Fire in the Sky (1993)
After recently watching Communion, I decided to explore the alien abduction genre a little further. There are a lot of movies based on these phenomena but most are very poor. Then I remembered Fire in the Sky from 1993; a movie that got quite a lot of publicity at the time of its release and gained a reputation for being a quality drama rather than a low budget cash-in. So I dutifully watched it to see if it warranted the minor cult status it seems to have acquired. I was pleasantly surprised to find an interesting movie with good performances that took the material in a direction I hadn't entirely expected.
After recently watching Communion, I decided to explore the alien abduction genre a little further. There are a lot of movies based on these phenomena but most are very poor. Then I remembered Fire in the Sky from 1993; a movie that got quite a lot of publicity at the time of its release and gained a reputation for being a quality drama rather than a low budget cash-in. So I dutifully watched it to see if it warranted the minor cult status it seems to have acquired. I was pleasantly surprised to find an interesting movie with good performances that took the material in a direction I hadn't entirely expected.
Fire in the Sky is a dramatisation of Travis Walton's book "The Walton Experience". The abduction itself is not the focal point of the story until the last act. The film primarily focuses on the friendship between Travis Walton (D. B. Sweeney) and Mike Rogers (Robert Patrick) who were part of a logging crew contracted by the government. The drama arises after Walton goes missing and his friends report his "abduction" to the authorities. They instantly become the subject to a police investigation and fall under suspicion by the rest of the town. The doubt and ridicule, as well as loss of employment cause, immense strain on Rogers and his colleagues. His marriage starts to crumble as a result. However polygraph tests show that he is not lying.
Robert Patrick dominates the picture with an extremely good performance. D.B. Sweeney surprisingly has less to do despite top billing. The movie has steady direction from Robert Lieberman who maintains a level headed tone. It also captures the mid seventies surprisingly well. Veteran actor James Garner also turns in a solid performance as Lieutenant Frank Watters, who is tasked with solving the case. The production is mainly location based and gives a good sense of what it's like to live in a small town. The UFO encounter at the beginning of the film is minimalist and purposely ambiguous. It is not until the third act when Travis Walton returns after five days, that the tone of the story changes.
D.B Sweeney offers a credible interpretation of a returned abductee, playing the role like a veteran suffering from shell shock. The movie culminates with a flash back to the interior of the alleged spaceship and a subsequent examination of Walton by EBEs. These scenes are very professionally done and very creative (they also have little resemblance to what was written in Walton's book, but hey that's Hollywood for you). This sequence is genuinely shocking with a variety of metal probes and instruments being driven in to Walton's head. In some respects it feels a little out of place with the proceeding tone of the movie. However it serves to illustrate why Walton returns in such a state.
Fire in the Sky is a solid movie that does not fall in to needless sensationalism about its subject matter. The acting and script are sound, preferring to deal with the human fallout of the incident rather than wallow in the excesses of the extraterrestrial elements of the plot. It certainly doesn't attempt to answer any major questions, preferring to explore the nature of friendship under extreme circumstances. As a result it is a far better movie than you'd expect, proving that good actors with a decent script is always preferable to VFXs, bluster and noise.
Communion (1989)
Ambiguous is a very good word to describe the movie Communion. As are nebulous, circumspect, vague, inconclusive and confusing. However that is the entire point of the film. It doesn't provide a definitive answer because to this day, author Whitley Strieber, who's personal experiences the movie is based on, doesn't have one. Was he abducted? If so by whom and for what reason? Who can say? Communion is not so much a study of the abduction phenomenon but more of an exploration of coming to terms with an unquantifiable experience. There is a strong religious subtext to the proceedings as the title implies. Strieber did not automatically assume that the "visitors" were extraterrestrial and has been very careful to use neutral terms to describe them.
Ambiguous is a very good word to describe the movie Communion. As are nebulous, circumspect, vague, inconclusive and confusing. However that is the entire point of the film. It doesn't provide a definitive answer because to this day, author Whitley Strieber, who's personal experiences the movie is based on, doesn't have one. Was he abducted? If so by whom and for what reason? Who can say? Communion is not so much a study of the abduction phenomenon but more of an exploration of coming to terms with an unquantifiable experience. There is a strong religious subtext to the proceedings as the title implies. Strieber did not automatically assume that the "visitors" were extraterrestrial and has been very careful to use neutral terms to describe them.
Communion is defined and driven by the performance of Christopher Walken. As ever he is both eccentric and compelling. He seems determined to paint Whitley Strieber as a New York Bohemian. In reality the author looks more like an accountant. However the film works best when depicting Walken's mental collapse and the strain it put's upon his family. The abduction and subsequent flash backs are purposely stylised, giving them a dreamlike quality. The special effects are not supposed to show us living, breathing entities but caricatures. We do not see them for what they are but as how Strieber's mind interprets them. The "visitors" are wearing masks, hiding their true identities, which is a recurring theme within the narrative.
Does Communion work as a movie? Yes, although it stumbles along the way and revels a little too much in its own ambiguity. It does however tackle some very interesting questions and highlights that abduction experiences are not as black and white as some people on both sides of the debate seem to think. If you watch this movie expecting a traditional abduction account then you may be better off watching Fire in the Sky. Communion is a far more philosophical undertaking. It raises far more questions than it answers but that is Whitley Strieber's entire point. Sometimes it's not about getting answers but how we deal with the fact that there may not be any satisfactory one. The movies conclusion seems to be that agnosticism is by far the wisest default position.
The Time Machine (2002)
I never got round to seeing The Time Machine during its initial release. The marketing at the time placed a lot of significance upon the fact that the director, Simon Wells, was H G Wells grandson. This made me somewhat suspicious because apart from novelty value, this really has no bearing on the movie in any real capacity. Finally having finally watched the film, my immediate conclusion is that it falls between two stools. The Time Machine starts as a romantic drama and then later on tries to re-assert itself as an action driven adventure. Unfortunately it does not commit fully to either, resulting in a rather odd, melancholy film.
I never got round to seeing The Time Machine during its initial release. The marketing at the time placed a lot of significance upon the fact that the director, Simon Wells, was H G Wells grandson. This made me somewhat suspicious because apart from novelty value, this really has no bearing on the movie in any real capacity. Finally having finally watched the film, my immediate conclusion is that it falls between two stools. The Time Machine starts as a romantic drama and then later on tries to re-assert itself as an action driven adventure. Unfortunately it does not commit fully to either, resulting in a rather odd, melancholy film.
In the 1960 original, the Time Traveller (Rod Taylor) was driven by sciencetific zeal and found love along the way. In this re-imagining, our hero Dr. Alexander Hartdegen (Guy Pearce) embarks on his journey through time and space as the result of the death of his fiancée. After witnessing the partial destruction of the moon in 2030 Alexander arrives at a distant point in the earth's future where the surviving humans have become a homogeneous race, preyed upon by the mutant Morlocks. He meets a sympathetic woman from the Eloi tribe called Mara (Samantha Mumba) and subsequently has to decide whether to continue to try and change his past or accept his fate and stay with her in the future.
For once rather than being lumbered with a movie that out stays its welcome, The Time machine actually suffers from being a little too short. The characters he meets in the future are somewhat ill defined and could all benefit with a bit more development. As a result a lot of their motivations seem vague. Orlando Jones cameo as the holographic computer interface Vox 114 is also a rather clumsy plot device and is used purely for the purpose of plot exposition. Jeremy Irons’ brief appearance at the end of the final act as the Über Morlock, is rather reminiscent of Bond confronting Blofeld in his volcano lair. Why the villain of the movie would let our hero go seems somewhat illogical.
Yet it’s not all bad. Guy Pearce is very watchable and there are moments of humour when Orlando Jones is on screen. The attack upon the Eloi by the Morlocks is very well staged and quite scary. The final cannibalistic revelations are also quite ghoulish without being too obvious. Overall The Time Machine provides a lightweight evening’s entertainment, if you are undemanding. Just don't make the mistake of comparing it to the original as it really isn't the same sort of movie and don't scrutinise the plot too closely. There is a better film in there trying to get out. I suspect that there may have been some heavy handed editing made upon the initial workprint. Something that is increasingly common these days, when a studio finds itself with a movie they are not entirely sure what to do with.
The Ultimate Warrior (1975)
I discovered The Ultimate Warrior via an anecdote my Father told me, about a film that he had once seen in which "Telly Savalas got paid in cigars". I was somewhat flummoxed at the time but after a little research it became apparent that he meant Robert Clouse' 1975 science fiction movie. I finally got to see The Ultimate Warrior for myself in the late eighties on satellite. Turns out it was Yul Brynner and not Telly Savalas but it’s easy to get such iconic seventies slapheads confused. He was spot on about the payment in cigars though.
I discovered The Ultimate Warrior via an anecdote my Father told me, about a film that he had once seen in which "Telly Savalas got paid in cigars". I was somewhat flummoxed at the time but after a little research it became apparent that he meant Robert Clouse' 1975 science fiction movie. I finally got to see The Ultimate Warrior for myself in the late eighties on satellite. Turns out it was Yul Brynner and not Telly Savalas but it’s easy to get such iconic seventies slapheads confused. He was spot on about the payment in cigars though.
The seventies was a truly great time for intelligent and thought provoking science fiction. Environmental issues were very topical so it’s not surprising to see such themes as a biological apocalypse in movies such as No Blade of Grass and The Ultimate Warrior. Both films depict a very stark vision of the near future and the decline of civilisation. The latter is especially true of The Ultimate Warrior. Through the minimal use of matte paintings and still photographs, the viewer is shown a decaying New York, bereft of power, utilities or any semblance of government. Pockets of survivors live in scattered communes, whereas the streets belong to feral humans.
One such commune, led by The Baron (Max von Sydow) has managed to grow several strains of disease resistant vegetables. Yet despite this breakthrough the group is teetering on the edge of total disintegration, due to the dwindling food reserves and the constant attacks from a rival gang run by William Smith. Enter Yul Brynner as Carson, a fighter for hire. Upon accepting The Baron's offer of employment, he learns that he is not there to protect the community but to secretly take the precious supply of seeds to safety. The deal also includes the safe escort of The Baron's pregnant daughter.
Despite a somewhat simplistic plot, The Ultimate Warrior explores many ideas. Carson is not just a thug but a wordly and introspective character. The Baron is also a complex individual, feeling loyalty to a group of people who have long ceased to think for themselves. He knows that they will inevitably turn upon him but he maintains his role to the very end. Clouse directs competently and makes no attempt to soften the impact of the movies content. The fights are minimalist and efficient. There are no guns or steampunk weaponry. Carson uses a simple knife. The story offers little moral redemption. Humans quickly abandon the rules of society and become mere predators, just to live to see another day. It's bleak and worryingly plausible.
It is a curious thing that this relatively minor studio picture achieves a lot more in narrative terms than many contemporary equivalents. It is greatly assisted by the presence of two outstanding character actors. Brynner who was fifty five at the time, still comes across as an imposing and formidable street fighter. The artistic freedoms of the time are very apparent in the movies ending. Carson's personal sacrifice is a metaphor for society having to make tough decisions for the sake of the greater good. It is highly unlikely that such an end would appear in an equivalent film today. Ignore the superficial trappings of the time. The Ultimate Warrior still has a lot of credible things to say. Unlike other more recent depictions of the future, at least no one here is wearing a colander as a hat.
Star Trek Beyond (2016)
I am not a dogmatic fan. In fact as I get older, I become far more flexible and forgiving in my outlook. I certainly don’t buy into the concept that your “childhood can be ruined”. The only way something new can spoil the memories of something old that you hold dear, is if you allow it to. If you wish to explore this concept further, I’d suggest reading Marcus Aurelius. Back to the matter in hand. When I found out that Star Trek was to be rebooted via an alternative timeline plot device, I was content with this. I decided to ditch my personal baggage and try and be objective about the now named “Kelvin Timeline”. I make no bones about the fact I have liked the previous two Star Trek movies. Are they masterpieces? No. Are they entertaining? Yes. That is far more than some reboots have achieved.
I am not a dogmatic fan. In fact as I get older, I become far more flexible and forgiving in my outlook. I certainly don’t buy into the concept that your “childhood can be ruined”. The only way something new can spoil the memories of something old that you hold dear, is if you allow it to. If you wish to explore this concept further, I’d suggest reading Marcus Aurelius. Back to the matter in hand. When I found out that Star Trek was to be rebooted via an alternative timeline plot device, I was content with this. I decided to ditch my personal baggage and try and be objective about the now named “Kelvin Timeline”. I make no bones about the fact I have liked the previous two Star Trek movies. Are they masterpieces? No. Are they entertaining? Yes. That is far more than some reboots have achieved.
Since J.J. Abrams move from director to executive producer on the new movie franchise, I’ve been a little sceptical regarding the third instalment. Justin Lin is not a film maker I would have immediately thought of with regard to Star Trek. Thankfully, I am happy to say my personal misgivings have been proven wrong. The director’s frenetic signature set pieces are certainly present in Star Trek Beyond. But so is an obvious understanding of the source material. In many respects the film plays out like a big budget, extended episode of the original series. However far from being a criticism, this is a major compliment, showing that the entire production team fundamentally understands what makes the franchise great and what fans like the best.
The plot is relatively straightforward, involving the Enterprise being lured into an ambush within the confines of an uncharted nebula. Marooned on a nearby planet, most of the crew find themselves prisoner of Krall, an alleged alien warlord. However, Kirk, Chekov, Spock, McCoy and Scotty evade capture and plan to rescue their colleagues. It is here that the film comes into its own, with the focus on the crew interaction. The pairing of McCoy and Spock is very reminiscent of scenes from the original series and includes some classic banter between the two. I was very pleased to see Karl Urban given more onscreen time, as his portrayal of Doctor McCoy is spot on. Although at times reminiscent of DeForest Kelly, Urban manages to provide a contemporary spin on the character and make the role his own. The movie also comes to life when the classic trinity of Kirk, Spock and McCoy come together. It would also be remiss of me to not mention Simon Pegg who has an expanded role this time round. His pairing with another alien Jaylah (Sofia Boutella), who has also been marooned, provides a greater insight into the character. There is humour and pathos in his performance.
Star Trek Beyond also takes the time to ponder some wider issues pertaining to the franchise. I like the concept of a captain questioning the validity of the five year mission faced with the infinite nature of the universe. The screenplay written by Doug Jung and Simon Pegg also sensitively deals with death of Leonard Nimoy. The passing of Spock Prime causes his younger self to reflect of his various choices, such as joining Starfleet and his relationship with Uhura. It is a credible dilemma that could beset those who find themselves part of a diaspora. The movie’s only narrative weakness it with its villain Krall, played by Idris Elba. He lacks sufficient development and although we understand his motives, they are somewhat arbitrary. Perhaps some additional screen time could have remedied this minor deficiency.
It was announced last week by producer J.J. Abrams that the role of Chekov will not be recast after the tragic death of Anton Yelchin. However the franchise will see a further instalment with a plot featuring Kirk meeting his dead father, George. Despite some rather vocal naysayers, it would appear that these new movie set in the “Kelvin Timeline” are finding an audience and proving commercially viable. With Bryan Fuller recently revealing that his new TV shows will be called Star Trek Discovery, it looks like the entire Star Trek franchise is in good shape after fifty years. Star Trek Beyond certainly contributes to this current good standing and manages remain true to the spirit of Gene Roddenberry’s vision, despite an unlikely director.
Slipstream (1989)
I'm always intrigued by films that have troubled production histories, or that have failed at the box office. Slipstream is a prime example and is also a very hard movie to define; a real cinematic oddity. Superficially it is a fusion of "Post Apocalypse" and "Buddy" genres. It has a distinguished pedigree, boasting a cast of quality character actors, an experimental director, excellent locations and a solid UK production crew. It also sports a superb score by the great Elmer Bernstein, considered in some circles to be one of his finest. Yet the overall movie is messy, disjointed, poorly edited and somewhat ponderous in its intellectual aspirations. However despite all these criticisms, it has a curious quality that holds the attention.
I'm always intrigued by films that have troubled production histories, or that have failed at the box office. Slipstream is a prime example and is also a very hard movie to define; a real cinematic oddity. Superficially it is a fusion of "Post Apocalypse" and "Buddy" genres. It has a distinguished pedigree, boasting a cast of quality character actors, an experimental director, excellent locations and a solid UK production crew. It also sports a superb score by the great Elmer Bernstein, considered in some circles to be one of his finest. Yet the overall movie is messy, disjointed, poorly edited and somewhat ponderous in its intellectual aspirations. However despite all these criticisms, it has a curious quality that holds the attention.
In the future the earth has been ravaged by a series of natural disasters. Earthquakes have altered the continents throwing nations together. The surface is swept by super wind-storms, forcing people to travel the Slipstream in the canyons and ravines of the earth crust. Bounty hunter Will Tasker (Mark Hamill) is searching for Byron (Bob Peck), a mysterious figure who is wanted for murder. Despite capturing him, he soon loses his prisoner to Matt Owens (Bill Paxton), an enterprising "trader" who takes Byron in hope of collecting a reward himself. During their travels Owens and Byron become incongruous friends, while being doggedly pursued by Tasker. It’s not before Owens starts to wonder about his friends strange abilities and whether there’s more to the criminal charges against him than first meets the eye?
On paper it all sounds quite good but rather than approaching the material as an action/sci-fi film, director Steven Lisberger (of Tron fame) seems hell-bent on making a "message" picture. There are intermittent pauses in the story to ponder metaphysics. Performances overall are very good. Bob Peck is superb, being enigmatic, vulnerable and just a little bit dangerous. Hamill, a truly underrated actor, is very convincing as the hard-nosed, old school bounty hunter. The aerial photography is also very creative and makes good use of multiple European locations. This was clearly a production that made the most of its budget. The effects work is very much of its time relying on physical stunts and optical processing. This aspect of the movie is never allowed to overwhelm the narrative which is very much the focus of the one hundred and two minute running time.
Yet Slipstream smacks of a film that has gone through multiple edits. There are several scenes that end abruptly or shy away from what has been telegraphed. For example, Hamill confronts a group of smugglers. Guns are drawn and then instead of a dramatic shootout, we cut to close shot of a shotgun muzzle being fired rapidly. Next thing we see are the dead victims being buried. Yet strangely, during the films climax, we see one of the lead characters shot and blown backward through a glass cabinet in slow motion. Minor characters enter the story and then are never seen again. The titular Slipstream itself seems to diminish in importance as the film progresses. I just get the impression that there's another twenty minutes of footage somewhere, that if reinstated would have drastically improved the proceedings.
Several of the sub-plots the run throughout Slipstream, seem strangely dated focusing upon philosophical questions pertaining to the end of society. Director Steven Lisberger seems enamoured with seventies counter culture. Tonally I was strongly reminded of such films as Zardoz and A Boy and His Dog. One of the most thought provoking aspects of the film is the old chestnut about how androids are external manifestations of human vanity. Byron an android, who was built as a companion, appears to have murdered his master. When questioned, Owens assumes that "he had it coming". Peck confirms this but the delivery of the lines implies a deeper meaning. A mercy killing perhaps, of someone who was terminally ill? It’s an aspect of the plot that would’ve benefited further exploration.
If you are a connoisseur of the unusual and have patience as well as an open mind, Slipstream is worth a look. It is definitely a failed opportunity but still has many aspects to engage the mind. Sadly a Director’s Cut seems highly unlikely, as producer Gary Kurtz stated recently that much of the missing footage was incomplete or dropped from the script before being shot. There simply isn’t the material to restore to the film. He also implied that the original story was a lot darker in tone and far more violent. Sadly, due to the financial failure of Slipstream the film is now in the public domain and therefore many of the copies available are sourced from poor quality prints, shown in the wrong aspect ratio. Therefore choose wisely how and where you decide to watch this cinematic curiosity.
Next (2007)
Next is based on a story by Philip K. Dick and has nothing to do with the song by the Sensational Alex Harvey Band. Nor is it linked in any way to the fashion and lifestyle chain of retail stores. I just wanted to get that cleared up before I start. Now I believe that the world in general, pretty much wiped their critical backsides upon this film upon its release. There were complaints regarding the lack of plot explanation, back story and character motivation. I dealt with all these points by simply engaging my brain and sense of imagination. It is not essential for every nuance of a storyline to be telegraphed in great detailed. I do not like to be cinematically spoon fed. But there again, I am not afflicted with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Now that we’ve got this matter out of the way let us press on. Next is far from a masterpiece; however it is neither the dog’s dinner some would claim.
Next is based on a story by Philip K. Dick and has nothing to do with the song by the Sensational Alex Harvey Band. Nor is it linked in any way to the fashion and lifestyle chain of retail stores. I just wanted to get that cleared up before I start. Now I believe that the world in general, pretty much wiped their critical backsides upon this film upon its release. There were complaints regarding the lack of plot explanation, back story and character motivation. I dealt with all these points by simply engaging my brain and sense of imagination. It is not essential for every nuance of a storyline to be telegraphed in great detailed. I do not like to be cinematically spoon fed. But there again, I am not afflicted with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Now that we’ve got this matter out of the way let us press on. Next is far from a masterpiece; however it is neither the dog’s dinner some would claim.
Nicholas Cage plays a Vegas stage magician who has the ability to see two minutes into his own future. This ability has the added complication that each time he uses it there is the risk of altering the events he sees. Subsequently it's been a curse to him all his life and so he hides in plain sight, in the only environment that can provide suitable cover for a man of his unusual talents. It's not long before the government want to pressgang him in to helping them with a terrorist threat involving a stolen nuclear device. As per usual with films of this kind, the intelligence services rather than simply ask for cage's assistance are more content to strong arm him. A romantic subplot involving a woman Cage meets in a diner (Jessica Biel) soon becomes a potential bargaining chip for both the government and terrorists alike.
Next is classic example of big budget, formulaic, studio driven entertainment. All required elements are present and correct. The romantic sub-plot is inoffensive, there are some enjoyable action scenes as well as some arresting visual devices used to demonstrate and convey Mr Cages's abilities. Lee Tamahori directs in a suitable manner for such a commercial project, having handled such studio productions before. Yes this movie is “safe” and nowhere near as challenging as Tony Scott's Deja Vu. However Next is not the cinematic donkey it's been accused of being and provides enjoyable escapist entertainment. Nicholas Cage movies are often a lottery but this one actually suits his style and demeanour.
Something that comes up a lot with regard to Next is the inconsistent nature of the science that drives the plot. This was a common complaint in many a review when the movie was released in 2007. I would argue since when has Hollywood science stood up to close scrutiny? Take a classic film such as Fantastic Voyage which despite having a great premise and outstanding production design, is filled with flawed or incorrect science. Does one particular failing mitigate a movies other attributes and rob it of any entertainment value? I think not. Let us not forget that movies require the audience to suspend their sense of disbelief and also that pedantry is seldom a virtue.
Marooned (1969)
Depending on your point of view, Marooned directed by John Sturges was considered either “a taut and interesting film…” or “Tedious and Sad…” upon its release. That still remains the case today. It’s curious that despite the space race being such a big story at the time it seldom translated into good drama on the big screen. Like Robert Altman’s Countdown from the preious year, Marooned suffers from a rather clinical approach to the subject matter and a somewhat pedestrian pace. Perhaps the focus on real space travel and science fact was the problem. Robert Parrish’s Journey to the Far Side of the Sun which was released at the same time is far more dramatically engaging with its more overt science fiction narrative.
Depending on your point of view, Marooned directed by John Sturges was considered either “a taut and interesting film…” or “Tedious and Sad…” upon its release. That still remains the case today. It’s curious that despite the space race being such a big story at the time it seldom translated into good drama on the big screen. Like Robert Altman’s Countdown from the preious year, Marooned suffers from a rather clinical approach to the subject matter and a somewhat pedestrian pace. Perhaps the focus on real space travel and science fact was the problem. Robert Parrish’s Journey to the Far Side of the Sun which was released at the same time is far more dramatically engaging with its more overt science fiction narrative.
Marooned focuses on the three man crew of Ironman One as they experience a technical malfunction which renders the ship inoperative. Unable to return to their space station or affect a re-entry, it soon become apparent that both oxygen and time is running. Mission control desperately tries to find a solution, turning to an experimental space vehicle to affect a rescue. A further dimension is added to the problem when political pressure is applied from the President, anxious to avoid a disaster in space and the associated propaganda fallout. Does the only viable solution lie with co-operation with the Russians?
Marooned is technically proficient, yet struggles to find the correct balance between accurately depicting the technology of the time and making it cinematically entertaining. The effects work was cutting edge at the time and is cleverly used with a selection of matching stock footage to create a credible environment. The movie boasts a quality ensemble cast for the times, featuring such names as Gegory Peck, Richard Crenna, Gene Hackman and James Franciscus. It does it’s best to be avoid an excess of melodrama but the deliberately slow pacing is somewhat challenging. The earnest script and technical exposition is the main culprit here.
Fans of director John Sturges may well be flummoxed by this uncharacteristic change of style. Marooned could easily lose twenty minutes of material to tighten the flow of the story. Perhaps NASA’s direct involvement in the production hampered the development of some of the more dramatic story lines such as the political dimensions and the public “handling” of the astronauts’ wives. The film can be rewarding to the patient viewer as well as a window into the space race during the cold war era. For the more casual viewer it will be an uphill struggle.
The Man Who Haunted Himself (1970)
Roger Moore has often been accused of being an actor of limited range, although in all fairness, this may be down to typecasting. This cinematic curiosity from 1970 proves otherwise and is considered by some to be his best performance. Made immediately after The Saint TV series, it afforded its star an opportunity to tackle a character who is rather puritanical, potentially impotent and in every way the complete opposite of Simon Templar and James Bond.
Roger Moore has often been accused of being an actor of limited range, although in all fairness, this may be down to typecasting. This cinematic curiosity from 1970 proves otherwise and is considered by some to be his best performance. Made immediately after The Saint TV series, it afforded its star an opportunity to tackle a character who is rather puritanical, potentially impotent and in every way the complete opposite of Simon Templar and James Bond.
The Man Who Haunted Himself begins with executive Harold Pelham driving home from work, when he uncharacteristically starts to drive dangerously. After crashing he is taken to hospital where his heart stops during the operation. Once resuscitated, there are two heart beats briefly showing on the monitor. Returning home, Pelham finds his life has been turned upside down. At his job as a director of a marine technology company he learns that he now supports a merger that he once opposed. Furthermore it would appear that he is having an affair. Friends, colleagues and acquaintances claim they have seen him in places that he has never been. Does Pelham have a doppelganger, or is he actually going insane?
Director Basil Dearden had prior experience in handling tense supernatural tales, having directed segments for the classic Dead of Night. He handles the unfolding story in The Man who Haunted Himself in a competent fashion. The tension slowly builds and there is growing sense of disquiet rather than sudden shocks. The end is somewhat ambiguous and is open to several interpretations. Overall this is an intriguing character study, with solid performances. It is definitely a product of the times and may not necessarily appeal to contemporary viewers with little patience. However for genre fans and Roger Moore aficionados, this is a rewarding ninety minutes.
The Martian (2015)
Within a few minutes of watching Ridley Scott’s big budget adaptation of Andy Weir’s best-selling novel The Martian, it became immediately apparent that the emphasis was on dialogue and science. Naturally there are competent action sequences of the magnitude you’d expect from such a movie but they are not the driving force of the narrative. The Martian is very much a procedural drama with strong and likeable characters. It’s about how they react to adversity and the underlying mechanics of solving the logistical problems of rescuing a man marooned on Mars. If you don’t like movies with a lot of dialogue and having to think too hard then you may wish to see something else.
Within a few minutes of watching Ridley Scott’s big budget adaptation of Andy Weir’s best-selling novel The Martian, it became immediately apparent that the emphasis was on dialogue and science. Naturally there are competent action sequences of the magnitude you’d expect from such a movie but they are not the driving force of the narrative. The Martian is very much a procedural drama with strong and likeable characters. It’s about how they react to adversity and the underlying mechanics of solving the logistical problems of rescuing a man marooned on Mars. If you don’t like movies with a lot of dialogue and having to think too hard then you may wish to see something else.
If there’s one facet of this movie that I had to highlight as its strongest selling it has to be its tone. The Martian maintains a healthy balance between drama, emotion, tension and science. All of which are approached in a measured and intelligent fashion. This makes the film very accessible. The science and technology is essential to the story but is constantly tempered with dry wit and nerd banter. Astronaut Mark Watney copes with his isolation and desperate situation through humour and a droll personal monologue. Writer Drew Goddard (Cabin in the Woods, Cloverfield) has successfully adapted the source text and added a more human layer to the proceedings.
Despite having a great ensemble cast, it is Matt Damon that underpins this movie. His performance is both likeable and credible. He remains resolute in the face of adversity relying on his scientific training but he is never smug. On occasions when his emotions do get the better of him it is used to great dramatic effect. Jessica Chastain, Bill Pullman, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Sean Bean all have something tangible to do and the screenplay seldom takes a wrong step. The movie successfully creates an atmosphere where you feel that all involved are genuinely working towards a common goal. The Martian also manages to honestly depict how academia and nerd culture often goes hand-in-hand, without lapsing into negative stereotypes.
When dealing with a global subject such as space exploration, many movies cannot help but default to conventional tropes and memes regarding contemporary geopolitics. The Martian is curiously free from this and beyond the involvement of the Chinese space authorities at a key point in the story, the focus remains upon NASA and JPL and not political leaders. A lot of the technical solutions and hardware featured in the film are based upon designs currently under development. The administrative and procedural aspects of The Martian are also based upon those currently followed by the institutions depicted. Of course there are concessions made for creative and cinematic reasons but the movie still maintains a largely authentic air.
Ridley Scott last two movies have not been commercial or critical successes. The Counsellor and Exodus: Gods and Kings seemed to lack the director’s usual acumen. The Martian remedies this run of bad form by being entertaining, cerebral and accessible to multiple audiences. There is humour, pathos as well as spectacle. Through a minor plot contrivance, there’s also a great soundtrack featuring some disco classics. Scott also manages to dovetail David Bowie’s Starman in to the proceedings without it coming off as a shocking cliché. Again I feel compelled to mention the tonal confidence of this film. As a result The Martian deserves to be a critical and financial success. According to Professor Brian Cox it’s a great advertisement for a career in engineering. It certainly proves that mainstream cinema does not have to be big and dumb.
Brainstorm (1983)
Director Douglas Trumbull’s background in the special effects industry has given him a unique perspective on film making. It is said that he made Silent Running with its humane and environmental message as a direct response to Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, which he saw as stark, cold and clinical. Brainstorm again takes a technological story and adds a very human angle. The production was delayed by the death of lead actress Natalie Wood and the studio was somewhat at a loss as how to sell this film once it was completed. Everyone else at the time was still making space operas and this cerebral piece of cinema was very much ahead of its time.
Director Douglas Trumbull’s background in the special effects industry has given him a unique perspective on film making. It is said that he made Silent Running with its humane and environmental message as a direct response to Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, which he saw as stark, cold and clinical. Brainstorm again takes a technological story and adds a very human angle. The production was delayed by the death of lead actress Natalie Wood and the studio was somewhat at a loss as how to sell this film once it was completed. Everyone else at the time was still making space operas and this cerebral piece of cinema was very much ahead of its time.
Brainstorm is an innovate take on the traditional conflict between science and big business. Brilliant researchers Lillian Reynolds (Louise Fletcher) and Michael Brace (Christopher Walken) develop a system of recording people’s experiences, feelings and emotions. It is not long before this breakthrough attracts the attention of the military and Michael soon finds himself at odds with his employer. His devotion to his research also costs him his marriage. When his colleague suffers a fatal heart attack, she manages to record her dying experiences. Michael has to consider the risks to himself if he plays back the recording. In the meantime the Military have other ideas regarding both the tape and the future of the entire project.
Brainstorm is a thoughtful and somewhat sentimental film. Despite the technological setting, it deals with traditional themes such as love, death and taking responsibility for our own actions. Walken is ideally cast as the obsessive and driven scientist who neglects his family’s emotional welfare. Natalie Wood gives a warm performance as his estranged wife. The script is somewhat old school and adopts a rather conservative moral tone. The production design also reflects what was considered to be cutting edge technology in the early eighties. It’s interesting to see the reliance on telephony and mainframes in the days before the internet, as well as the lack of optical or solid state media.
Brainstorm features several sub plots that are not fully developed. This may be due to the re-editing that had to be done to accommodate Natalie Wood’s death. There is also a rather incongruous sequence where a production line is sabotaged. This descends into slapstick, with security personnel desperately trying to cope with the mayhem while wading around in a sea of fire retardant foam. Yet despite these minor criticisms, Brainstorm still manages to engage the mind in a thought provoking manner. The optical effects are outstanding for the pre-digital age. The ending with its glimpses of heaven and hell are very intriguing. Apparently a lot more footage was shot for these scenes but omitted from the final edit, possibly for ratings reasons. There is definitely footage in the trailer that is not in the theatrical release.
I saw Brainstorm on video on its initial release. At that time it was only available in 4:3 pan and scan format. The current Blu-ray release shows the film in two aspect ratios. 1.85:1 for the real world scenes and 2.20:1 for the “recording” of others peoples experiences. Sadly rather than switching between ratios, the print is formatted to the larger format and thus shows majority of the movie is a picture box presentation which is far from satisfactory. Douglas Trumbull wanted to film the entire movie in an experimental format that ran a 60FPS but studio vetoed this idea for financial reasons the. Despite a difficult production and it’s narrative inconsistencies Brainstorm still merits viewing and will appeal to the more thoughtful and discerning viewer.
Outland (1981)
Outland was one of the first AA rated movies I ever saw (which is now an obsolete rating in the UK). I remember that I was expecting the worst because the trailer implied that there was at least one exploding head featured during the film. Turns out there were two. Anyway the movie made a strong impression upon me at the age thirteen and I have revisited it numerous times since its release. I recently discovered that Outland had been given a Blu-ray release from Warner Brothers and decided to watch it once again but this time with a more critical eye rather than a nostalgic one.
Outland was one of the first AA rated movies I ever saw (which is now an obsolete rating in the UK). I remember that I was expecting the worst because the trailer implied that there was at least one exploding head featured during the film. Turns out there were two. Anyway the movie made a strong impression upon me at the age thirteen and I have revisited it numerous times since its release. I recently discovered that Outland had been given a Blu-ray release from Warner Brothers and decided to watch it once again but this time with a more critical eye rather than a nostalgic one.
The story is very straight forward being essentially a western in outer space. Federal Marshal O’Neil is beginning a year’s tour of duty at a major mining facility on Io, one of Jupiter’s moons. After a spate of suicides and random violent crimes, the Marshal discovers that General Manager Sheppard (Peter Boyle) is distributing drugs among the work force to increase productivity. The side effect of long term addiction leads to psychosis. Unable to trust his fellow officers the Marshal find his only ally is the facilities cynical chief medical officer, Dr. Lazarus (Frances Sternhagen). O’Neil’s investigations inevitably lead to him to a show down with two contract killers.
You would have to be an extremely causal viewer not to see shades of High Noon in this movie. But unlike the westerns of the 50’s with their sanitised depiction of the West, this frontier in space is grimy, seedy and altogether plausible. Writer/Director Peter Hyams creates a credible working environment, similar to that of an oilrig. Everything is functional and basic. There is no privacy or glamour. The future is run by big corporations and driven by return on investment. It’s a bleak and rather all too familiar world.
What elevates Outland above the standard of similar genre products from the time is the universally high standard in every aspect of the production. The script is tight, honest and plays to the strengths of the lead actors. The dynamic between Connery and Sternhagen is very plausible, with dry quips, cynicism and grudging respect. The sets are claustrophobic and depressingly credible. The technology on display hasn’t dated too much. Hyams did not make the usual genre mistakes such as exotic costumes and weaponry. The miniature work by Martin J. Bower is outstanding and the Introvision front projection effects works still look acceptable.
Peter Hyams has always been somewhat underrated as a director. All the hallmarks of his previous works are present in Outland. There is a well-crafted chase scene, the mythical “good cop” and corporate/political conspiracies. Of course the movie is not without fault. You can easily question some of the science and there are a few plot wholes. However, the sheer presence of Sean Connery overshadows these minor quibbles. The movie is a showcase for his acting talent which is often overlooked. Outland also demonstrates that can get a lot of mileage from a classic tale and if you are sufficiently inventive. By not involving aliens in this vision of the future and showing that man’s worst enemy in space is himself, the tale maintains credibility.
Outland still remains a finely crafted, character driven thriller. It transcends the usual limitations that some studios impose upon the genre to be a superior piece of film making. There’s not a slack moment in the narrative which is perfectly paced. It would also be remiss of me not to mention the atmospheric score by Jerry Goldsmith. Warner Brothers Blu-ray transfer is very good and the movie looks crisp and clear. Obsessive movie fans you can finally do a comprehensive frame by frame analysis of P.H. Moriarty’s head explosion. For a movie that is thirty one years old, it holds up very well and is still solid entertainment.