Gattaca review

 Number 460 on the top 1000 films of all time is the science-fiction film 'Gattaca.'

Vincent Freeman (Ethan Hawke) wants nothing more than to be an astronaut and go to space with the Gattaca Aerospace corporation. The catch? He is an "in-valid" - a child that did not receive any gene-editing before birth. To achieve his goals, he impersonates quadriplegic Jerome Morrow (Jude Law.) However, when Gattaca's mission director is killed, Vincent is framed and his secret is in danger of being discovered.

Gattaca was a disappointing attempt to engage in some important ideas. Gene-editing is no doubt a sensitive topic. Sure if you have the chance to stop your child from developing cancer or dying from heart disease by the time they're thirty, why wouldn't you take that chance? But where do you stop? Do you remove any arbitrary characteristics you don't like like? What happens if you don't edit your child at all? Will they be discriminated against?

Gattaca attempts to answer these questions in a cold and sterile way. Despite having some talented actors like Ethan Hawke, Jude Law and Uma Thurman, who played Vincent's love interest Irene, I didn't care about any of the characters. All three actors are Oscar-nominated and I've enjoyed Ethan Hawke as a romantic and action lead, but I wasn't invested in Vincent. I don't think he was either, as it wasn't one of his most charismatic performances.

He also lacked on-screen chemistry with Jude Law. Jude Law plays Jerome who helps Vincent impersonate him by providing him with plenty of DNA samples. Despite some arguing, the two develop a begrudging respect for one another, but I still didn't find their relationship very believable.

I also saw attempts to create heart through a love story between Vincent and Irene. Although Hawke and Thurman began dating off-screen and later married, as a result of this film, this off-screen chemistry failed to translate to on-screen.

The same can be said through a subplot between Vincent and a reunion with an apparently long-lost brother who is investigating Vincent's involvement in the murder of the director of Gattaca's space programme. Yet this storyline fell emotionally flat too. The murder subplot never felt immediate enough to have any tangible effect on the plot. Plus there was never any on-screen rift or conflict to suggest that the two brothers had fallen out with each other after their childhood.

Sadly, like many science-fiction films, Gattaca became so obsessed with exploring its key ideas, it failed to create interesting characters.

About Time review

 Number 439 on the top 1000 films of all time is Richard Curtis' romantic-comedy with a science-fiction twist 'About Time.'

Tim Lake (Domnhall Gleeson) has just turned twenty-one. His father James (Bill Nighy) informs him that all the men in their family upon turning twenty-one develop the ability to change their past. Rather than using it to find fame or fortune, Tim uses it to find love working as a lawyer in London. Cue the beautiful American Mary (Rachel Mcadams.)

Richard Curtis is well-known for his romantic comedies from Notting Hill to Four Weddings and a Funeral to Love Actually - all starring the who's who of British acting royalty, as well as the odd American or two. In many ways, About Time retreads the familiar beats we would expect from romantic comedies: a naive, bumbling but ultimately good-hearted young man navigates the difficulties of love and life before finding his special one.

However, Richard Curtis kept things fresh by adding a sci-fi twist. Tim discovers he has the ability to change the past and like many of us he uses it to fix all his mistakes until he discovers that it's the mistakes that make us human. It's not the most revolutionary of revelations and the time travel mechanics aren't the clearest, but that's not really important.

Perhaps that's because the film had plenty of laughs from Tim's foot-in-mouth syndrome to his father James' foul-mouthed playwright friend Harry Chapman (Tom Hollander) to brilliant cameos from Richard Griffiths and Richard E. Grant. There were plenty of laughs to balance out all the sentimentality of which there was a lot. What else would you expect from a romantic comedy?

Domnhall Gleeson made a for a charming leading man. He fit the role of Tim well with all the requisite charisma, but also plenty of space to grow. Rachel Mcadams was also good as she continued her string of rom-com successes. I do wonder if that's why she went onto to star in True Detective as the emotionally damaged Antigone Bezzerides. But the true star was Bill Nighy. He was the source of much of the film's comedy and pathos.

If I were to criticise anything, it would be Margot Robbie's brief inclusion. She played, I think, an early English love interest of Tim. I say "I think," as her accent varied between her native Australian and an upper-class English. But this was early on in her career.

I really enjoyed About Time. Yes, it was overly-sentimental but it had a great cast and brilliantly used a sci-fi twist to keep everything fresh. 

The Day the Earth Stood still review

Number 437 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1956 science-fiction film – The Day the Earth Stood Still.

One fateful day in 1951 Washington DC, a mysterious UFO sets down. Out comes an alien called Kantu (Michael Rennie) along with his robot protector Gort. The alien has an important message to tell the people of Earth, but will they listen? Patricia Neal co-starred.

It is safe to say that ‘The Day the Earth Stood Still’ was a sleeper hit. Neal herself thought the film would just be another of these generic flying saucer films that were so popular during the 1950’s. She could barely stop herself from laughing while reading the supposedly clunky dialogue. I’m glad that Neal was wrong, as the Day the Earth Stood Still was a terrific film.

Sure, you could argue that it isn’t the most original or novel especially by modern-day standards. However, in the 1950’s, paranoia and suspicion were rife, as was our wonder for life beyond the stars. We were in the midst of the cold war where there was distrust all around the world. Screenwriter Edmund H North capitalised on these ideas in this low-spectacle, but thoroughly interesting film.

It helped that you had the relatively-unknown Michael Rennie in the lead role. He was deliberately picked because of his low profile at the time. Director Robert Wise didn’t want a recognisable actor as Kantu, because it would have been too distracting. It was a good call, as Rennie gave a calm and measured performance as the alien.

The Day the Earth Stood still also succeeded where most science-fiction films, as it told an interesting story alongside exploring interesting ideas. Plus, at ninety minutes, it was well-paced with nothing feeling rushed or stretched. Kantu wishes to reveal his important message only to the whole world as once. Yet the logistical difficulties of this felt all too painfully real. How do you get the whole world to agree to something? I’m not sure this would be any easier now than it would have been in the 1950’s.

*spoilers*

Kantu finally reveals his message to a select group of scientists. He implores humanity to do what his race has done and employ a group of omnipotent robots to police them. Disobeying the robots would result in instant obliteration. This has led to an obliteration of all lawlessness on his world.

 Kantu finishes by saying that if humanity doesn’t choose this path, then we will lead ourselves into our own extinction. He leaves saying that he waits for humanity’s response. Judging by the state of our world now, I’m doubtful we will be renouncing our evil ways anytime soon.

Solaris (1972) review

 Number 250 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Russian science-fiction epic Solaris.

Kris Kelvin (Donatas Banionis) is a psychologist tasked with deciding whether a Soviet Union space station should continue its research. Upon arriving, he realises that something dreadful has happened to the skeleton crew assigned there.

Last year, I watched the 2002 American remake of Solaris starring George Clooney. To be honest, I think watching paint dry would have been more interesting. The remake was so boring that I fell asleep in the first half hour and missed the rest of the film. Things were never quite that bad here, but they weren't far off either.

In making Solaris, director Andrei Tarkovsky wanted to bring more emotional depth back to science fiction believing that films like 2001: A Space Odyssey focussed too much on technical innovation as opposed to interesting characters or a good story. I certainly admire his vision. Too often I find science fiction to be a vehicle for writers to show off how clever they are by exploring big themes, but forgetting to include any interesting characters. There are few science-fiction films I can think of which balance these two ideas well.

However, while I respect Tarkovsky's goal, I think he went too far in the opposite direction. In his aims to make a character-centric narrative, he forgot to include an interesting plot or any big ideas. Solaris reminded me of his 1979 effort Stalker, which was another film that was as dull as dishwater. Too much talking and not enough happening.

I am also doubtful whether Tarkobsky achieved his goal in creating emotional depth or memorable characters. Even as I write this review, I am struggling to remember any of the character's names at all. I had to look up Kelvin's name and I can't remember any other names at all.

I'm sure there are some of you out there who will say that I do not have the necessary brain power to understand science-fiction. Maybe you're right. But when they're as boring as Solaris, do I really want to understand them?

Moon review

 Number 339 on the top 1000 films of all time is the science-fiction film 'Moon.'

Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell) is the sole engineer responsible for maintaining an energy-mining facility on the dark side of the moon. His only companion is the AI computer GERTY voiced by Kevin Spacey. However, Sam has a personal crisis when he realises he is actually a clone.

Duncan Jones directed this film in his debut where he was heavily influenced by Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. The comparisons were plain to see. Both films contain a minimal cast with an AI-esque robot that has dubious intentions. The main difference is where Kubrick prioritised his big ideas over his characters. Duncan Jones balanced the two very well. This was no surprise, as he soon went onto direct the excellent Source Code.

Sam Bell was a memorable character whose world is rocked when he finds out that he is a clone of the original Sam Bell. And he only discovers this when he finds his doppleganger after hunting for answers. This allowed Rockwell to show off his considerable acting skills, as he plays a duel role where he is playing against himself. No wonder he won an Oscar eight years later.

But this role really allowed him to run the gamut in terms of character work. He played confusion, distress, anger, joy and happiness. As Duncan Jones only had one character with any considerable screentime, he needed a good actor to go along with that. He had written the role of Sam Bell specifically for Rockwell. Luckily, he accepted both for Jones and for us, as Rockwell carried the film.

True, there are other characters like Benedict Wong and Matt Berry who played Bell's superiors back on Earth or Dominique McElligot who played Bell's wife, but these were supporting roles at most. Bell's wife probably could have used a bit more development.

Despite being heavily influenced by Hal in A Space Odyssey, Spacey took the character of Gerty to a different place by making him a benevolent robot. It was a refreshing change. Spacey helped to provide some light humour to what was otherwise a pretty dour film.

Duncan Jones made Moon on a small budget of $5 million. He kept the budget small by having a small cast and re-using old sets from other films and TV shows like Red Dwarf. Yet the film never felt cheap. He knew how to get the most out of his money.

And Jones knew how to make a good science-fiction film. Moon, not only posed interesting existential questions, but had interesting characters to boot.

Cube (1997) review

 Number 922 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1997 Canadian science-fiction thriller 'Cube.'

A group of strangers wake up to find themselves trapped in a prison of cubed-shaped rooms. They aim to escape while avoiding deadly booby-traps. The group includes cop Quentin (Maurice Dean Wint,) office worker Worth (David Hewlett), mathematician Leaven (Nicole de Boer), doctor Holloway (Nicky Guadagni), escape artist Rennes (Wayne Robson) and the autistic Kazan ( Andrew Miller).

I often find that science-fiction walks a fine line between prioritising its big ideas over its characters or its characters over its big ideas. However, Cube failed on both fronts. It was certainly entertaining, if a creepy affair, but there was probably a reason that it ranks so low on this list of films.

The concept is intriguing, but the execution is not. We learn that Worth helped to design the cube, but he doesn't know the true meaning behind his actions. He theorises that the cube's original purpose has been forgotten and they were placed inside it to justify its use. This unsatisfactory payoff flies in the face of Quentin's idea that they were all put there for a reason. This would be a more satisfying answer. Another answers could be that all the characters were falsely imprisoned for crimes they did not commit. 

Compare this is to the Saw films where the characters are trapped in a series of hellish games as punishment for taking their lives for granted. This specific reason does give you some reason to care about the characters. The same doesn't quite happen here.

As it stood, the characters were all unlikeable in their own ways. Quentin is an autocratic bully, Worth is a pessimistic nihilist, Leaven cries at every obstacle while Holloway is overly-righteous and Rennes is arrogant. Even Kazan seems more like a loose sketch of an autistic character rather than a character in his own right.

It didn't help that the dialogue was incredibly on the nose. Nowhere is this more true than with Quentin. I get it. He's in a claustrophobic environment consumed by paranoia as he desperately tries to escape and avoid being killed by deadly booby-traps. I can understand why he becomes the film's villain, but did we need the constant reminders of everybody's function and purposes? Maurice de Wint's delivery was also over-the-top. I could have done without his incessant gruff demeanour and shouting.

As the film progresses, he becomes more antagonistic while Worth and Leaven go through more of a hero's arc - I did find myself warming to them as the film progressed. Considering the film was made on a small budget with unknown actors and a handful of sets, it certainly could have been a lot worse. It also could have been a lot better.