2008 Saturn SF – IRON MAN

Superhero films have dominated that Saturn fantasy awards for most of the decade, but Iron Man bounces back to sf, which makes sense.  This film is about as science fictiony as superhero movies get; not that it’s rigorous, hard sf, but it is much more interested in technology, and the implications thereof, than most entries in the genre. And, it wouldn’t be surprising if creators Stan Lee et al were heavily influenced by Starship Troopers, which came out just a couple of years before Iron Man’s first appearance.

Billionaire playboy Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) inherited his father’s arms-manufacturing corporation. He’s a mechanical genius himself, but he spends most of his time partying. His faithful personal assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) struggles to keep his life together. After a weapons demonstration in Afghanistan, Stark is kidnapped by terrorists and asked to make them weapons, instead he makes a chest implant to protect him from a possibly-fatal wound and a suit of powered armor that he uses to escape. Upon his return, he refines the suit and uses it to fight some of the wrongs caused by his company’s weapons. His business associate, Obadiah Stane (an uncharacteristically evil Jeff Bridges), wants Stark Eterprises, and he builds his own suit it get rid of Tony.

Stan Lee made a few innovations to superhero comics in the 1960s that served to make Marvel the leading comic company. One of the most important was the idea that all of his heroes had to have a flaw. Iron Man was one of his weakest inventions, I think. Stark’s flaw was that he needed the suit to live due to injuries to his chest. There are some interesting implications there, but they never get explored, and it really just became a cheap device to keep the hero down for a bit, a la kryptonite. Later writers developed new flaws for Stark, womanizing and alcoholism, that made him much more interesting, and highlighted the contrast with his steel exterior. The film does a great job of capturing that take on the character.

I remember that before this film came out in the spring of 2008, there was a sense that the Renaissance in superhero movies was coming to an end. In the two previous summers, there’d been a string of failures, maybe even embarrassments like X-Men 3, Spider-man 3, Fantastic Four 2, Ghost Rider, and Superman Returns (though they were still making money). On top of that, Iron Man was not a big-name character, and it seemed to some like Marvel was scraping the bottom of their intellectual property barrel. But, this film made a surprising amount of money and garnered a lot of critical praise. Jeff Bridges later reported that director Jon Favreau shot most of the movie without a script, and that may be a big part of its success. The film rides on Downey’s charisma and charm, and his ad libs work brilliantly. It’s a fairly simple formula – take a charming and talented star, give him a fun character with some intriguing flaws to work with, and surround it all with some solid effects and action, and you get a very entertaining superhero flick. I think it’s a lesson that more superhero movies, and science fiction movies in general, might profit from following.

Of course, a couple of months later, another superhero movie came out that took the exact opposite approach, The Dark Knight Returns. It’s a better movie, and one of the most thrilling I’ve seen. It got a Saturn Action award (I’m not adding another category, and I don’t have much to say about it that hasn’t been said). Both it and Iron Man were nominated for the Hugo, but neither won (nor should they have, but more on that in a couple of weeks).

Grade: A-

2007 Saturn – CLOVERFIELD

This is the first movie I’ve covered here in a long time (since Alien Nation, I think) that I’d never seen before. I wasn’t actively avoiding it; I just never got around to it. The film was most famous for its mysterious marketing and the involvement of geek-God J. J. Abrams. I’m not a big Abrams guy, and the mystery thing didn’t hook me, so I stayed home.  But, I was intrigued, and I liked screenwriter Drew Goddard from his Buffy work…so I was kind of surprised to discover just how much I hated this.

The film is presented as found footage of a giant monster attack (that’s a kaiju attack, for my many Japanese readers). Some dudes are filming their friend Rob’s going away party when Manhattan is attacked by a big slimy thing from the sea. It throws the Statue of Liberty’s head at them, and eats people with its spider babies. You know, the usual. Eventually, douchebag-dude Rob, camereman-dude Hud, his crush Marlena, and hot-chick Lily, go into the heart of the attack to look for Rob’s friend-with-benefits-chick Beth. I wish I didn’t have to reduce all the characters to such simple descriptions, but that’s about as deep as the film gets, despite spending a fair amount of time on them. Maybe they’re just really shallow people?

The core problem here is that the film tries to have it both ways, as cinema verite AND Hollywood blockbuster. Unlike, say, the Blair Witch Project, there’s a slickness to the production that belies its conceit. The most obvious manifestation of this is the unrealistic hotness of all of the characters. Look around the early party scenes; it’s quite clearly a room full of young actors and actresses. The performances aren’t particularly naturalistic either. I never bought the “realness” of the footage, which meant that shaky cam, jump cuts, and the lengthy early party scenes accomplished nothing more than annoying me. I do wonder if it might have been better in the theater, but I don’t think that’s much of an excuse (although, I should note that, in a weird bit of synchronicity, my Netflix Blu-Ray disc got kind of jumpy in the last ten minutes or so as the camera was malfunctioning. I guess that just enhanced the effect, right?)

There’s a good idea here: a small, character focused film about a very big natural disaster.  If the characters had been more interesting, and the production had committed more to making the film seem “real,” it could have been amazing. As it is, I’d call it an annoying waste of time.

Grade: D

2006 Saturn SF – CHILDREN OF MEN

I discussed the ‘70s filmic obsession with environmental collapse and dystopia at length.  It kind of feels like it’s due for a comeback.  The Green Revolution made things look a lot better, but we’re still headed towards 10 billion people and we’re increasingly butting up against the limits of water, soil, and energy.  Children of Men is a great way to bring it back, as Alfonso Cuaron’s adaptation of a PD James’ novel is the finest entry in the genre yet made.

It’s 2027, and, for some unknown reason, no children have been born since 2009. In the meantime, the world has fallen apart due to warfare and terrorism. Britain is relatively stable, but immigrants have flooded in from the world’s warzones, and a fascist government has created brutal immigrant camps. Large numbers of refugees sit in cages on the streets with armed guards. As in Soylent Green, there are advertisements for commercial suicide-assistance (“Quietus: You Decide When”). Like all great sf, the film really is a commentary on our own world of terrorism and intolerance. The film opens with a bombing and then takes us on a tour of a dilapidated London with our point-of-view character, Theo Faron (Clive Owen).

Theo is contacted by his ex-wife (Julianne Moore) to help escort a young refugee woman named Kee safely out of England. Things go wrong, and, when Theo learns that Kee is nine-months pregnant, he must try to protect her himself.

He doesn’t make a lot of films, but I think Cuaron might be the finest working director. He takes what could be a standard, depressing dystopia and brings it to life in a way that makes it impossible to look away. He works in several long tracking shots that put the viewer in this world.  Without cuts to distance the viewer, it feels like POV work.  You’re there, looking over Clive Owen’s shoulder. These shots are made all the more impressive by the fact that they tend to take place during action scenes or large crowd scenes.  There’s a near five minute shot filmed from inside a car as it’s ambushed and attacked by a group of thugs.  It’s technically amazing and completely gripping.

On top of all of this, the film is quite beautiful. The color palette is bleak and gorgeous at the same time, and Cuaron finds all sorts of odd juxtapositions. Theo’s cousin works for a government program attempting to save the world’s great artworks, and Cuaron stages a surreal dinner scene in front of Picasso’s Guernica. These flashes of bleak beauty suit the film’s message, which is hopeful, despite the horrors depicted.

This movie is just plain brilliant.  The only thing I can say against it, is that it’s so good, so real and dark, that it can be damn hard to watch. It ends with an extended battle in a refugee camp, and by the time it's over, I’m usually emotionally worn out.

Grade: A

2005 Saturn – STAR WARS III: REVENGE OF THE SITH

Let me start by making three points: 1) I’m glad that the Saturn Awards gave me this opportunity to discuss the Star Wars prequels, and thus round out my Star Wars coverage.  As much as I complain in the following review, I am well aware that I inflicted this upon myself.  2)  Lots of people, including rambling, misanthropic serial killers, have already covered what’s wrong with these movies, in incredible depth, so you might as well skip my thoughts.  3) Before you skip this, however, you should know that I got quite buzzed before rewatching/blogging this movie.  I’ve had four beers, and I’m sipping brandy from here on out (“beer before liquor, you’re in the clear”!  Right?)  I’m not claiming that I’m blogging Sith drunk….but I kind of am.  I’m “semi-live-blogging it buzzed,” at least.  Also, note that I’m too drunk to care about spoilers for once.

These opening space battle shots above Coruscant are pretty darn cool…

So, yes, I think I’ve made it clear that I like the original trilogy (episodes 4-6), a not-so-controversial opinion, at least until the Ewoks show up.  The prequel trilogy, which George Lucas gave us in 1999, 2002, and 2005, on the other hand, is utter crap.  Again, this is not a controversial opinion.  When Episode I: The Phantom Menace came out in 1999, everyone felt obliged to love it for a couple of months, then collectively realized that it was awful.  To this day, I’d say it still stands as one of the worst science fiction films ever made.  Three things, in particular, made it awful: 1) Comedy slapstick racist-against-Jamaicans cgi alien Jar-Jar Binks, 2) crappy child actor Darth Vader saves the day, and 3) midi-chlorians, a pseudo-sciency explanation for Jedi manipulation of the formerly-New-Age concept of the Force.  There was a really cool light-sabre battle in there, and someone tried to save it with the so-called “Phantom Edit;” my personal “Phantom Edit” would probably be about 15 minutes long and would be all Qui-Gon/Darth Maul/Natalie Portman-looking-pretty.   All three of the original trilogy won Hugos and Saturns; the prequel trilogy received this one Saturn and nary a Hugo nomination.

Ugh, Hayden Christensen acting is really ruining this opening space battle.

2002’s Episode II, the awesomely-named-if-it-had-been-ironic-but-it-wasn’t-so-it’s-terriblly-named Attack of the Clones was a fair sight better, and had some genuinely cool action sequences.  Unfortunately, the whole thing leans rather heavily on the love story between Anakin Skywalker (Christensen) and Padme Amidala (Natalie “super-awesome-Oscar-winning-actress-clearly-slumming-it” Portman).  At least one of these two is an amazing actor, but both of them come off as more wooden than a duck decoy [I’ve lived in Minnesota too long].  I blame George Lucas, who directs actors about as well as he writes dialogue (ie, not very well).  After all of this, we’ve barely started on the path to episode IV.  Anakin still needs to knock up his girl with twins, turn into Darth Vader, fight his teacher Obi-wan, and betray the Jedi order….which leaves a lot of ground for Episode III.

Which brings us to this film, Episode III, released in 2005.  Padme is pregnant, Anakin is nervous about said pregnancy, and is being manipulated by Senator Palpatine, whom we all know to be the main villain of the whole series.  Meanwhile, Anakin and his teacher, Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan MacGregor, the one actor able to come out of these movies looking halfway decent) are knee-deep in the clone wars, in which a separatist alliance using slapstick-loving droids fights the Republic’s clone army, which came from some complicated and conspicuously-unresolved plot-point in the second movie.  This film begins with a major battle between Anakin and Obi-Wan and separatist generals Grevious (cgi) and Dooku (Hammer Horror/LoTR alum Christopher Lee).  Then, Anakin worries that his secret wife Natalie Portman will die birthing Mark Hammill and Carrie Fisher, which allows Palpatine to manipulate him.

Which is where I am in the film right now.  Blah blah blah; talkie talkie.  “I wanna be on the Jedi Council, wah!” whines the future Darth Vader.  I guess we know where Luke “I was gonna go to Tashi Station to get some power converters, wah!” Skywalker gets it, at least.

I need more brandy.

At the time, the  commentary on the Bush administration (fear leads to totalitarianism!) felt rather significant.  In hindsight…not so much.  Bush’s approval ratings were already in steep decline in mid-2005, and they never recovered.  The one aspect of this film that made it seem more relevant than the others sort of faded away in hindsight.

 I still think this is the best of the three prequels, but it does have four clear problems.  None is as prevalent as the many crippling issues of Episode One or the one fatal flaw (love story fail) of Episode Two, but they add up to another failure.

There are angry drunks.  There are sad drunks.  Apparently, I’m a list-making drunk.  On a side note, a special thanks to spell-checker for making me seem more sober.

Problem #1: Continuity.  This is the nerdiest complaint, but I think it says a lot about Lucas’s lack of planning and general pandering. Why are R2-D2 and C3PO in these movies?  Why is Chewbacca in this one?  Their presence seems to contradict some of what we see in the original films, so why include them at all?  Hint: it’s not because they further plot or character in any way.

Problem #2: Pacing:  Taken individually, beyond its contribution to the Star Wars mythos, the film’s greatest sin is that it just sort of plods along.  Most of what we get is foreordained by the original trilogy, so a lot of this is just filler, especially Obi-Wan’s entire second-act-dominating battle with Grevious.  And then there’s that really long third-act battle between Yoda and Palpatine, which would’ve been pretty unimaginable in 1982, but looks mostly like cgi-dreck today.

Okay, switching to wine so that I don’t pass out.

Problem #3: Sad, pathetic Vader: Darth Vader is probably the most fascinating character of the original trilogy.  His origin should have been very interesting, but Chistensen gives a very whiny performance that undermines the whole character.  Even the dark moments – the previous movie’s Sand-Person genocide and this movie’s Jedi-child-killing – come off as moments of weakness rather than moments of rage or evil.  And his journey here is all over the place as he bounces aimlessly between Palpatine and Master Samuel L. Jackson.  In no way does this version of the character live up to what we saw in the original trilogy.
Of course, the worst moment has nothing to do with Christensen:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Problem #4: Women are sad, sad, emotional trainwrecks: The original trilogy gave us one of the great female characters in sf in Princess Leia.  When she’s “rescued” by Han and Luke, she immediately grabs a gun, kills a bunch of storm-troopers, and takes control of the situation.  Sure, she ends up in a metal bikini in Jedi, but even then, she gets to kill Jabba and play a key role in the final mission on Endor.  Meanwhile, Padme dies of… heartbreak?!  Over Hayden Christensen’s Anakin???? Pathetic and insulting.  This bothers me most of all.

Let me end on a positive note.  The plots of the prequel trilogy are astonishingly lame, but the world that Lucas creates is pretty rich.  I think it’s unintentional, but the lush, colorful, slapstciky world of the prequels ends up being a rather nice contrast to the stark authoritarian world of the original trilogy (especially if you can manage to get the non-adulterated-special-edition versions).  It used to be a world of silly cgi Jar-Jars, and became a world of dirty space-bars and crappy-spaceships.  In other words, the colorful, silly, kid-friendly world of the prequels can actually make the original trilogy better in contrast.  Also, if you look at Genndy Tartakovsky’s prequel era cartoons, which are actually really great, mostly dialogue-free takes on the era from the creator of Samurai Jack and Powerpuff Girls, I think you really get an idea of the potential here.  The world Lucas creates is a lot better than the films themselves, and it still adds to a rich mythos.

So tired….

Grades:

Phantom Menace: F

Attack of the Clones: C-

Revenge of the Sith: C-

2004 Saturn – ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND

Charlie Kaufman is back with another surrealist exploration of universal themes – this time love and memory.  Kaufman also shoes his genius at choosing his collaborators again. Being John Malkovich was the feature debut of one of the greatest music video directors of all time: Spike Jonze.  This is the second feature by another of the greatest music video directors of all time: Michel Gondry.

The science fiction conceit is that Lacuna, Inc. has developed a
technology which can erase people’s memories.  It’s often used to deal with heartbreak.  The film seems very non-linear, but the structure is actually a lot simpler than it appears: other than a framing device in the “present,” most of the film takes place linearly while Joel (Jim Carrey) has his memories of ex-girlfriend Clementine (Kate Winslet) erased.  Much of the movie takes place in Joel’s memories, and Gondry gets to use a variety of exciting visual techniques (mostly just lighting, though there’s also some play with the sets and some cgi) to portray the scenes as memories and to represent their erasing.  Along the way, we see the memory erasing technicians and their own messy lives.  The cast is incredibly deep with Tom Wilkinson as the head of Lacuna and a sf trifecta of Bruce Banner, Mary Jane Watson, and Frodo Baggins (Mark Ruffalo, Kirtsen Dunst, and Elijah Wood) as his employees.

The visuals are great, and the film’s structure is a puzzle that’s fun and intriguing without ever becoming frustrating.  The performances are wonderful.  Kate Winslet is one of the greatest working actresses, and she effortlessly slips into a quirky character.  Clementine is bursting with spontaneity (including ever-changing hair colors), but she’s not the typical Manic Pixie Dream Girl.  She has very real and serious problems.  Carrey has garnered acclaim for a lot of his performances, starting with The Truman Show, but this is the first movie where I’ve really loved him as an actor.  Most importantly, the relationship feels as real as any I’ve ever seen in a movie.  The film manages to capture the feeling of falling in love, and the feeling of a relationship falling apart…and the odd structure makes this strangely redemptive without ever coming close to cheese.

This is one of the greatest and most innovative sf films out there.  It uses a speculative device to get at core, universal emotions.  The Incredibles is good fun, but I think the WorldCon voters blew it on this one, and again, Saturn’s eclecticism keeps things interesting.

Grade: A

2003 Saturn – X2

Singer’s X-Men managed to make superhero films a legitimate blockbuster sub-genre for the ‘00s.  His sequel, called X2 because X-Men 2 is just too damned long apparently, raises the stakes in a number of ways.  The budget is clearly larger, meaning that we get more big mutant power action sequences (and a much stronger third act as a result).  This includes a fantastic opening bit in which the blue, acrobatic, tail-possessing teleporter Nightcrawler assaults the White House, and a fun dogfight.  The movie also delves deeper into the central metaphor of mutants.  The first film gave us mutant-on-mutant violence, but in this one, humanity is the real threat.  There’s the clear possibility, only hinted at in the first film, that Magneto is right, and that mutants might be the victims of genocide.

The villain is a mutant-hating general named William Stryker.  He has the ability to control mutants, and he uses some, like Nightcrawler, to manufacture mutant incidents that he can use as justification to round up American mutants.  He kidnaps Xavier, and, in a very well-executed sequence, raids the School to round up the mutant children.  The X-Men have to rally around Magneto (who escapes from a plastic prison in another great scene) to fight back against Stryker.  There are some nice little character moments along the way: we see Nightcrawler as a mutant unable to hide his differences who leans on Christian faith, we get more of Wolverine’s origin (really all we need, despite a whole terrible movie about the topic in 2010), and we see Jean Grey’s problems dealing with the escalation of her powers (a very important storyline from the comics that will be mangled in the next movie installment).  A new character, Pyro, was clearly created for the sole purpose of switching sides, but his arc is still a nice addition to a series that takes much of its strength from an antagonist with a credible philosophy.  The best of these character moments is when Bobby “Iceman” Drake comes out as a mutant to his family.  Sir Ian McKellen, meanwhile, chews through the scenery with abandon, and I think he even manages to steal scenes that he’s not even in.  It’s like he’s taking a victory lap for the Oscar that he should have won for Fellowship of the Ring, and it’s very fun to watch.

The film’s storyline draws heavily from a Chris Claremont graphic novel called God Loves, Man Kills.  Published as a standalone graphic novel in 1982, it was aimed at a more adult audience, and it’s probably more mature than this film.  It’s a decent starting point for anyone interested in the comics, though Claremont’s narration-heavy style hasn’t aged all that well.  Again, he is one of the most underrated influences of modern sf.

Compared to X-Men, the action scenes are better, the effects more impressive, the dialogue is more clever (even the jokes are funnier), and the thematic issues more apparent and interesting.  It’s a far better film than the first, and one of the best superhero films all around.

Grade: A-

2002 Saturn SF – MINORITY REPORT

I rewatched this in a double feature with AI, Spielberg’s previous science fiction outing.  Both films disappointed me in the theater, and I’d avoided both ever since.  Despite these links, they’re actually very different films – almost mirror opposites.

Loosely based on a Philip K. Dick story, Minority Report follows the pre-crime unit, led by Tom Cruise (Cruise is not the kind of actor who disappears into a role, so his character’s name isn’t worth the time).  In 2054, a team of three pre-cognitives have visions of future murders which can be recorded and replayed by the police, who then have to figure out the crime’s location and rush to stop it.  This procedure has led to the end of homicides in the D.C. pilot program, but it is not without controversy, since it leads to people being convicted of crimes they don’t commit. When a Department of Justice representative (Colin Farrell) shows up to investigate, Cruise discovers some inconsistencies in a few of the precogs' visions.  Then, when he is himself accused of a future murder; he has to go on the run, and in the process of investigating the murder he is destined to commit, he puts himself into the position of fulfilling the prophesy.

It’s a very exciting film with fantastic effects.  There’s all sorts of fun near-future tech from Apple-influenced/influencing touch interfaces (RIP Steve Jobs) to vertical highways to jetpacks to eye-scanning spider robots.  The chase scenes are fast-paced and well-filmed.  And, there are some interesting questions about destiny and justice in play as well. A fun, fast-paced film with believable future tech and interesting speculative questions? I told you it was the anti-AI.

So, why did I have a problem with this film?  A lot of my issues concern the film’s conclusion, so I can’t really get into them without spoilers, but I will say that I wanted this film to be about the ethics of precrime and/or the question of causality.  However, a twist late in the film takes it in a different direction, and it becomes a more conventional mystery/thriller.  There are a few efforts made to return to the central themes, but they’re buried, I think, by efforts to give the film a simpler conclusion.

In the theater, this bothered me a lot.  It really ruined the whole film for me.  This time, perhaps because I knew it was coming, I wasn’t bothered nearly as much.  I was able to enjoy the ride, and have fun with one of the richest and most compelling future visuals since Blade Runner.

Grade: B+

2001 Saturn SF – AI: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

I have been looking forward to rewatching this film since I added the Saturns to my reviews – not because I enjoyed it so much the first time…in fact, I hated it.  I just really wanted to make sure that I hated it.

This film has as good a science fiction pedigree as you can get.  It began as a project by Stanley Kubrick, and Steven Spielberg decided to complete it himself after Kubrick’s death; it’s based on a short story by British sf legend Brian Aldiss called “Super-Toys Last All Summer Long;” and, it concerns the very Asimovian question of whether a robot artificial intelligence can love, and, more importantly in this case, would he be loved back?

In a catastrophic future caused by global warming, there are strict population controls.  Some people choose to fill the gap left by not having children with robotic “mecha” children.  David (Haley Joel Osment) is a prototype with the aforementioned lovin’ upgrade.  He is placed with a couple whose real son is on deep freeze, and they come to like him.  They allow David to imprint on them, but when their real son comes back, David is a fourth wheel (cars in this future have three wheels, get it?), and the mother leaves him in the woods with his robotic teddy bear.  Inspired by his mother’s dramatic readings of Pinocchio, David goes off to find the Blue Fairy and become a real boy.  He meets sex-bot Gigolo Joe (Jude Law), who joins him on his quest.

The visuals are pretty fantastic, and there’s a few human-face-on-robotic-chassis effects that were pretty cutting edge ten years ago.  That’s really the nicest thing I can say about the film.  Yep, I still didn’t like it.

I have several problems with it.  Haley Joel Osment’s performance is impressive, but in a creepy way.  Watching him in this film is just plain unsettling, as you suspect he may actually be a robot (the Child-Actortron 3000).  An even bigger problem is the pacing.  Kubrick hadn’t gotten past the story stage, so this is mostly Spielberg, but he tried hard to do a Kubrick impression. That’s where the film starts to fail, I think.  He begins with a much more deliberate pace and imbues every scene with a weighty sense of suspense or dread.  These are old Kubrickian tricks, but I think only Kubrick can pull them off.    

The movie suffocates under this weightiness, it’s slow, depressing, and dull, and it doesn’t have nearly as much to say as it seems to think it does.  What is the message?  What do we learn?  People are mean to robots?  Spielberg is good at sentimentality?  People will wear glow sticks in the future?  The future will look like Las Vegas meets a State Fair?  I don’t know. The movie actually feels very New Wavey, which makes sense with the Brian Aldiss roots, but it’s the worst of New Wave misanthropy and pretension.

After meandering for two hours, the film does take a crazy left turn in the last half hour, that’s…well, at least it’s interesting.  There are a lot of contrivances to get the film to an awkward sense of closure that only barely mitigates the slow-burn creepiness that bogs down most of its running time.

Grade: C-

2000 Saturn SF – X-MEN

Comic books are science fiction’s bastard child. Pulp comics grew alongside golden age pulp science fiction, and it’s clear that both genres have influenced each other from the ‘40s on. And yet, a graphic fiction category wasn’t created for the Hugos until 2009, and Watchmen was the only sequential work to get recognition before then.

Most sf fans in their thirties and forties, from Joss Whedon to yours truly, would tell you that writer Chris Claremont’s X-Men was one of their formative sf experiences. If you’d asked twelve-year-old me if I wanted to see a live-action X-Men film, I probably would have said “YES!” followed shortly thereafter by “oh no, I’m sure it will be terrible.” There are a lot conceits of superhero comics that just don’t translate to the big screen: the brightly colored costumes, the soap operatic deaths and resurrections, the wanton genre-mashing, and the larger-than-life supervillains. As a result, most superhero movies before this one are awful. Even the good ones, Donner’s Superman and Burton’s Batman and…that’s about it, have their embarrassing moments. And, well, so does this film. But, director Bryan Singer does manager to take one of the most over-the-top superhero properties and translate it to a mostly successful film.

One of the keys to his success is that Singer approaches this as a science fiction movie rather than a comic book movie. The point of the X-Men is that they are mutants, people with genetic differences that give them superhuman abilities. All you naysayers are probably complaining right now that a genetic mutation is unlikely to allow someone to manipulate magnetic fields, read minds, or shoot lasers out of their eyes, but there’s a perfectly good psuedo-sciencey explanation in the comics involving space gods called Celestials. Obviously, the movie isn’t going to go there, so let’s move on.

One mutant, a Holocaust survivor named Magneto (Sir Ian McKellen), fears that humans will destroy the mutants and takes a more militant line. Another, Charles Xavier (Sir Patrick Stewart), has created a school for the “Gifted” to teach mutants to use their powers safely. He takes a more assimilationist line, and he’s trained a group of mutants to fight Magneto that he calls the X-Men. A Canadian with a healing factor and claws named Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) picks up a young woman who can absorb people’s lifeforce named Rogue (Anna Paquin), and they end up with Xavier, but Magento tries to kidnap her as part of a sinister plot. Also, Halle Berry, Famke Jansen, and Rebbeca Romjin are around.

The cast is very strong (Picard versus Gandalf!), and says a lot about how seriously the filmmakers took the subject matter. Along with the sleek metal sets and not-as-corny-as-they-could-be leather uniforms, this keeps the film out of embarrassment territory for most of its run time. In fact, the first act is quite strong, as it efficiently raises the key issues, introduces the characters, and all around looks good. The film goes a bit downhill from there though. Magneto’s sinister plot is far too elaborate, the dialogue takes a turn for the cheesy, and the ending feels rushed and decidedly un-epic. However, the film does deserve a lot of credit for making the franchise, and really the whole genre, credible.

This film kicked off a trend, still ongoing, of blockbuster superhero movies. From here, they come to dominate the Saturn Fantasy category (it does make sense to me that Singer’s X-Men are “sf” to Saturn while Spider-man, Superman and Batman are “fantasy,” though I’m not sure I could justify it all that well). I can’t say that I’ll cover many of these Saturn fantasy winners (anything not to have to watch Superman Returns again), but Raimi’s first two Spider-man movies and Nolan’s Batman movies are quite good.

Grade: B

1999 Saturn – THE MATRIX

America film’s sudden obsession with the nature of reality continues in this immensely influential film. The Matrix also gives us one of purest representations of cyberpunk on celluloid (though there was a brief rush of not-very-good entries in the late ‘90s).

The Matrix is probably about as universally seen as Star Wars among sf fans by now, though I seem to remember it taking about a year for the film to really land in the universal pop culture consciousness. It did well enough in the theaters, but when it came out on DVD (when the format was still relatively new), everyone had to buy it. By 2001, every movie this side of Merchant Ivory Productions looked like The Matrix. Anyway, the delayed reaction is the only reason I can come up with for why this film didn’t win the Hugo. I mean, Galaxy Quest is fun, but…The Matrix!

Rewatching it this time, I was struck by the film’s simplicity. It has a reputation for complexity, and there are some subtleties, and the world is fairly ingenious (even if the human battery thing makes no scientific sense). However, the movie follows a three act structure quite nicely. Act 1) Neo meets the mysterious Trinity and gets chased by scary guys in suits. Act 2) Neo journeys to reality, trains and learns about his destiny. Act 3) Neo has his showdown in the Matrix. Many bullets are fired.

Actually, some of the morality of the film has always bothered me…the heroes kill a lot of innocent humans (especially cops) over the course of the film. They’re not really left with much choice, but I’ve always wanted at least a “darn, killing all these innocent people sure does suck.” On the other hand, bam pow boom! Action is fun! My only other complaint is how humorless the movie is, sometimes I really miss the charisma of a Han Solo or Indiana Jones in…well, pretty much every sf movie since the ‘80s ended.

I think The Matrix still holds up pretty well. I agree with the consensus that the sequels are terrible, with the second film being uneven and the final film being a messy disaster, but they haven’t sullied the first film for me. The acting is passable (Fishburne is a real presence and even Keanu Reeves gets his best role outside of Ted Logan), but the visuals are truly amazing and the action choreography is unparalleled. It’s still fun, and there’s just enough substance for the film to transcend guilty pleasure. It’s a great sf film experience, even if it does spawn some terrible knock-offs and sequels.

Grade: A

1998 Saturn SF – (tie) DARK CITY, ARMAGEDDON

As far as I’m concerned, 1998-2000 is the golden age of modern cinema. Yes, there are lots of other great periods in recent film history, but it’s not since the ‘70s that you had so much innovation and so many directors (and studios, amazingly enough) embracing a spirit of independence and the idea of the auteur. There were at least a dozen great films each of these three years, as we got to see the emergence of the likes of Spike Jonez, P.T. Anderson, Wes Anderson, David O. Russell, Sam Mendes (once upon a time, I could have put Shymalan and the Wachowskis on this list without irony!), plus brilliant films from the Coen Brothers, Terrence Mallick, and other greats. The biggest component of this renaissance was the financial success of Miramax and the studios’ subsequent willingness to let directors go wild (until they produced enough oddball bombs that the studios reined most of then in). A lesser, but still important, component was the increasing use of new effects techniques for subtler character points or atmosphere rather than just to make things go ‘splodey. I'd say the latter plays a big role here.

I have a very vivid memory of seeing Dark City in the theaters in 1998; it’s not often that a film takes you completely by surprise, but Dark City had been poorly publicized, and I had no idea what it was about. I convinced some friends to see it based off of a glowing Ebert review, and I was completely blown away by the films’ visuals, and its willingness to take the sci-fi elements up to 11. Alex Proyas has done nothing before or since this film to really distinguish himself, but this film does belong on my “Great Films of the Late 90s” list.

In the city, it’s always nighttime, and at midnight, the clocks stop and everyone goes to sleep. John Murdoch (Rufus Sewell) wakes up during one of these episodes with no memory in a hotel room containing a dead girl. He soon finds out that he’s suspected as a serial killer by a detective (William Hurt), and that he’s separated from his wife Emma after she cheated on him (the always-gorgeous Jennifer Connelly, looking even better than usual), but he’s pretty sure he’s never met Emma and that he’s never killed anyone. He’d also like to see Shell Beach, the oceanside community where he grew up, but no one can tell him how to get out of the city. Soon, strange-looking men are chasing him, and he discovers his own telekinetic powers. It gets weirder from there. I didn’t even mention Kiefer Sutherland’s rather bizarre performance.

This film pays a lot of tribute German expressionism, and rather started a fad for the style’s revival (see The Matrix, which also shares many plot elements). It’s a beautiful film, and yet it’s not shy about its pulpy roots. Dark City is not perfect – the characters are flat, more or less by necessity, but the dialogue is even flatter But, it is unique, and a really great experience if you haven’t seen it. I’m not sure it’s aged all that well, and I think The Matrix stole a lot of its thunder, but it’s still worth a look.

It says on all the sites I checked that Dark City tied with Michael Bay's Armageddon for this award. I’m just going to go ahead and assume that’s some sort of mistake, or perhaps an elaborate April Fool's joke, because Armageddon is an all-around terrible film.

Grade: A-

1997 Saturn – MEN IN BLACK

The Saturn is far from the most prestigious award that I’m covering, but I wanted to include it for the sake of variety in my movie reviews. It has also awarded some very strong films that outshined their more prestigious Hugo competitors in the long-run (Soylent Green over Sleeper, Terminator over 2010, 12 Monkeys over Babylon 5). So, the Saturn has recognized its fair share of strong sf movies. This is not one of them.

Men in Black is a big-budget science fiction action comedy special effects extravaganza. There’s also some sort of story and characters in there, but they’re mostly overwhelmed by a combination of slime jokes and cg goo aliens. The film, adapted from an obscure Marvel comic book whose existence I cannot verify, taps into the alien conspiracy craze that the super-popular X-Files had rekindled at this point while adding lots of elements from the aesthetics of Steven Spielberg and Tim Burton (Spielberg executive produced, though director Barry Sonnenfeld seems more indebted to Burton on this one). The men in black are mysterious well-dressed government agents who cover up alien encounters. Tommy Lee Jones plays an uber-professional man in black, basically by reprising his role from The Fugitive. Will Smith plays the headstrong new recruit in a set up that is only slightly incredibly generic. Rip Torn is the bossy boss. Linda Fiorentino is underused as the love interest. Tony Shaloub and others play weird aliens, just barely passing as humans. I think I’m listing the cast because there’s so little plot to recount. Aliens threaten to blow up the world, and the Jones/Smith team must stop them. The film undercuts itself by repeatedly reiterating that the plot may seem exciting, but this is really just a normal, boring day at the office for the men in black.

If you haven’t noticed by now, I’m not a fan of this movie. It’s quite popular among lots of sf fans, but it rubbed me the wrong way the first time I saw it, and it rubbed me the wrong way again this time. Jones could pull this roll off in his sleep (and, he may actually be sleeping through most of the movie – what are those sunglass hiding?), and Will Smith is his usual, sickeningly charismatic self. They’re the best things about this mostly stupid film. There’s a fair amount of childish gross-out humor, which is generally not my favorite, and the rest of the jokes depend on the idea that anyone at all unusual must be an alien.* “New Yorkers sure are weirdos, they must be aliens!” Har…har? I don’t want to seem oversensitive; a smarter script could probably make these things work. This is not a smart script.

So, yeah, not funny. Not even a good riff on the alien conspiracy idea. The best thing I can say about this film is that it’s very short and quite inoffensive…and yet, I am offended by its inoffensiveness. Sorry, I think I have an irrational hatred for this film. The fact that it won in a good year for sf-on-film over the likes of Gattaca, Contact, and The Fifth Element just makes me even more annoyed.

The sequel, by the way, makes this movie look like The Godfather II.

Grade: C-

*By the logic of the film, shouldn’t Rip Torn be an alien rather than a man in black?

1996 Saturn – Independence Day (ID4)

I'm posting today rather than Friday for personal scheduling reasons, but also to clearly avoid the many-tentacled hellbeast that April Fools on the internet has become. I mean, this is a review of ID4! I have to give it the proper reverence that it deserves!

With our second Emmerich movie, a smash summer hit, I think we’ve officially entered the second generation of the blockbuster. We’ve seen many of the best entries from the first, dominated by Lucas and especially Steven Spielberg. Emmerich and Producer Jerry Bruckheimer dominate the second: the films are bigger, even more special-effects-driven, more jingoistic, and, well, stupider.* That doesn’t mean they can’t be fun though….they just usually aren’t.

ID4, most of all, walks the tightrope between stupid and fun. Even watching it again for this blog, for the first time in at least a decade, I couldn’t quite decide if it was too stupid to be fun or too fun to worry about its stupidity. I kept swinging between those two options.

Basically, this is a rewriting of War of the Worlds to give it more patriotic Fourth-of-July action. Alien ships come down from the sky, and everyone is happy to see them. But, eccentric scientist Jeff Goldblum thinks the aliens plan an attack, and he rushes to tell President Bill Pullman (if the characters have names, I sure don’t remember them – that kind of character detail isn’t important… explosions!). The aliens promptly do shoot green beams that annihilate the White House, the Empire State Building, Big Ben, the Eiffel Tower, etc., and the film’s characters take to wandering around Area 51, looking for a dues ex machina, which they promptly find and use, after the requisite number of UFO vs. jets dogfights. Even the President gets to fly a fighter after a fairly lame inspirational speech. Along the way we get lots of homages to that first generation of blockbusters, especially Close Encounters and Star Wars.

I should also add that this begins the era of Will Smith. Around this time, Congress passed a law requiring that all dominant summer blockbusters contain the Fresh Prince. This act was eventually repealed in one of the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act, and everyone who had to sit through Smith’s various failed Oscar-bids, like 27 Pounds, laments the law’s end. How much better would Transformers have been with Will Smith’s unflappable charisma? I’m only partially kidding, as it is the easy charm of Smith, Pullman, and Goldblum that helps make the film bearable. On the other hand, Randy Quaid’s groan-inducing turn as an alcoholic Vietnam vet who pulls-it-together to save-the-day does not help. No wonder the star whackers are after him.

In the end, I’d say that the fun won out over the stupidity, but I’d add the caveat that the film (by which I mean the effects that the film leans so heavily on) has not aged well, and watching it today, the stupidity is even more evident.

*I’ll take any Emmerich film over almost any Bruckheimer film…except maybe Pirates of the Caribbean and The Rock.

Grade: C+

1995 Saturn SF – 12 MONKEYS

I’m surprised that this is my first and only chance to talk about Terry Gilliam in this awards round-up. He has one of the best sf film resumes of any director this side of Spielberg and Cameron, and his body of work is far more diverse and surprising than theirs. He received Hugo nominations for Monty Python and the Holy Grail in 1978, Time Bandits in 1982, Brazil in 1986, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen in 1990, and 12 Monkeys in 1996. That’s one hell of a list of great sf movies, but none of them managed to win. At least 12 Monkeys picked up a Saturn, and this is one of those instances where Saturn’s pick is more exciting and original than Hugo’s (more on that in a week). Gilliam likes surrealist stories about mentally unstable people which he augments with unsteady, drunken camera-work. This film, alongside The Fisher King, probably represents his most commercial work, but it’s also perhaps his best.

12 Monkeys is based on an experimental French film called La Jetee, which is a surrealistic romance involving a time traveler from a post-apocalyptic world. Here, James Cole (Bruce Willis) is the post-apocalyptic survivor of a horrific plague in the year 1997. He’s part of a gritty underground society that sends expeditions to the surface (where we see New York City overrun by zoo animals) and back in time to understand the plague. But, we’re warned again and again that the past cannot be changed. Cole travels back to the 1990s where he meets a mental patient named Jeffery (Brad Pitt) who spouts revolutionary rhetoric and a sympathetic psychiatrist named Kathryn Railly (Madeleine Stowe). Cole and Railly are drawn to each other due to some mysterious memories, and they eventually begin to explore the origins of the virus, which they link back to Jeffrey and his 12 Monkeys group.

It’s a tightly plotted story with incredible visuals from Gilliam and some brilliant acting. This is the first film where Brad Pitt showed his range. Stowe is wonderful, and every time I see this film, I wish she’d had a more extensive career. Willis does pretty good for Bruce Willis. Its eerie atmosphere, great story, and exploration of destiny and apocalypse make it one of the best time travel films ever made.

Grade: A

1994 Saturn – STARGATE

I saw this film when it first came out in theaters, and I’m not sure I would have believed you then if you told me that it would lead to one of the biggest science fiction franchise of all time. In full disclosure, I should mention that I’m not a fan of the franchise. I never really gave SG-1 or Atlantis a shot – I’ve never seen a full episode of either. I have seen a few episodes of SGU, which manages to combine some of the things that make me wary of Stargate in general with some of the worst traits of the Battlestar revival, like it’s grim and grinding misanthropy. I think I will give SG-1 a shot someday – I hear a lot of good things – but it might be a while.

This film also represents the rapid rise of Roland Emmerich as one of the new kings of science fiction blockbusters (though not particularly brainy ones). Emmerich’s style is very reminiscent of Steven Spielberg, and this film is at its best when it captures some of the sense of adventure and discovery in the Spielberg films its aping (the likes of Raiders and Close Encounters). Emphasis on “some” in that last sentence though. Emmerich is not Spielberg.

In the 1920s, archaeologists find a strange metal object with odd markings. Seventy years later, they still haven’t figured it out, but then they bring in brilliant Egyptologist and linguist Daniel Jackson (James Spader), who has some crazy theories about Egyptian history that, of course, turn out to be correct. Jackson renames the object a “stargate” and figures out how to use it in a couple of days. Then, the US military puts together an expedition through the stargate led by Jack O’Neil (Kurt Russell). On the other side, they find some refugees from ancient Egypt who are still oppressed by aliens dressed as Egyptian gods. Typical Americans, O’Neil and Jackson try to convince these vaguely Arab people to enact a regime change, and many of them get killed in the process.

The film is short on explanation and details – much of the film is conducted in made-up languages – but the film has a solid concept, some very nice production design (especially the Egyptian god head-ornaments), and it’s generally pretty fun. The clichéd action scenes get a little tiresome, especially in the final act, but this film was quite a bit better than I remembered. It’s not a masterpiece of film, but it is what I’m coming to expect from Saturn winners: good effects and fun sf action.

Grade: B

1994 Hugo for Dramatic Presentation, 1993 Saturn – JURASSIC PARK

Michael Crichton had an unhealthy obsession with amusement parks that tried to kill their patrons. Between his Jurassic Park franchise and his Westworld franchise, I can only assume that he had a very bad experience at Disneyland at some point in his life.

The titular park is filled with dinosaurs cloned from DNA discovered in prehistoric mosquitos fossilized in amber. It’s not all that far-fetched, other than the problem that we have no mosquito fossils from nearly that long ago. We do have a fair amount of mammoth DNA though, and scientists have speculated about developing clones and using elephants as surrogates. The film "Late Pleistocene Park" probably wouldn’t have grossed 900 bijillion dollars like this one though. The filmmakers also cheated by making their velociraptors twice as large as they really were, but paleontologists fixed that problem by discovering the larger utahraptors around the time of the film’s release.

Anyway, the plot: billionaire John Hammond brings in a group of scientists, a lawyer, and his grandchildren to examine the dinosaur-filled park that he’s building, but everything goes wrong and the dinosaurs run wild. It’s a fun romp, but the big attraction at the time was the dinosaurs themselves, which look a sight better than the first on-screen live action dinosaurs in 1925’s The Lost World. Between T2 and this film, we’re clearly in the midst of a cgi revolution, and I certainly remember feeling that at the time. Jurassic Park is far more ambitious as it attempts to use computer effects to create realistic living, moving creatures rather than silvery goo. As a result, the effects have not aged nearly as well. The running T-Rex and raptors still look pretty good, but the static shots that first reveal the prehistoric animals – which I remembered as awe-inspiring – look a bit like what you’d see in a cable documentary these days.

Nevertheless, I still enjoyed re-watching the film quite a bit. Overall, it’s aged better than I’d expected. I think there are two secrets to this success. The first in Spielberg’s direction – he’s at the peak of his abilities (Schindler’s List was released in the same year, believe it or not), and his talents for suspense and action show through. I also like Spielberg’s signature “smoky light beam” effect a lot more than J. J. Abrams' unhealthy lens-flare addiction. The performances also keep the film interesting – Spielberg has a talent for eliciting not-annoying performances from child actors and Sam Neill and Laura Dern are solid as the heroic paleontologists. Meanwhile, Sir Richard Attenborough and Jeff Goldblum chew through the scenery as an eccentric billionaire and rockstar chaos mathematician, respectively. Even Samuel L. Jackson, in a minor role, keeps things lively. Everyone involved from the director to the actors to the effects people walk the line between serious suspense and pulp romp, and they’ve created a memorable classic in the process.

Don’t worry though, Spielberg proved in Jurassic Park II: The Lost World that he’s fully capable of making horrible films as well!

Grade: B+

1992 Saturn – STAR TREK VI: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY

It’s been a while since we’ve talked about Star Trek. Of course, the original series was revolutionary, but cut short. Then, it became hugely successful in syndication. There were plans to bring the series back, and the success of Star Wars finally led to a series of films and eventually a new tv show (which we’ll be discussing shortly).

So, why did it take until movie six for the series to get recognition? Four of the first five were nominated for Hugos, but failed to win. My views of those films, which are pretty much in line with most peoples are: first movie – dreadfully dull but pretty; second movie – excellent; third movie – short and sloppy but kind of fun; fourth movie – silly but very fun. The fifth movie was directed by Shatner and is so appalling bad that it should probably win some sort of award of evil. The second film was great, but had to go up against Blade Runner.

For the sixth film, the producers decided to remove the unpleasantness of Shatner’s movie by handing the reins back to the second film’s writer/director, Nicholas Meyer. The result is the second best Star Trek movie.

The Klingons (now with ridges!) have always been the Federation’s main enemy, and they managed to kill Captain Kirk’s son in the third film. At the beginning of this film, the moon of the Klingon homeworld explodes, and their entire Empire in endangered. Their need for Federation supplies creates a unique diplomatic opportunity and a real chance for peace. It could end the “cold war” between the two powers. Get it? Yep, the Cold War (which was a big topic when we were covering the ‘50s) has just ended, and this becomes an opportunity to do something topical.

A conspiracy among hardline elements within both the Federation and the Klingon Empire threatens the peace process, and there’s a great zero-g assassination scene. Meyer also adds the great touch of making the Enterprise crew into Cold Warriors themselves. They’re not sure they want peace with the Klingons, who killed Kirk’s son, after all. The cast fought this, and Roddenberry would’ve hated it, but I’m all for bringing a little moral complexity to the show’s central characters.

This is the last film with the original cast (though a few appear in the next film), and there were already a lot of jokes at the time about their general oldness and expanding waistlines, but Meyer makes great use of the fact in his scenario while still getting in some fun action scenes (there’s a nice escape from a Klingon prison planet and a tense space battle). This is a really great piece of space opera filmmaking. It might not be as thrilling as Abrams' recent take, but it’s about 10 times smarter.

Grade: A-

1992 Hugo for Dramatic Presentation and 1991 Saturn – TERMINATOR 2

The second (and FINAL!) Terminator film is another one of those sequels that’s better than it has any right to be. The scenario of the first film is pretty self-contained: woman runs from killer robot and survives. Sending another killer robot risks repeating the whole thing. Doing it with a huge budget and new special effects techniques threatens to bog the film down in mindless spectacle. Part of the charm of the first Terminator is that it’s a small budget, extended chase. It’s taut and intimate like a good horror flick. T2 threatens to be bloated and unnecessary, but, instead, Cameron manages to build on the mythology he created in the first movie.

John Connor is now a young, troubled teenager. In the future, Skynet decides to make a second attempt at destroying him with a more advanced Terminator – the liquid metal T1000 (Robert Patrick). This time, future Connor sends back a reprogrammed Terminator to protect him (Schwarzenegger). You could cynically see this as future politician Schwarzenegger redeeming his most villainous role, but the character’s conversion does make for some fun moments, especially in his interactions with Connor. The T1000 exists mainly to provide cgi shots; at the time they were so revolutionary, and thus so expensive, that this film infamously destroyed Orion Studios financially. In less than a decade, people could do the same thing on home pcs.

However, the film’s real genius comes through the journey that it takes Sarah Connor on (Linda Hamilton reprises her role). The directionless waitress of the first film has become dedicated to training her son for the apocalypse. She’s tough, well-trained, and ruthless, but she also spends most of her time contemplating fate. She knows that the world will explode in a few years, and she’ll do anything to prepare for it…or maybe stop it. I think Connor might be Cameron’s greatest achievement as a filmmaker. Sure, he’s made a few billion dollar films and revolutionized special effects filmmaking two or three times, but Connor is the kind of vivid and complicated, tough female character that I’d really like to see a lot more of.

If I had a complaint, it might be about the film’s casual violence. There are actually jokes made about assaulting and shooting innocent people (e.g., “He’ll live.”) It actually doesn’t bother me all that much, though I do have the nagging feeling that it should.

So, the effects were great, and they still look good, even if they should not have cost quite so much. There are several fantastic action set-pieces, interesting characters, and a further exploration of time travel/destiny. I’m solidly in the camp that this is a far better film than its predecessor, although I know a lot of people who are in the other camp.

And they never made anything else in the Terminator franchise….

Grade: A

1990 Saturn – TOTAL RECALL

Oh, Paul Verhoeven, why do you make such interesting films when you’re so clearly an awful director? Something about his style really grates on my nerves. I don’t mind sex and violence, but no other director, not even Michael Bay, manages to make it feel so darn gratuitous. People don’t just get shot in Verhoeven films, their thick, gooey blood bursts out in giant clumps. It’s Tarantino violence without the winking, good-natured irony. And yet, he did manage to make a couple of compelling sf movies. Hugo voters may be too classy for them, but Saturn took notice.

Total Recall is loosely based on the Philip K. Dick story “We Can Remember It for You Wholesale,” and it plays Dick’s games with reality better than any mainstream film before it, except maybe Blade Runner. Arnold Schwarzeneggar gives a typically awful performance as Douglas Quaid, a working-class construction worker from late-twentieth century Earth. I’ve always thought Ahnold to be a terrible actor when he’s not playing a robot, and this is no exception. Quaid has wistful and disturbing dreams about Mars, and he decides to get a memory implant of a trip there, since he can’t afford a real vacation. He also pays for the “secret agent adventure story” upgrade. However, the memory implant triggers real memories of his life as a secret agent on Mars, and soon several people are trying to kill or capture him, including his wife (an early Sharon Stone performance).

Quaid escapes to Mars and links up with a group of mutant revolutionaries (Verhoeven and the make-up/effects team come up with some pretty odd-looking characters). However, there are also indications that the whole trip may be the memory implant process itself, which his mind is taking too seriously. The film manages to keep the ambiguity alive for the rest of the film by playing it straight but dropping subtle hints to the contrary.

Overall, the acting is weak and Verhoeven’s directing is typically over-the-top, but the effects are excellent – as good as anything non-Spielberg or Lucas that I’ve covered so far, and the story is surprisingly interesting. It’s not 2001 or Alien, but it’s worth a look.

Grade: B+

1988 Saturn – ALIEN NATION

District 9 received a lot of praise for the originality and social relevance of its premise. A few people noted, however, that the film Alien Nation had already used the concept of a small number of enslaved alien refugees facing racism from humans. I complained a bit that District 9 didn’t actually live up to its humanist metaphor because of action and horror tropes. Alien Nation, unfortunately, fares even worse, as the premise is largely ignored in favor of presenting an ‘80s buddy cop movie.

Buddy cop films seemed to dominate the 1980s. They’re extremely formulaic. You start with too miss-matched guys who are partnered up: tough guy/smart guy, about-to-retire guy/suicidal young guy, black cop/white cop, American cop/Asian cop, human cop/dog cop, Whoopi Goldberg cop/dinosaur cop, etc. Then, you put them against powerful gangsters who are about to introduce a new superdrug to the streets. Their boss yells at them for their unorthodox methods, and they get taken off the case, but they solve it anyway in a bloody action sequence. Sometimes it’s really dumb; sometimes it’s quite fun. Alien Nation, despite the unusual set-up, follows the formula so closely that you can forget you’re watching a science fiction film at times.

Matthew Sykes (James Caan) loses his best friend to a criminal Newcomer, one of the alien refugees that have recently settled among the general human population. He wants to find the killer Newcomer and decides that he should take on another Newcomer, recently promoted to detective due to alien affirmative action, as his partner to get on the case. At first he hates his new partner, Sam Francisco (Mandy Patankin, at the height of his career), but they grow closer as the case goes on. They discover, of course, that a whole series of Newcomer slaying are related to…wait for it….a powerful new superdrug that they must stop!

It’s a perfectly fun film, and Caan and Patankin are great actors who build some pretty decent chemistry. It seems a shame to waste such a good concept though. The film never delves into the social issues sitting just beneath the surface. I was hoping for In the Heat of the Night with aliens, but instead I got Lethal Weapon with aliens. And I'm getting too old for that shit.

Grade: B