If humans can only access 20 percent of their brains normally and 100 percent while on NZT, the “Limitless” drug of choice, then I would say screenwriter Leslie Dixon and director Neil Burger probably access somewhere around 70 percent of their creative power with regards to bringing Alan Glynn’s novel to the big screen. All far-fetched concept stories have their side effects, but the true winners avoid the crash. “Limitless” takes its audience on a thrill ride through the realm of possibility and gleefully entertains, but some sobering second-act elements kill off a bit of the joy.

Bradley Cooper ascends to full-fledged leading man status as Eddie Morra, a disheveled writer stuck in a rut who receives a little round miracle from an old acquaintance. This pill multiplies brain function exponentially, increasing his capacity for knowledge and the speed with which he acquires it. He can learn entire languages within hours, problem-solve instantaneously, recall long-discarded insignificant details from his memory and even finishes his book in the first night. But as we all learned in D.A.R.E., all drug use has its consequences.

Eddie’s consequent meteoric rise to wealth, prestige and even fame is a fun time. He even scores his girlfriend (Abbie Cornish) back. Although the degree to which he outsmarts and impresses everyone is a total joke from a believability perspective, between Burger, Dixon and Cooper, we get a hard sell. The script paces well and uses narration effectively to help us enter Eddie’s head and Burger employs a great deal of visual techniques — even if excessive at times — to mimic the effects of the drug, not unlike Darren Aronofsky’s work on “Requiem for a Dream,” just less stomach-churning.

Burger and cinematographer Jo Willems change exposure levels, color brightness and countless other techniques to create a distinction between when Eddie is on versus off NZT so that we feel that transition with him to an extent. Cooper as an actor fully captures that for us as well. I suppose if there’s anything he learned to do well from “The Hangover,” it was act convincingly hung over or experiencing withdrawal.

Truthfully, Cooper’s the show here.  Although they have scenes of influence, Cornish and Robert De Niro (as a business bigwig who employs Eddie to orchestrate a merger) have little bearing on the story. At one point it seem Cornish’s Lindy will emerge as a prominent character, but this surprisingly subsides.

Muddling matters more are the varying forces of antagonism in the film: a lender who gets hooked on the drug who keeps coming after Eddie, a man following him and of course the nasty side effects of the drug that Eddie soon uncovers. Things are not as intricately connected as we’re inclined to believe, which is mostly what derails the film in the end. The other factor would be a total lack of a realistic message, or any message for that matter.

Rather than make a statement, “Limitless” opens our minds a bit. For a science-fiction concept, there’s something relatable on a rather universal level. What if all of a sudden we could unlock our full potential? Would it still be “us?” The story imagines that world well and “Limitless” provokes these questions and more; it just doesn’t do much with them.

Serving as executive producer, Cooper shows a flare for the business here. He’s put the right pieces in place to make a fun concept movie work in addition to finding a leading role that fits his abilities. The film’s better-than-expected box-office business also suggests he’s growing quite popular. It’s almost the kind of prowess you’d have to manufacture … wait, could it be?

—

3/5 Stars

—

Limitless
Directed by Neil Burger
Written by Leslie Dixon, Alan Glynn (novel)
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Abbie Cornish, Robert De Niro

The best science fiction is often the kind that doesn’t feel like science fiction at all. Almost always, the genre’s most lauded stories and films earn that praise for never losing their human qualities in the face of elaborate story structure, futuristic props and set pieces and stylish action. That’s why Hollywood so often returns to the work of Philip K. Dick, a master of idea-based science fiction. Screenwriter George Nolfi makes his directing debut with an adaptation of Dick’s “Adjustment Team,” a story that possesses a true human factor that Nolfi weaves up through the concept’s intricacies and to the surface.

“The Adjustment Bureau” lacks for any reason to be labeled an action movie. The “action” of the film entails Matt Damon running away and throwing a few punches. The only intensity comes from chase sequences. Perhaps “romantic thriller” would be the best way to describe the film, for at its heart, “Adjustment Bureau” is a love story whose obstacles have been manifest into science fiction.

Damon stars as David Norris, a young up-and-coming politician who seems a shoo-in for winning one of New York’s U.S. Senate seats, but loses after an impulsive practical joke is caught on camera and affects public opinion. While writing his concession speech in the bathroom of the Waldorf, he bumps into Elise (Emily Blunt), a woman who captivates him instantly. She inspires him to deliver a candid speech that puts him in position for another run in four years, but disappears that evening without a trace. Days later they run into each other on a bus and David gets her number. All seems well, except that exchange wasn’t supposed to happen. In fact, David and Elise are not meant to be together period.

That’s according to the Adjustment Bureau, a team of men in fedoras that work for a mysterious Chairman who orchestrates the fate of all. The Chairman has agents working for him, such as Harry (Anthony Mackie) and Richardson (John Slattery) who see to it that things go according to plan. Harry, in particular, has long been assigned to ensuring David follows his path, as great things are in store for him. When Harry fails to make the one thing happen that will prevent David and Elise from reconnecting, David ends up seeing behind the curtain and learning the hard truth, one that he refuses to accept. He realizes he must find a way to outsmart the Bureau if he ever wants to be with her.

The classic “fate vs. free will” debate manifests itself quite poignantly in this film. Although overtly so at the onset, “The Adjustment Bureau” confronts the concept in a more direct way thanks to the brilliance of Dick’s concept. What makes this film execute it right is the ever-so-critical lead chemistry. Considering the plot revolves completely around whether David has control over his destiny with Elise, creating the viewer’s desire for the success of their relationship is Nolfi’s most crucial task. Luckily, Blunt and Damon light up the screen, especially Blunt, who gives Elise an attitude and a foul mouth to go along with her elegance. Only down the stretch in the film’s last sequence does their relationship feel forced or overblown.

As science fiction, “The Adjustment Bureau” manages to cover up issues of implausibility to make you understand how the Bureau itself works and functions and using what rules. They simply represent — in human form — that which we attribute to chance. They even have a fallibility to them, which adds a nice touch that few sci fi films open themselves up to, and it allows Nolfi to insert some humor to prevent the film from getting to self-serious. Some might desire to see the Bureau as a relentless and powerful group ala hard sci fi, but this film recognizes that not all science-fiction concepts can be so pristine and perhaps they can even benefit from a few scuff marks.

Not only does “The Adjustment Bureau” never lose sight of the human factor, but it also prioritizes it, which makes the film accessible to a wider audience. The film amounts to a story of love overcoming the odds, only the odds are guys in suits who can control the flow of the universe. The merging of these genres might lead to some sacrifices on both ends, but it makes for an enjoyable film with universal appeal.

—

4/5 Stars

—

The Adjustment Bureau
Directed by George Nolfi
Written by George Nolfi, Philip K. Dick (short story)
Starring: Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, Anthony Mackie, John Slattery

We’ve finally reached in age when science fiction doesn’t have to mean action films and where low-budget genre films have become “of interest” to producers and distributors. Although you could hardly call “District 9″ a cheap film compared to Gareth Edwards’ debut feature “Monsters,” Neil Blomkamp’s film was much cheaper than the alien movies that came before it and Edwards’ first feature film continues that trend.

An alien invasion film with minimal action is a tough route to travel, but Edwards largely sticks to it. I was expecting hardly any alien presence in the film, but he gives in to our curiosities as sci-fi fans and ultimately the film is better for it.

The premise of “Monsters,” set up by a few title cards of context, is that an alien presence has landed in Mexico, which has since been quarantined to contain the giant octopus-like creatures that have been deemed hostile. Similar to a “28 Days Later,” the film focuses on a microcosm of that event: two characters forced to stick together if they’re to make it back from Mexico to the United States.

It becomes immediately apparent that Edwards has thought his film through in terms of how an alien invasion of this kind would impact people’s lives, especially in such a low-poverty and already troubled area in Mexico. There’s a bit of a commentary on immigration here considering Sam (Whitney Able) and Kaulder (Scoot McNairy) must befriend locals for shelter and pay exorbitant amounts of money to get back to America. That, and the United States has erected a massive wall at the Mexico border. This message is very subtle, however, and not preachy, which keeps the focus on the characters where it belongs.

“Monsters” provides a lot for you to chew on with these subtle points, but a little too much rests on the main characters without much sci-fi action to lean back on. McNairy and Able play likable characters and do so with a very natural style, but Edwards has written them one- dimensional backstories, which makes their characters cut-and-dry in terms of motivation. For example, it’s abundantly clear from the beginning that Sam is not happy to be engaged to this guy we don’t ever meet, but it seems to be the only thing that defines her and her choices and feelings. Her relationship with Kaulder grows very organically in-scene, but their fate becomes painfully obvious from the moment they meet.

Chiefly, “Monsters” is a survival story, a film more interested in how an alien invasion would affect people’s lives on a personal level than how the government would handle the situation or even from a filmmaking standpoint, unconcerned with entertaining its audience. Kaulder and Sam are put in peril and reevaluate their lives often on this journey and must come to terms with the fact that practicality becomes less of a factor in making important decisions when your life is threatened.

Considering that the film operates as science fiction but not in a typical way, “Monsters” definitely leaves you with something to be desired, but it more or less creates a unique flavor from pieces of “Cloverfield,” “28 Days Later” and a bit of “District 9.”

—

3.5/5 Stars

—

Monsters
Written and Directed by Gareth Edwards
Starring: Scoot McNairy, Whitney Able

Like most movie franchises begun in the 20th Century — with a few notable exceptions thanks to James Cameron — the “Predator” series was never better than its 1987 original. The most recent efforts pitting the Predators against their “enemies” the Xenomorphs, the “Alien vs. Predator” films, had reduced a once imaginative and fearsome beast to a B movie creature feature. Producer Robert Rodriguez and director Nimród Antal attempt to change that with “Predators” plural.

“Predators” ranks as next best to the John McTiernan original, but that’s not exactly a major accomplishment. This version restores the intensity and creative possibility to the “Predator” universe, but it doesn’t match the genre-changing impact that the 1987 film had on monsters-hunting-humans movies. The film plays it safe, going for action with that macho, carnal brutality that only true lovers of monster and alien flicks enjoy.

The film definitely proves that a reinvention of the series was warranted. The script from rookie writers Alex Litvak and Michael Finch is a home run as far as concept goes: this time the humans are on the Predators’ planet and they aren’t just any humans, but representative of the most elite killers from all over the globe. In other words, the Predators want to hunt the very best killers humankind has to offer.

Adrien Brody stars as the firm-willed but mysterious leader of the pack. He takes charge early on in the story, but also as far as acting. Lowering his voice to the “Christian Bale as Batman” frequency, he proves he has leading man ability and command. It helps to mask that Litvak and Finch write his nameless (except for the last few minutes) character with a bit of an exaggerated no-nonsense attitude, to the point where he always seems to know what’s up, have a plan, or have surmised just the right amount of information to compel the action forward.

“Predators” begins with more promise than it ends with. The drama begins with Brody falling through the sky and landing on the planet with the other “prisoner,” who certainly fail to trust each other at first and slowly begin to realize over the first half hour just what they’re up against.

Antal, who directed the unsuccessful heist flick “Armored” and the well-received horror flick “Vacancy” is much more patient and deliberate during this first act, but once the Predators make their first appearance, the lid comes off. Part of the power of the original “Predator” as with “Alien” and other successful films with “hunters” was the slow reveal, never completely showing the enemy force until the suspense has built up, if ever. True, we know what Predators look like after 20-plus years, but these enemies become less menacing when overexposed, especially given that there’s way more than one in this film.

Thematically I was almost impressed that the script was concerned with themes of survival at all costs and the idea of compassion being both a weakness and a strength of human nature. It was not just dialogue that illustrated these points, but actual events, particularly the outcome of when the group meets Laurence Fishbourne’s character, who has been on the planet surviving in solitude for quite some time.

But the anti-climactic action sequences really snuff the suspense and otherwise impressive pacing of the film. For example, there’s no reason to have a Japanese Yakuza hit-man engaging in a sword fight with a Predator than to have a human engaging in a sword fight with a Predator. The scene itself does not work nearly as well as the idea behind it.

However, “Predators” is definitely taking the franchise back in a positive direction and with a capable and likable lead in Brody. It carries more of the “Predator” tradition than the failed sequels before it, but by no means does it reach the threshold of what a “Predator” movie can be.

—

3/5 Stars

—

Predators
Directed by Nimród Antal
Written by Alex Litvak and Michael Finch, Jim and John Thomas (characters)
Starring: Adrien Brody, Topher Grace, Alice Braga, Laurence Fishbourne

It only takes a few great cinematic elements to turn a helter-skelter sci-fi fantasy into a cult classic. Russell Mulcahy finds that edge in directing Gregory Widen’s story “Highlander.” Part of it is Christopher Lambert’s hardened hero Connor McLeod as well as Clancy Brown’s exceptionally psychotic performance as the Kurgan, but Mulcahy commands how we feel about these characters and pilots them into memorable battle sequences and grandiose stunts for a film released in 1986. Fantasy and science-fiction fans will easily be able to overlook some of its messiness and appreciate the winning concept and enjoyable lore behind “Highlander.”

The ripe “Highlander” concept allows for an effective story. McLeod is fatally wounded in battle in 16th Century Scotland only he somehow survives. Fearing he’s possessed, he’s banished by his wife and neighbors and eventually settles on his own with a new wife in an isolated part of the highlands. Sean Connery then arrives to inform him of his greater calling and warn him of his immortality. He has essentially joined a “club” of immortals (of which there are an unknown number) who compete throughout the centuries to become the lone Highlander by beheading other immortals.

Unfortunately, that part of the movie doesn’t come first, making the “Highlander” concept much more difficult than it needs to be. At least what Widen fails to do in terms of organizing the film in a logical order he makes up for in delivering an idea with classic themes of immortality, power and love. Because Connor can’t settle down without watching those he loves die of age, he wins our sympathy and that’s the goal with any fantasy hero.

It helps that Lambert’s furrowed brow and emotionally exhausted look communicates a feeling of inner sorrow, an always ideal hero combination of hard on the outside, soft on the inside. Mulcahy draws close attention to his eyes, which at the beginning makes us think of Lambert as a bit of an ugly brute because of his large forehead, but eventually succeeds in portraying him in a sensitive light.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is Brown’s Kurgan, the immortal hoping to be the last one standing by killing Connor in New York City, where the Gathering (an unofficial tournament to become the Highlander, sort of) is happening. Every second Brown spends on screen just induces more and more hatred, especially when he does a poor job of shaving his head. Villains are so much more effective with a psychotic twist and Brown delivers. It’s also not the kind of crazy villain that tries overly hard to be funny with poorly written dialogue, but the unexpectedly randomly licking people type of insane.

The sporadic pacing hurts our ability to become invested in the main love story between Connor and forensic metal specialist Brenda (Roxanne Hart). It’s more an example of great potential unachieved rather than offensively poor writing. The same goes for the relationship between Connor and his personal assistant Rachel (Sheila Gish). A flashback takes us to World War II when he saves the young Rachel by taking bullets for her. Their friendship and affection for one another has the power to be a fantastic subplot in the film, but it never cooks.

Little else can be said negatively about “Highlander,” unless you’re not amused by people in New York City fighting with broadswords attempting to slice each other’s heads off. The entertainment appeal won’t be for everyone, but there are plenty of explosions (every time an immortal is decapitated a “quickening” happens and stuff in the area breaks and shatters), and with a Star Wars-esque fight scene at the end, it’s easy to see why “Highlander” spawned a number of future films and a TV series, etc.

—

3.5/5 Stars

—

Highlander (1986)
Directed by Russell Mulcahy
Written by Gregory Widen
Starring: Christopher Lambert, Clancy Brown, Roxanne Hart, Sean Connery

Welcome to Delos, an immersive Disney World for adults featuring three real-life role play worlds: Medieval, Roman and West World. Outfitted with robots, these era-inspired theme parks are there to serve your every desire. You can shoot people, you can have sex with them and you can take their world as seriously as you like for $1,000 a day. They’re a set of amusement parks and for all intents and purposes, amusement sums up the purpose of the film as well.

Oh, the 1970s. There comes a point where every pre-”Star Wars” film can no longer lean on the technological limitations of the era. That’s because things like plot and suspense transcend time. Yes, “Westworld” has a plot, but it’s extremely one-dimensional. Ironically, the movie focuses on robots, though its human characters come off just as hollow.

Richard Benjamin and James Brolin play Peter and John, two pals whom we know little about that venture out to Westworld for a good time. John’s been there before, but it’s new to Peter, who has a bit of an adjustment period to the whole shooting and committing crime and prostitution thing. On several occasions the two are confronted by a gunslinger robot played expertly by the infamous Yul Brynner. More on him later.

It’s no wonder Michael Crichton just stuck to writing his books after this movie. He leans on slow motion for action sequences and does odd jump cuts during the suspense climaxes. He also manages to painfully drag out a movie with a runtime of under an hour and a half. For all there was in “Westworld” of substance, the film could have been less than an hour. So many shots say absolutely nothing to the viewer who’s fully aware things are going to go wrong at some point or another with these robots. Eight different scenes slowly escalate the fact that the robots are exhibiting strange behavior when half that number with a bit more punch a piece would help keep the plot unpredictable and interesting.

“Westworld” does ride its concept well and manages to find good grace through Brenner’s cold, robotic and downright creepy performance as the gunslinger. The character was undoubtedly a precursor and possibly an inspiration for the Terminator, though in comparison he’s much less formidable than Arnold. All that considered, “Westworld” would be well-suited for a 20th Century makeover and rarely does a film strike me as such.

—

2.5/5 Stars

—

Westworld (1973)
Written and directed by Michael Crichton
Starring: James Brolin, Richard Benjamin, Yul Brynner

As a fan of science fiction allegory, social experiment, “The Twilight Zone” and the thriller genre –no less all those elements combined — Richard Kelly and his film “The Box” should’ve at least won me over, but it doesn’t. It can’t even decide if it wants to remain completely mysterious or explicitly tell us what’s going on and any film that has to contemplate that is too complex for its own good.

With any story this daring, there’s potential for something meaningful. “The Box” does let you glimpse it and draw a few interesting conclusions, but through intellectual jail bars placed before our eyes by the myriad of plot contrivances. In other words, too many plot elements exist in in the film that keep us from ever putting our mind around what Kelly is trying to say. Although he starts simply by focusing on a couple (James Marsden and Cameron Diaz) and their child making an ethical decision, the scope widens to include everything from Arthur C. Clarke references to mindless drones to some indiscernible notion of the afterlife.

This beginning piece is based on Richard Matheson’s story “Button, Button,” which was a short story turned into a “Twilight Zone” episode. In “The Box,” a mysterious man with a half-burned face played by Frank Langella drops off a box with a button in it at the doorstep of Norma and Arthur Lewis and their son Walter. He later comes back and gives Norma a proposition: don’t press the button and nothing happens, or press the button and receive one million dollars and subsequently someone, anywhere in the world, whom they don’t know will die.

Well, Norma, a teacher, just lost her teacher tuition discount for her son and Arthur’s application to be an astronaut was just denied and despite living in a nice looking house in Richmond, Virginia they apparently have no money, so it’s not hard to figure out ultimately what they’ll do. After all, don’t press the button and there’s no film — not that some people who sit through this would’ve minded that in retrospect.

As with his cult hit “Donnie Darko,” Kelly keeps “The Box” fascinatingly creepy. It starts with the colors, the classic string soundtrack from the band Arcade Fire and some peculiar Easter eggs and moves on to more jarring occurrences. There is never a point where things get so absurd that you don’t care what happens in the end, even if there’s a chance the end could be terribly unsatisfying. It’s one of few saving graces for “The Box,” but perhaps even this is only for those intrigued by high concept sci-fi mystery that parallels human nature no matter how vague.

When any thriller collapses somewhere after the midway point, you can usually blame the fact that too many occurrences in need of explaining were written in order for the writer to achieve his desired end. When James Marsden gets hit in a car by a truck and comes out of a giant light warehouse and that ultimately never gets explained, its degrading to the viewer.

The real trouble with “The Box” is how ambitiously it tries to combine the ideas of intelligent life/space exploration with religious notions of life, death and what might come after as well as numerous other elements too many and too difficult to explain. Kelly found that balance between time travel and inter-relationship drama in “Donnie Darko” but “The Box” implodes on itself by severing its little social experiment from the characters with too much unexplained phenomena.

—

3/5 Stars

The Box
Directed by Richard Kelly
Written by Richard Kelly, Richard Matheson (short story)
Starring: Cameron Diaz, James Marsden, Frank Langella

Vampirism seems like a disease in Hollywood these days, so “Daybreakers” will fall immediately go under the lens of skepticism. Believe it or not, however, Michael and Peter Spierig’s film separates itself through high concept futuristic science fiction. Although it ultimately spirals into an emotionless bloodbath, kudos to the film-making duo for taking the out-of-control vampire sub-genre somewhere it actually hasn’t indeed been before.

“Daybreakers” hardly falls into the realm of hard science, but it blends the concept of the apocalyptic epidemic with vampire culture well enough for the sake of entertaining science fiction. The film hypothesizes that if in 2019 humanity were to all become vampires (the inevitable outcome of any kind of vampirism epidemic), then humans would become a precious commodity until a human blood substitute could be found, which would cause a myriad of social issues.

Like any respectable sci-fi flick ought to, the Spierig brothers carefully establish their vampire-dominated society and some compelling characters within it. Ethan Hawke stars as Edward Dalton, (seriously, what’s with naming vampires Edward?) the chief hematologist responsible for finding a long-term blood substitute for Charles Bromley’s (Sam Neill) human blood-harvesting company. In fact, “Daybreakers” might have the most intelligently crafted societal context for a film that’s ultimate goal is entertainment through blood and mayhem.

Edward sympathizes with humans and in a chance meeting, comes across some (led by Claudia Karvan and Willem Defoe) who might hold a key to a solution to the vampire problem.

A few subplots try and add some depth to the story and characters, such as Edward’s relationship to his brother, a human hunter with a radically different perspective on being a vampire than Edward as well as Bromley’s relationship with his daughter, who ran away and insisted on remaining human. Bold these attempts are, but they’re counter-productive to the film’s main science-fiction thread.

Eventually as “Daybreakers” continues (especially in the third act) and its primary objective of entertainment becomes gorily evident, it becomes less compelling and more generally amusing. That’s when the Willem Dafoe one-liners such as “we’re the guys with the crossbows” remind you that no matter how creative the set-up, the punchline of every vampire gore flick is still the same.

—

3/5 Stars

Daybreakers
Written and directed by Michael and Peter Spierig
Starring: Ethan Hawke, Willem Dafoe, Sam Neill

Filmmaker James Cameron’s constant yen to explore the unknown has taken us to the future, the depths of space and now the deepest caverns of the ocean. “The Abyss” is an underwater survival story with a science-fiction bend. It is a trip into the depths of what we know exists on this planet but can’t truly fathom. (I think that’s two unintended puns already, sorry.) Then it throws in an extra-terrestrial element, which to be honest, probably doesn’t need to be there.
“The Abyss” is about a team of oil drillers hired by the military to investigate a sunken nuclear submarine. When a hurricane strikes their surface crew, their underwater station is nearly destroyed, and tension between the drillers led by Virgil (Ed Harris) and the military men led by Lt. Coffey (“Terminator” star Michael Biehn) grows. This is then escalated by Lindsey (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio), Virgil’s wife, who discovers an iridescent sea creature is among them.

What makes “Abyss” pale in comparison to Cameron’s prior achievements of the 1980s is simply its non-chalant approach to character. Cameron tries to compensate for his idea-driven script by dialing up the romantic tension between Virgil and Lindsey whose marriage is days away from ending when they embark on the mission. We would see ’90s films such as “Armageddon” try and emulate this model for romance in a survival film and Cameron himself would get it right in his 1997 blockbuster, “Titanic.” This time around, however, it’s painfully forced and essentially ineffective.

As a concept survival thriller a la a Michael Crichton novel, “Abyss” is solid and entertaining. Maybe not the full two and a half hours, but most of the way through. The situations are well thought out, logical and suspenseful. A couple scenes later on take hacks at the credibility of the story and some character motivation overall is questionable, particularly Biehn’s character, but as a “how do we logic our way out of drowning” movie, it’s spot-on. Harris commands Cameron’s team leader role and with some exception Mastroantonio does her part as the strong female character he strives to have in his films.

The reason I don’t think the science-fiction element had to be part of this film was that it didn’t really exist other than jumpstart the conflict, escalate the conflict and bail the characters out in the grand finale. In other words, it was a cop-out for the script and an excuse for Cameron to pioneer some visual effects. Maybe you can’t blame him in the E.T- obsessed ’80s for including it, but looking at “Abyss” among the sci-fi greats, which includes some of Cameron’s other films, it doesn’t compare favorably. Yet, Cameron manages to do what he does best, use great visuals and write stories that compel and resonate so easily with his audience.

—

3/5 Stars

The Abyss (1989)
Directed by James Cameron
Written by James Cameron
Starring: Ed Harris, Mary Elizabeth Mastroantonio, Michael Biehn

After “Jaws” launched him toward eternal fame in 1975, Steven Spielberg’s follow-up film would tackle a bigger cultural phenomenon: UFOs. “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” was only the beginning of the director/producer’s love affair with the possibility of life on other planets and the first to capture the magnitude of what first contact would be like with aliens in the era of emerging special effects.

But let’s take a look at a film released just before it, in the same year (1977) in fact. A little film called “Star Wars.” More than 30 years later it might not be fair to compare to the two, but the truth is that one film was about producing a big-budget cash-eating spectacle while the other was fulfilling the dream of a filmmaker to tell an amazing story in a world never before imagined. “Star Wars” has heart and “Close Encounters” has nothing but our attention.

It’s hard to knock a film made before I was born in an era where I can’t appreciate it for what it was at the time, but there are a lot of fundamental storytelling principles simply left out of this story that one cannot overlook. Visual effects, cinematography and Spielberg’s knack for crafting great cinematic moments aren’t enough to cover up barely existent character motivation.

I’ve read that Spielberg has regrets about the ending of this film, that his main character, Roy (Richard Dreyfuss), wouldn’t make the choice he makes in the end. I have to agree — and it’s symptomatic of his entire film. Roy is a normal suburban Indiana family man who we don’t know much about. Then his truck stalls and he has a close encounter with some kind of UFO. Suddenly he’s a madman, being haunted by images of a mesa, ruining his familial relationships. He’s driven as if by some other force to go all the way to Wyoming to figure out what it’s all about.

Spielberg has us at that last bit of figuring out what it’s all about. Roy, on the other hand, and the mother of a child who was “abducted” (Melinda Dillon) are just inexplicably possessed and driven to madness by a vision of a mesa. Roy going crazy and throwing dirt into his kitchen window or randomly sitting in the tub with the shower on for hours keeps our attention, but there’s little sympathy going on because we really have no idea who he is. The ending scene of the film is much the same way. It’s this drawn out scene of VFX spectacle and flashing lights and John Williams music but it’s only a climax in that awing sense and in finally delivering what the film has been hiding from us the whole time. It is not a climax of great character realization (or at least epiphany that makes sense). It can be completely basic, like Luke Skywalker trusting the force, believing in his destiny and then becoming victorious, but it still has to be there and resonate with us in some way.

I certainly recognize some of the brilliant scene work Spielberg does throughout parts of the beginning and the latter half of the film, but there’s a reason this is not a classic for all generations: great movies, especially sci-fi films, tell stories that transcend bad special effects or any other inhibitors and “Close Encounters” is about making a suspenseful film, not telling a deeply human story.

—

3/5 Stars

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
Written and Directed by Steven Spielberg
Starring Richard Dreyfus, Teri Garr, Francois Truffaut

The best thing to say about “Terminator Salvation” is at least they tried. Between the homage paid to the original films, the non-stop action and a myriad of different writers brought in to make the script as strong as possible, the producers really aspired to reinvigorate the Terminator franchise. “Salvation” was not meant to be a cheap attempt to capitalize on the Terminator brand. But not everyone will see it that way because the results stop at “entertaining.” Despite the thematic cries of why humans will always be better than machines, there isn’t heart written into the characters. The new vision is uninspired and flat.

“Salvation” takes place in the future — those scenes we only got brief glimpses of during “Terminator” and “T2: Judgement Day.” John Connor (Bale) is the leader of the human resistance living in the post-apocalyptic desert of the Death Valley area. He knows from his mother’s tapes that he is to at some point send his father, Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) back in time to protect his mother (and ensure his birth and the survival of humanity), but we’re far from that. Reese is a teenager at the moment and he’s just met Marcus (Sam Worthington) who was sentenced to death in 2003 and is mysteriously alive. They’re hoping to meet up with Connor and the resistance, who have just discovered a signal that shuts down the machines and they’re hoping to use it on the SkyNet HQ.

This information is enough to generate good action sequences, but it clearly lacks a singular focal character as well as an identifiable antagonist. In the first film it was Arnold and in the second it was T-1000 — in “Salvation” it’s just the machines in general. The dynamic of cat and mouse is gone and replaced with mostly mice running from the idea of a cat.

Then there’s the fact that this is the first film taking place in the future. Not a bad idea, per se, but McG’s strengths lie in action film-making, not envisioning the world Cameron gave us just a taste of in the original films. That world was dark, lonely and no one could be trusted. This film toys around with trust and brings it up only when convenient for suspense purposes. It just throws all the characters in the desert because it looks like a wasteland. It just takes for granted the fact that so many films before it have established what the end of the world might look like (“Mad Max” the prime example) that it doesn’t establish its own rules.

McG’s “Terminator” is action-packed and constantly moving toward a fairly redeemable climax. The references to the previous films will please die-hard fans of the Terminator universe. The punch is simply not there — the reason to care about any of the characters other than you knew them once when they were played by different actors and under the direction of a sci-fi genius. It is not an offensive robot-crunching atrocity, but it could use a bit more depth and heart.

—

3/5 Stars

Terminator Salvation
Directed by: McG
Written by: John D. Brancato, Michael Ferris
Starring: Christian Bale, Sam Worthington, Anton Yelchin, Moon Bloodgood, Bryce Dallas Howard

The problem with “Knowing” is that it goes too far. It’s a tough act to juggle so many overused story conventions such as decoding numbers, the apocalypse and the supernatural these days. Movies like “Knowing” have become almost a genre of their own thanks to Roland Emmerich and other disaster/end-of-the-world-predicting filmmakers. And with that comes expectations as well as a need for originality. What is supposed to set “Knowing” apart? Disaster shots? No; A protagonist trying to convince people he’s not crazy though he can see the future? No; Nicolas Cage? Ahaha.

“Knowing” tries a bit too hard to compensate for this lack of an original premise and the result is a plot riddled with holes. As talented as director Alex Proyas (“Dark City,” “I, Robot”) is with science fiction and blending sci-fi themes with commercially appealing techniques that please producers, he can only capture our attention for so long until we realize how disconnected and far-fetched all the story elements are.

I’ll give the film a bit of credit for trying to piece together a message about family and knowing that the end is inevitable and how we struggle to decide whether we believe the events of our lives our connected or completely random, but it gets lost in film’s lasting impression because of the absurdity of events. Cage plays an MIT astrophysics professor who discovers a list of numbers from the time capsule uncovered at his son’s school. He discovers the numbers are the dates, locations and body counts for every major disaster from 1959 – 2009 and that includes some that have yet to happen.

The glitch here is that there’s no actual justification for Cage to go running toward life- threatening disasters that he knows will happen. He is a single father with a young son who he promises (in sign language no less) that he will be with forever and ever. It’s convenient for him to chase these events because otherwise there’s barely any action or special effects, but it sets the film off on the wrong foot.

Conceived by an inexperienced Ryne Douglas Pearson who wrote the script in conjunction with “Boogeyman” writers Juliet Snowden and Stiles White, I supposed I shouldn’t be shocked that the story plays out like M. Night Shyamalan meets “The Day After Tomorrow” meets “Indiana Jones 4.” It certainly keeps your interest but when it’s all done you realize they tried to make something work that didn’t quite make any sense. Most blatantly, “Knowing” leaves its audience imagining too many hypotheticals.

Proyas ultimately gives “Knowing” half its competency. He has envisioned some pretty cool action sequences and found some way of pulling something resembling a theme out of this story that tries to make something original out of a premise inherently unoriginal. Without him, this film would be in the Nic Cage scrapheap along with “Next” and “Bangkok Dangerous.”

—

3/5 Stars

Knowing (2009)
Directed by: Alex Proyas
Written by: Ryne Douglas Pearson, Juliet Snowden, Stiles White
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Rose Byrne

No matter the premise, a film puts itself at a disadvantage when it calls for a one man show. Sam Rockwell, as talented as he is, cannot generate enough interesting conflict with nothing at his disposal but the skin-tingling monotone voice of Kevin Spacey. In other words, films like “Moon” have to work twice as hard to keep our attention and more importantly, capture our imagination. Creator Duncan Jones’ first feature-length film makes an ambitious attempt to pull off this challenge, but it doesn’t fully get there.

The echoing theme in outer space movies is the silence, loneliness and its consequent madness. With only Sam Rockwell as astronaut Sam Bell, the expectation is “Moon” will repeat those themes and the hope is it will shed new light on them. There are a few snippets where it does get us to begin contemplating existence in a new way, but it doesn’t meditate on these ideas enough, doesn’t let them cook.

Sam Bell is a space worker on the dark side of the moon in the near future when Earth is harvesting moon rocks for Helium 3, a new fuel/energy alternative. Bell is contracted for three years to oversee four rock-harvesting machines. At the time of the story, he’s nearly completed his three years and eagerly awaits going home to his wife and daughter when an accident happens leading to a startling discovery.

I’ve always been a fan of Sam Rockwell. He’s done a great job balancing comedy and drama in numerous films such as “Confessions of a Dangerous Mind” and most recently “Frost/Nixon.” He brings the same talents to a quiet “Moon.” However, “Moon” doesn’t give him a lot of opportunity to stretch his dramatic talents despite being the only role in the film; his character is thinly developed, his motivations never clearly spelled out.

“Moon” has an opportunity to paint a beautiful but tortured picture of life in outer space, but little of Jones’ visual imagery really sticks in our minds. A film with so few roles should really be advanced in the way of visual storytelling, should pry deep into the soul of its main character through image, but that’s a lot to ask from a novice filmmaker. Instead, he’s busy fighting the audience’s assumption that the Spacey-voiced computer assistant, GERTY, will inevitably turn evil. You can’t spend all your efforts trying not to be too much like “2001: A Space Odyssey” and not identify another force of antagonism. Jones also struggles a lot in the beginning editing scenes together, trying to keep the film’s pace up until the discovery.

There is quite an inspiring idea behind “Moon,” once the true nature of Bell’s situation is revealed, but it never hits us the way Jones wants it to. There’s simply not enough conflict despite Rockwell’s best efforts to keep our attention and the space visuals are not as awe- striking as they need to be to counter that disadvantage as well. “Moon” is a unique movie, but it’s a very long and lonely hour and a half.

—

2.5/5 Stars

Moon
Directed by: Duncan Jones
Written by: Duncan Jones, Nathan Parker
Starring: Sam Rockwell, Kevin Spacey (voice)

Very few films have been made with seniors as the main characters. It seems that Hollywood producers are convinced we prefer to see younger people on the screen — and they’re probably right. “Cocoon” is a rare elderly-focused take on the fountain of youth concept, an ancient motif that’s enough proof in itself that humans desire young age, whether in general or at the movies. Although science fiction, “Cocoon” is simple and mild-mannered like its lovable old protagonists. It might be light on drama but it’s big on heart.

Loaded with stars from yesteryear, among them Don Ameche, Hume Cronyn, Jessica Tandy and Gwen Verdon, one could say “Cocoon” was an ’80s alien movie made specifically for an older crowd. And that’s fair — they deserve it. It’s as if director Ron Howard was hoping to give his cast some of their youth back in letting them take prominence in the film, based on a story by David Saperstein and screenplay by Tom Benedek. It’s not riveting sci-fi material but it prompts an honest conversation about aging, one that in reality someone of any age could understand and appreciate.

The film takes place in a senior living center in St. Petersburg, Florida. As part of their recreation time, three of the senior men enjoy swimming in the abandoned pool just through the woods around the center. When a strange group of people come in and buy the old house and rent a boat at the dock, the stubborn old guys still come to swim in the pool, only it appears the people are storing rocks in the water. They swim anyway and find that with the rocks in the pool (actually alien cocoons) that they feel energetic, rejuvenated — and younger.

Howard’s film is easygoing. There is not a lot of suspense or gripping conflict. Instead, you watch and get a kick out of the way these seniors and their wives behave having been affected by the water. Their sex drive, for example, reappears to comic effect and there’s general misbehavior. They all come off as bigger children and each have a different reaction to this “cheating” of age. Thus the film’s core conflict of whether it’s right to defy nature appears and guides the rest of the film. It’s a replacement for any major form of antagonism.

“Cocoon” is touching because the story is very frank in portraying these seniors as having nothing to live for but each other and whatever remaining family they have. When you’re that old, a chance at prolonged life is like being granted a whole new world of opportunity whereas you’re just biding time when you’re old and physically and mentally unable to do the things you used to.

There have been better stories, better special effects (although this one an Oscar in 1985) and better science-fiction films, so “Cocoon” is best appreciated as a unique film about old age, something movies rarely focus entirely upon.

—

3/5 Stars

Cocoon (1985)
Directed by: Ron Howard
Written by: Tom Benedek, David Saperstein
Starring: Wilford Brimley, Hume Cronyn, Steve Guttenberg, Don Ameche

Shane Acker’s Oscar-nominated animated short “9″ impressed on ingenuity and creative visuals. Its anthropomorphic googly-eyed burlap protagonist, 9, connectedly instant with the short’s viewers, and the wealth of imagination poured into his world and surroundings made it fascinating. With the help of numerous producers including “Wanted” director Timur Bekmambetov and legendary stop-motion filmmaker Tim Burton, Acker tries to expand his short — and 9′s universe — into a full-length feature.

“9″ visually rises to the challenge of expansion, and at 80 minutes, the imagination packed in is maybe even more astounding than the short. Where Acker and writer Pamela Pettler struggle a little bit is fleshing out their stitched-up characters. The post-apocalyptic world where machine has destroyed man works in the viewer’s mind, but at 80 minutes we still feel like we barely tasted it, even if we really enjoyed what we were able to savor.

The greatest addition to a once-silent animated short is the context. We learn 9 was created by a scientist and there were indeed 8 others before him. We don’t really know their purpose, but they were created in the wake of a Terminator-style war between man and the machine. At the time of the story, 9 (voiced by Elijah Wood) has awoken and meets 2 (Martin Landau) who is taken away by a robotic beast along with a talisman 9 was carrying. Hiding from that beast are some others who are led by the elder 1 (Christopher Plummer), who believes hiding is all they can do. In an effort to save 2 and get answers about the talisman, 9 and 5 embark on a journey where they awaken the terrible machine that started it all.

At this point it goes without saying that the visuals of “9″ are absolutely stunning. Next to the last couple of Pixar films, the detail and artistic direction for the world of “9″ are second to none. One can’t help but realize the importance of animated storytelling when seeing what Acker does with visuals that just might never have been done with live action. The machines in particular and Acker’s eye for exciting action make “9″ watchable.

But any post-apocalyptic story, particularly one with no humans in it, requires a lot thematic meaning. “9″ never quite gets there with its array of seemingly lovable characters, not doing much to prove there’s anything but stuffing and a few wires inside its sewn-together protagonists. The mythology going into this film is clearly extensive, but it just doesn’t reflect it because minimal effort has gone into building relationships or themes of any kind. Friendship themes are barely communicated between 9 and 5. It seems all the attention went into expanding the universe, not building it around a theme. The commentary “9″ offers on humanity comes too little too late.

“9″ is a good start for imaginative animated film-making and an even better story as a film. It’s nice to see UCLA student’s culminating project get looked at by influential filmmakers such as Burton and allow the undeniably creative mind of Acker and his team to make a film few producers would likely let him on a mere pitch. Animation can be for an older audience too, and that’s important.

—

3.5/5 Stars

9
Directed by: Shane Acker
Written by: Pamela Pettler (screenplay), Shane Acker (story)
Starring: (voices of) Elijah Wood, John C. Reilly, Jennifer Connelly, Marin Landau, Christopher Plummer