Saturday, January 26, 2008

I’ll keep this review brief like the last. It’s a monster movie thriller, set in New York City, filmed in a Blair-Witch-home-movie style. We catch glimpses of the monsters once in a while. Mostly we are bombarded by images and sounds of their handiwork. The movie starts off with a going-away party thrown for some yuppie by a bunch of his yuppie friends. Then the attack hits. Chaos ensues. We feel the ground shake, see explosions. Then out on the streets we see the Statue of Liberty’s head fly through the air and slam to a rolling stop down the street. And there’s a love story tying the events of the movie together and driving the main character on. The character I found the most interesting and likable, though, was the main character’s friend (his brother’s girlfriend), Lily Ford, played by a lovely young woman named Jessica Lucas who appeared to me to be of Indian descent or maybe part black. The character was stronger (mentally) and more thoughtful than the main character’s love interest.

Warning! Be careful: If you get headaches and nauseous easily, you might want to avoid this movie. The hand-held camera technique, combined with all the running around, screams and explosions, and falling down, has been known to cause this (and even, I’ve heard, vomiting). It certainly gave my wife a headache and made her nauseous.

There are ample things to criticize in such a movie – obvious ones – but I’ll skip over them. It was good entertainment, and an interesting and risky camera-style approach to monster movies. But it’s too jarring and shallow for me to watch it again I think. The New York Times is typically clueless and hypersensitive about the movie, of course, and gets some facts wrong to boot.

Now – Star Trek XI: The teaser trailer was just that – a tease. You’ll learn next to nothing by watching it. In fact, you’ll get far more info from checking out the IMDB page on the movie coming out in Christmas of this year. Apparently, it will be revisiting the original series crew with an early career adventure. The cast is interesting, to say the least, and I’m none too sure if I’m happy with it. Time will tell. Possible positive notes: the director is J.J. Abrams, who produced Cloverfield, and the screen play is by the same guys who wrote the Transformers screen play (see my review here).

Print This Post
Share

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

[Warning: Minor, vague spoiler in last sentence of 3rd paragraph.]

I’m finally getting around to reviewing a movie I saw for the first time on dvd a couple of weeks ago. I’ll keep this brief.

Children of Men is an interesting dystopian film set in a near-future fascist Britain. The country has traded freedom for “security,” has closed its borders to immigrants and systematically rounds them up into concentration camps and deports or exterminates them. It is a world beset by terrorism, of the Islamic fundamentalist variety and others.

The premise of the movie, however, is such a stretch that it makes it hard for one to maintain adequate suspension of disbelief. Suddenly and inexplicably over a very short span of time (a few years maybe?) the entire female sex of the human race becomes infertile. Then, just as suddenly and inexplicably, a group of resistance fighters discovers a pregnant woman. Much of the movie is their attempt to smuggle her out of the country.

Though the premise is rather far-fetched, the movie makes interesting use of it for social analysis. With no possibility of children, the extinction of the human race is not far off. Hope for the future seems lost. What effect will this loss of hope have on individuals and on society as a whole? The movie does a good job of dramatizing this on both levels.

There is nothing especially libertarian about the movie, although its depiction of fascism serves as a note of warning. Even the resistance group, or at least certain members of it, can be rather brutal and extreme. The movie has a distinctly British/European sensibility, or so I thought. And though very dark, it does end with a weak and vague ray of hope. The hope, however, is a rather collectivist hope for humanity as a species. There is not much for individuals currently living during the time of the movie to look forward to, but at least the human race just might survive a little longer, provided we can get our acts together.

I did enjoy the movie, and the main actors turned out good performances. Clive Owen. Julianne Moore. I was happy to see Chiwetel Ejiofor, who did such a wonderful job as the chilling government assassin in Serenity, as one of the resistance fighters; and he turned out a fine performance here as well.

Given the caveats above, however, I was not especially moved by the movie, nor did I fall in love with it. Watching one of the documentaries included on the dvd kind of soured the movie for me actually. It is here that we get to see more clearly than in the movie the collectivist and environmentalist agenda that underlies and drives it. One “expert” featured in the documentary caught my attention in particular: former libertarian-turned-green-conservative, John Gray. No, I don’t think John Gray’s come back from the Dark Side yet.

Print This Post
Share

{ Comments on this entry are closed }