society greatly stratified in terms of wealth can exist, as the present society shows, but a society in which the difference between haves and the have-nots is too great is not stable and eventually leads to revolution (there being a limit to the number of people that can be put in prison).

Furthermore, as this movie suggests, just which qualities of character, appearance and/or ability are the most valuable? And when such qualities become abundant, might we then have a need for other qualities now made scarce?

Finally, as is asked of the notion of I.Q: "intelligence for what?"

Is it more powerful in an evolutionary sense to be "intelligent" or to be healthy?

Is it more adaptive to have a powerful drive to succeed, or a powerful urge to procreate?

The fact that the film posed to me, perhaps unconsiously at first, these fascinating questions only reassures the “Gattaca”s brilliance on a personal level.

--------------------------------------------------------

 

[david icke]

But Jude Law works at his sarcastic and tragic best as the dark-toned Jerome, delivering perhaps the finest provoking performance in the piece…his death scene is so incredibly poignant and perfectly encapsulates the message of the entire film.

No matter what he does from now on in film, because of this role I will always have time for Jude Law. He's so good here, and whenever anyone has dissmissed him as an actor I have pointed them to this role as proof of his skills.

I've always loved this movie, used to recommend it to friends etc.

Ethan Hawke is great too, really inspiring role, that final swim off with his brother is tremendous.

I also think that a society in which the genetic endowment of its members is too widely separated can only lead to class hatreds resulting in violent conflict and ultimately genocide, most likely by fiat, so that the survivors will be genetically rather similar. Possibly humanoid types will be genetically engineered to do the baser work of society. These creatures may be thought of as organic robots, not as bonafide members of society, thereby raising another question, what is it to be human? A society greatly stratified in terms of wealth can exist, as the present society shows, but a society in which the difference between haves and the have-nots is too great is not stable and eventually leads to revolution (there being a limit to the number of people that can be put in prison).

Hopefully this^ will be explored well in the proposed tv spin off series they were talking about recently. It's more of a personal story in Gattaca, so you don't really get to see much of the outside world or reactions to these divisions that are the norm in this society.

Great review as usual CFE Never saw that Gattaca poster before, good one.

Shame S1mone wasn't too good, it was alright, but Gattaca was a bonafide classic. Don't know what else he has worked on since that movie. He was kind of like Shyamalan, someone who was trying to get their own ideas off the ground, which is always to be commended, even though the ideas might not always work out.

 

[Figs]

Great review for The Fly. I happed to actually watch it again about a week ago.

It's also good to know I'm not one of the only ones who enjoyed Gattica. It always seemed like way more people disliked over people who liked it.

 

[CFE]

#37

Dark City (1998)

[YT]QrGSLMl1XFs[/YT]

Directed by … Alex Proyas
Story by … Alex Proyas
Screenplay by … Lem Dobbs, David S. Goyer and Alex Proyas

Rufus Sewell ... John Murdoch
William Hurt ... Inspector Frank Bumstead
Kiefer Sutherland ... Dr. Daniel P. Schreber
Jennifer Connelly ... Emma Murdoch / Anna
Richard O'Brien ... Mr. Hand
Ian Richardson ... Mr. Book
Bruce Spence ... Mr. Wall
Colin Friels ... Det. Eddie Walenski
John Bluthal ... Karl Harris
Mitchell Butel ... Officer Husselbeck
Melissa George ... May
Frank Gallacher ... Chief Insp. Stromboli
Ritchie Singer ... Hotel Manager / Vendor
Justin Monjo ... Taxi Driver
Nicholas Bell ... Mr. Rain
Satya Gumbert ... Mr. Sleep
Noah Gumbert ... Mr. Sleep Filming Double
Frederick Miragliotta ... Mr. Quick
Peter Sommerfeld ... Stranger
Timothy Jones ... Stranger
Jeanette Cronin ... Stranger
Paul Livingston ... Assistant Stranger
Michael Lake ... Assistant Stranger
David Wenham ... Schreber's Assistant
Alan Cinis ... Automat Cop
Bill Highfield ... Automat Cop
Terry Bader ... Mr. Jeremy Goodwin
Rosemary Traynor ... Mrs. Sylvia Goodwin
Edward Grant II ... Hotel Manager
Maureen O'Shaughnessy ... Kate Walenski
Tyson McCarthy ... Murdoch - Age 10
Luke Styles ... Murdoch - Teenager
Anthony Kierann ... Murdoch's Dad
Laura Keneally ... Murdoch's Mum
Natalie Bollard ... Naked Woman
Eliot Paton ... Matthew Goodwin
Naomi van der Velden ... Jane Goodwin
Mark Hedges ... Emma's Lover
Anthony Pace ... Young Karl Harris
Anita Kelsey ... Emma Murdoch (singing voice)

A man struggles with memories of his past, including a wife he cannot remember, in a nightmarish world with no sun and run by beings with telekinetic powers who seek the souls of humans.

--------------------------------------------------------

Quite possibly one of the most overlooked and under-appreciated films of the 1990s, 1998’s “Dark City” is a stylish and visually arresting piece of genre filmmaking that is slick, dynamic and incredibly well crafted.

If Kafka wrote comic books, this is the kind of territory where he would relish in going.

Under the pens of “Crow” and “I’Robot” director Alex Proyas and “Blade” and “The Dark Knight” screenwriter David S. Goyer, John Murdoch (Rufus Sewell) awakes in a bathtub in a seedy hotel room in a city bathed in perpetual darkness, but has no conscious memory of who he is and how he got there. The only thing he learns is that he is a suspect in a string of murders of prostitutes and is being pursued by the police, particularly Inspector Bumstead (William Hurt) and is being given advice by a strange doctor, Dr. Schreber (Kiefer Sutherland) who talks in short, choppy sentences, as if he just ran the New York Marathon.

Also hot on his tail are mysterious "strangers" who look like the trench coat mafia and have the ability to rearrange the memories in people's lives as easily as remodeling one's apartment, placing the entire city in "sleep mode" every midnight while they manipulate people's lives and the look and feel of the city.

One sequence is particular in which a working class couple awakes to a lavish dining room complete with chandeliers and a long dining table as if nothing has happened is quite extraordinary. Discovering that he is the only person unaffected by the aliens' powers and actually shares some of their "tuning" abilities, Murdoch sets out to reconstruct vague memories of his wife Anna (Jennifer Connolly), a night club singer who comes to his support and a place called Shell Beach where he is alleged to have grown up as a boy. As he tries to make sense of his situation, Murdoch discovers that the aliens efforts to transplant people's memories is an attempt to discover the "soul" that makes human beings tick and incorporate it into their dying world.

“Dark City” updates the film noir tradition, creating a sepia-toned city of 1940s style architecture with dim-lit cafés, retro movie theaters, and a world of dark alleys, a quiet city where in the words of Samuel Beckett's Molloy, "nothing stirs, has never stirred, will never stir..." Murdoch, like Molloy, must discover if there is any "possible end to these wastes where the light never was, nor any upright thing, nor any true foundation, but only these leaning things, forever lapsing and crumbling away, beneath a sky without memory of morning or hope of night." Only when he learns the true nature of reality and his ability to control it can he undertakes a battle for the city and for his dream that Shell Beach can become more than a picture postcard.

Think a combination of “Blade Runner,” “L.A. Confidential” and “BATMAN” and you’ve got this picture.

Directorially, Proyas makes a strong visual statement early on in the more noir/mystery portion of the film. There some really great shots -- copious amounts of them in this film in general -- all of which are helped out by intriguing lighting and set design. Between this and the script, you can tell just how vivid Proyas' imagination has to be to actually bring this film to life.

I was quite happy with the cast that was brought together for the project. I love that Kiefer Sutherland, Richard O'Brien (of “Rocky Horror” fame) and William Hurt agreed to do this movie, it gave “Dark City” just that much more validation in the USA (I wish things weren't like this, but clearly they are). Kiefer Sutherland is absolutely wonderful and convincing as the doctor/scientist Dr.Schreber, and Rufus Sewell is a properly confused yet determined John Murdoch. Many critics say that William Hurt's character, the detective, and Jennifer Connelly's Emma Murdoch could have used a little more development, but I think part of the point of Dark City was that you don't really know who people are (not to mention yourself). Richard O'Brien and his character's whole race creep me out every time I see the movie, but he's especially frightening and a strange character. I had to resist the urge to talk like a Stranger after seeing the movie a few times.

The visual effects are quite astounding given the fact that you barely notice them…they’re blended into the proceedings so seamlessly and unobtrusively that it’s almost as if they were never there; their presence seems logical.

The film is also uplifted by a wonderfully dark and thematic score composed by Trevor Jones (“G.I. Jane,” “From Hell.&#8221 that encompasses the noir design quite solidly. It's very apropos. The deep, bass vocals and frantic themes are some of my favorite aspects, but "Memories of Shell Beach" is a haunting, beautiful song as well. Some of my other favorite scores by him are the Dark Crystal and Last of the Mohicans.

What I'd personally like to focus on is the theme of the fluidity of identity, a strong theme explored in many great works of fantasy and fiction in general, film noir in particular (e.g. "The Scar", "Tension," "Gilda"). Here we have a brilliant twist on the old amnesia story – our hero John Murdock's memories weren't lost because of some trauma or neurosis/psychosis, but rather he never had those memories because he actually avoided a trauma and a neurosis tailor-made for him by alien interlopers called The Strangers. In the course of the film the characters piece together reality from the bits left behind every night by the Strangers.

The crux of the story is the same as the object of the Strangers' experiment – the nature of the human soul, specifically free will, the role that experiences or conditioning play in our decision making process. If you give a regular man the memories of a serial killer, will he continue to act as a killer or to what extent will his "nature" assert itself? The Strangers do realize that man is more than the sum of his experiences, but they need to know what exactly causes that difference. It really gets interesting when one of the Strangers, Mr. Hand, injects himself with the memories that were supposed to be John Murdock's, and actually becomes the killer. Clearly, Mr. Hand represents the Jungian dark self or shadow of the hero (a fairly obvious conclusion) and the film seems to be making a refreshingly optimistic statement about the importance of the conscious rational mind over and above the irrational unconscious.

This film seems at first overly stylized and derivative, but after the secret is revealed we realize why this is so – heck you could even argue that the Strangers watched "Metropolis," "Naked City" etc. and formed their ideas about human society through them though such a conceit is hardly necessary: the Strangers are drawing from various epochs in human history and perhaps they are deliberately trying to give the humans an atmosphere both recognizable and alien.

After all, if you were seeking the mystery of the soul it would hardly do to simply look at one period of time or one particular culture. It's also clear the director is using the image of the circles not just as a metaphor for the story and the process of self-discovery that forms the core of the drama, but also as a way of explaining how and why the city was built. The city might resemble aspects of both the "real" and "romantic" 1940s – 1960s city simply as a result of the natural process of adding up and combining all the pieces of memory and impression used as building blocks in its creation. Form mirrors content upon accumulation of details, in other words.

“Dark City” is a truly an underrated masterpiece of modern cinema. The story unfolds at a captivating pace…complete with complex plot and characters as elements of film noir, Gothic comics and classic horror are blended in harmony.

Dazzlingly dark and intriguing Sci-fi Noir very much in the vein of “Blade Runner” and “The Matrix,” “Dark City” is a diamond in the rough more then deserving of its proper due…perhaps with time, the film will come to garnish the respect it deserves.

--------------------------------------------------------

 

[Doctor Jones]

Excellent review CFE! Dark City was fantastic!

 

[Evil Twin]

Yeah, I really enjoy Dark City as well. I'm a little iffy about the climax, basically they just stare at each other and stuff blows up, and the opening studio mandated narration, but I like everything else about it.

Oh, and Kiefer Sutherland is just flat out channeling Peter Lorre in his performance. Given that there's more than a touch of German Expressionism in the film that's entirely appropriate.

 

[david icke]

I like DC a lot too. I wish they'd done some more with the character of Det. Eddie Walenski though, he was great, raving in his basement with the spiral drawings.
Only other criticism I have is same as Evil Twins, the final fight could've been a bit more imaginative, although it looks great backgroundwise, and the music is great, they really do just stare at each other.
btw I heard they cut the studio imposed narration from the director's cut they released, don't know what other differences there may be.

 

[Max J Power]

I love Dark City and Gattaca is really interesting too. Good reviews on both.

 

[Sentinel X]

Dark City was just okay...I think it could've been better to be honest. Gattaca is a great film, I really love it. Its probably in my top 20 for scifi

 

[cerealkiller182]

Dark City is #4 on my top 10 sci fi movies

 

[CFE]

#36

The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957)

[YT]S0wzYiIKAsI[/YT]

Directed by … Jack Arnold
Written by … Richard Matheson (Richard Alan Simmons – uncredited)
Adapted from the novel “The Shrinking Man” by … Richard Matheson

Grant Williams ... Scott Carey
Randy Stuart ... Louise Carey
April Kent ... Clarice
Paul Langton ... Charlie Carey
Raymond Bailey ... Doctor Thomas Silver
William Schallert ... Doctor Arthur Bramson
Frank J. Scannell ... Barker
Helene Marshall ... Nurse
Diana Darrin ... Nurse
Billy Curtis ... Midget

When Scott Carey begins to shrink because of exposure to a combination of radiation and insecticide; medical science is powerless to help him.

--------------------------------------------------------

Despite a silly title, 1957’s “The Incredible Shrinking Man” is truly one of the greatest science fiction films of the 1950s. Yes within moments of hearing this title, we have already decided that the film is a terribly cheesy, poorly-acted piece of trash – the only reason to watch it is to be able to laugh at how ludicrously ridiculous it is.

But, much like “Robocop,” the title is ultimately deceptive…masking the fact that the film is actually quite incredible.

Written by the talented Richard Matheson and directed by 50s sci-fi king Jack Arnold, “Shrinking Man” manages to cram in a wealth of imagination and ideas in a lean 80 minutes. And that's all before we get to the last third of the film that becomes a hugely entertaining struggle of one man's will to survive.

Following a very visceral plot that we can all identify with in its brilliant simplicity, Scott Carey (Grant Williams) is exposed to a mist of mysterious silver particles while sun bathing as it moves quickly over his boat. A weird experience no doubt but it is over so quickly and without any other incident that they think nothing of it. It is a full six months later before he notices he has lost weight and a bit of height – or at least so he thinks. Tests are run, x-rays taken and soon his worries become reality as he is clearly losing inches in short periods of time. With his peers working to help him time is running out as Scott is shrinking quickly…soon having to face the threats in his own home such as the family cat!

The special effects are absolutely revolutionary for the time, but what's the most extraordinary is that they take a back seat to the hero's frames of mind: the voice-over is never redundant and Matheson's brilliant lines, a thousand miles above the B-movie level, perfectly convey his hero's plight.

The Frank Marshall directed "Arachnophobia"(1990), even with its much more comfortable budget pales into insignificance when you've seen Grant Williams' fight with the spider. The dollhouse, the scenes with the midgets and the metaphysical finale are as awesome today as they were half a century ago. Do not miss the cast and credits at the beginning either. During its second half, except for the voice-over, the movie is almost silent and Jack Arnold sustains the interest with only one character in a provocative technique that I personally enjoy immensely.

Williams' odyssey as a character is stunning. Arnold is able to craft a genuinely tense little thriller that remains riveting as it follows this one lowly man across a basement that has now become a vast and forbidding landscape. The well-orchestrated thrills include those skirmishs with the now giant house cat and a persistent spider previously mentioned.

Nasty odds.

But it’s interesting to see Scott now display resourcefulness and resolve to adjust to this new bewildering existence.

Another important highlight has Scott forming a bond with a gorgeous, kind-hearted midget (April Kent) who helps him to see things in a different way than before. The film displays a similar sensitivity throughout and a heavily philosophical bent. Ultimately, Scott's dilemma helps him to really be at one with the universe for once, and to no longer take for granted his position in it.

Williams does a solid job in the lead, veering from despondency to resignation to determination and finally acceptance. He makes Scott's plight truly sympathetic and meaningful.

Offering solid support are Randy Stuart and Paul Langton as his distraught wife and brother, and Raymond Bailey and William Schallert as concerned doctors.

The last soliloquy of Carey that ends the film was for me every bit as memorable as the the effects heavy action sequences…those scenes are all well shot and create stirring images thanks to Ellis W. Carter’s tremendous cinematography…but it’s truly Carey that…well, carries the picture on his tiny little shoulders.

The film’s message of alienation is quite palpable.

Arnold's expert use of huge sets and props provides excitement, but it is the philosophical script that supplies its rare power: complacent modern man, forced back on his primitive wits simply to survive, finally discovers hope, peace and meaning in the realization that everything in the cosmos, however small or insignificant, has its own place and worth…

Maybe what the film was trying to say was that it was not the size of the man but the size of his heart, his determination to survive…his faith in God maybe?

But I’m not about to enact heated discussions of religious intent in detailing a film about a man who shrinks.

"The Incredible Shrinking Man" is one of those films that works because it's both smart and fun at the same time. Arnold balances those two elements very well and crafts a film that creates a feeling of hope and peace rather than despair.

Relatively well-plotted with its scathing comments on alienation pre-popular counterculture, “The Incredible Shrinking Man” 
is great for science fiction enthusiasts and b-movie classics geeks…much like myself ha-ha.

The film is more than it appears, and it’s always a welcome delight to get a film with more layers than one would think…layers that you get to spend sufficient time pealing back. Matheson's bleak yet strangely affecting ending blew me away, giving the film an intellectual resonance lacking in most films of its type and period.

“The Incredible Shrinking Man" more than lives up to its reputation as one of the finest sci-fi films of the 1950s.

--------------------------------------------------------