jxhensley Reviews

Brave New World (1998 TV Movie)

Excellent, relevant adaptation

[10 July 2004]

In 1932 Aldous Huxley released a confused and naive social rant that gathered what are now considered the worst gimmicks and cliches of science fiction into a single book. 66 years later, Mazur and Tausik managed to assemble that book's characters and a few of its more credible ideas into a worthwhile story. Huxley's book was obsessed with the social effects of what he perceived to be the advent of factory production (actually, it was 300 years old at the time). The movie's focus is instead on the interplay between pop culture, politics, and social relations. The movie premiered in the year of the Lewinsky scandal, and the scandal of the Hatcheries Director is presented with obvious references to the real media's unrealistic expectations of public figures ("How could someone in his position be allowed to have a baby!"). In the book John was portrayed as an Indian, but here he is from a trailer park, and this allows Mazur & Tausik to explore class prejudice. As in the book, everyone is pigeonholed into a rigid social class from birth. John doesn't fit the mold; he is poor but intelligent and doesn't want any part of your brave new world, thanks. The press are baffled that anyone would question massive social planning as the solution to everything, and they don't know what to do with John except make him a gossip and parody piece. There is a clear analogy to today's national press, based in metropolitan cities where non-urbanites are often viewed with contempt.

There is plenty more that speaks to the present day. Bernard Marx has an run-in with a disgruntled Delta who "goes postal." In an encounter between John and Mustapha Mond, the latter reveals that (unlike in the book) classical literature isn't forbidden at all; people simply don't read it because the culture doesn't equip them to understand it.

The strength of this adaptation rests on the fact that it is examining a real social trend, the development American baby-boomer culture. Nearly all of Huxley's gimmicks (including the nursery rhymes and the absurd Henry Ford cult) are gone. The result, unlike the book, is a social commentary that matters.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

It's about evolution

[25 May 2004]

The theme of 2001, which eludes so many of the reviewers here, is the interplay between science, technology, and evolution. The monolith is a stand-in for any scientific mystery, the chance discovery that makes us (humans) realize we're nowhere near figuring everything out. The mystery inspires us to explore, to look at our surroundings differently, to see usefulness in things we hadn't noticed before. As we create new tools, we must also develop morally to ensure that the tools do not destroy us. By mastering new tools, humankind is in effect reborn as something it could never have imagined.

Reading the book to understand the film is a huge mistake. Clarke became obsessed with providing literal explanations for the metaphors ("look! aliens!") and in doing so lost the focus. Watching the follow-up 2010, which is based on the book rather than the film, is also a mistake. (To his shame, Clarke produced two more novels to squeeze money out of the brand without adding any substance.)

I don't accept Clarke's after-the-fact explanation of what happened to HAL (i.e. he was instructed to lie). HAL was created with all the knowledge and reasoning capacity of a human, but without the accompanying morality. When he started to malfunction, it was his refusal to accept his own fallibility that made him dangerous.

Open Range (2003)

The soul of the American west

[3 April 2004]

This is a rare film that really lays bare the conflicts of the American west. Those who call it cliched miss the point that range wars like the one in the film actually occurred (for example in Johnson County, Wyoming). So is it "cliched" any time someone makes a movie based on real events?

The motives of Baxter, the landowner, are not fully dealt with. Historically, men like Baxter acquired large land titles by federal graft, making them usurpers and intruders from the locals' point of view. From Baxter's point of view, the free grazers are making their living from land that he stole fair and square, and if they don't move on he's entitled to steal the herd as well. This corrupt mindset comes across in Gambon's performance, even if the motives do not.

The film also touches on the different reasons that drove men west: to grab cheap land, to escape a depressing past, to seek adventure or notoriety, or to reassemble lives shattered by the Civil War.

The film up to the climax is slow and ominous, like storm clouds rolling in. The script spends a lot of time on character development, which is some of the best I've ever seen; the characters are revealed through their reactions (e.g. risking their lives to rescue a dog), using narration only when it is unavoidable. Costner paints in the corners and gives the film depth. This is a film for people who enjoy westerns that focus on moral conflicts, not skill with a firearm.

The Ref (1994)

Is this supposed to be a comedy?

[11 January 2004]

I can't see what is remotely funny about a bunch of self-absorbed overgrown children competing for each others' attention, on Christmas or any other time. I've been around people like this in restaurants, in lines, and on the subway. All I wanted them to do was shut up, and I reacted to the characters in this film the same way. I'd put "The Ref" in the same category as "The War of the Roses," which is "comedy for sociopaths."

Star Trek: Voyager (1995–2001)

Good acting and not much else

[29 August 2003]

What do you do with a concept about a crew stranded hundreds of light-years from known territory? Why, you think up clever ways to bring in characters and races from the known territory! At least that often seemed to be Voyager's approach. I got the impression that the creators of this series didn't think through the implications of a completely blank-sheet setting and kept trying to undo that choice. The result was a schizophrenic series, always jumping between its delta quadrant setting and its alpha quadrant roots.

Writing was a chronic weakness. Most of the episodes I ever saw followed this template: A discovery is made / Crew member wants to investigate / Captain refuses / Crew member begs / Captain relents / Crew member gets in trouble / Captain rescues crew member / Episode ends with Captain saying "I hope you learned something." It had to be one of the most repetitive sci-fi series since Lost in Space. The science was often laughable. A race that spends its entire life asleep? riiiiight. Humans hyperevolving into salamanders? riiiiight. There were good scripts from time to time, but not reliably enough that I cared to watch every week.

The high point, as others have noticed, was the acting talent -- particularly Robert Picardo (Doctor), Ethan Phillips (Neelix), Tim Russ (Tuvok), and Robert Beltran (Chicote). I could overlook a poor script as long as one of those four actors was at the center.

Blast from the Past (1999)

Schlock from the past

[8 June 2003]

I thought I'd never have a movie experience as bad as Star Wars 2, until I caught this film on television. What were the actors paid, minimum wage perhaps? Because that's all the effort I saw from them. I know that Sissy Spacek can act, and I know that Christopher Walken can be dramatic without making it look like a seizure, but anyone who's seeing them here for the first time will have no idea. Brendan Fraser, meanwhile, seems to think that saying all of his lines with a cheesy grin counts as acting.

The plot is so cliched that I can't believe it found a producer. A family fearing nuclear war shuts themselves up in a bomb shelter for X years. They have a son named Adam who goes up to the surface and meets a girl named Eve (another cliche). They fall in love. The end.

If you catch the beginning of this film on TV, watch it until the scene that shows the family dancing in front of the shelter door. Then move on, because you just saw the high point.

Hang 'Em High (1968)

A waste of Eastwood's talent

[5 April 2003]

In Hang 'em High Eastwood manages to bring his usual quiet intensity to a character, but he doesn't have much to work with. It starts off as a decent concept, a lynched man trying to bring his lynchers to justice, but then it gets tied up in the story about a "hanging judge" that in my opinion cripples the concept rather than reinforcing it. There's every indication that the writer was merely padding the script to make it feature-length.

The movie also suffers from poor music direction. There are loud "climax" dubs over events that don't have the slightest importance to the story. If that weren't bad enough, one of the recurring themes is a barely recognizable variation on the "Gilligan's Island" theme. What were they thinking? Was it an in-joke referring to Alan Hale's part in the film? It added an extra level of silliness to an already boring film (even though Hale acted well enough that I didn't recognize him).

Between these two weaknesses, Hang 'em High comes off as Mystery Science Theater material. Eastwood fans can steer clear.

Powaqqatsi (1988)

Educational

[15 November 2002]

Koyannisqatsi wasn't a copy of anything, so why would anyone expect Powaqqatsi to be a copy of it? Fortunately, I saw this film on the big screen without seeing its predecessor, and I was delighted. The movie begins with a shot of an African diamond mine. You see a miner ascending a ladder in slow-motion, carrying a bag of mud on shoulders, accompanied by a heavy, pounding music. The effects and the music work together to highlight the miner's tiredness and strain. Other images follow, most of them from the "third world." In each case the focus is not a thing, but a quality.

Powaqqatsi revolutionized my concept of the world -- Go ahead and laugh! The film shows a vastness and variety and energy in the world that was beyond anything I could have imagined when I went into the theater. Everything is presented for what it is; there's no Western narrator to reassure you and tell you what everything means. There is perhaps no higher praise for a film than saying it changed the way I think, and Powaqqatsi deserves that praise.

The Lady and the Duke (2001)

Digital sets aren't enough

[1 September 2002]

I'm worried that a trend is developing (call it "Lucas's Disease") in which moviegoers care more about digital sets than the story being told. The digital sets in this film are very attractive and are used much better than in "Attack of the Clones." The performances are moderately good (The heroine's dependence on servants reminded me of Scarlett O'Hara).

Neither of these makes up for the poor script, though. The heroine's royalist sentiments are zero-dimensional ("But he's the king!"). Her flight from Paris is completely devoid of suspense. There's no indication of the smouldering romance that supposedly exists between the lead characters. But the worst part is the repetition! Characters repeat what they said in the previous scene, which was a summary of what happened in the scene before that. I sat through this twice (the flight from Paris and the return to Paris), but when it happened again (the vote), I WALKED OUT. I can't wait for digital sets to become the norm, so that people will again pay attention to the rest of the movie.

Oh, and I hope the next film about the French revolution doesn't have Republican soldiers who act like the Keystone Kops.

What Dreams May Come (1998)

Visual effects and not much else

[30 June 2002]

"What Dreams May Come" combines impressive visual effects and cinematography with an equally unimpressive script. Most of the film takes place in the afterlife of a man who is killed in a car accident and wakes up inside an oil painting (This is difficult to understand without seeing the movie, but don't bother). The story revolves around his attempts to reach out to his wife both before and after her own death. Unfortunately this story gets put on hold for long periods so that we can see them portrayed as giggling idiots during their courtship; and then so the director can explore various visual tricks; and then again to insult the audience with pointless plot twists where character A actually turns out to be B. I had to wonder whether the writer planned that part from the beginning, or was just trying to write himself out of a corner.

Williams managed to shine despite the material he was given, but the film as a whole left a bad taste in my mouth.

Steel Dawn (1987)

Not bad for a stock western

[30 June 2002]

Underneath the thin post-apocalyptic setting, "Steel Dawn" is a standard "drifter fights the bandits" western. It has plenty of western cliches (e.g. a widowed pioneer woman whose farm is at risk) and plenty of action. I don't recommend renting this movie, but if it comes on TV you might consider watching it. It's better than any apocalyptic film that Kevin Costner was involved in (or will be). But the only characters with a glimmer of originality (such as Swayze's old mentor) get very little screen time. This places "Steel Dawn" a few notches below the gold standard of apocalyptic films, "The Road Warrior."

The Mosquito Coast (1986)

Excellent portrayal of the human condition

[30 June 2002]

I first saw this film in high school as preparation for Conrad's "Heart of Darkness." I didn't understand Conrad's book at all, but "The Mosquito Coast" struck a chord with me and remains one of my 10 favorite films.

The movie focuses on the tragedy of Allie Fox, a garage inventor who becomes fed up with American commercialism and tries to get out. He heads with his family to Central America, buying a Miskito Indian village on the way. He then proceeds to redesign the village as if it were another one of his garage contraptions. As this story develops, it becomes evident that Allie didn't escape the things he hated about America; he brought them with him. Yet no matter how many setbacks he suffers, Allie refuses to accept this. And therein lies the tragedy: Allie (a personification of industrial man) can never return to the simple tribal existence that, for him, represents utopia.

Notice the name of the cooling plant that Allie builds: "Fat Boy". This is significant; do you remember the two real-life human inventions that had similar names?

You might want to read up on the history of Nicaragua in the 1980s before seeing this film. There is a subplot about Cuban mercenaries that doesn't make much sense if you aren't familiar with the political situation of the time.

Mars Attacks! (1996)

See Independence Day first!

[9/10 · 1 June 2002]

I don't think people can fully appreciate this film unless they have seen "Independence Day" first. "Mars Attacks!" takes the sappy, two-dimensional premise of "Independence Day" and rips it to shreds. Instead of a hero-president who rides into battle with the troops, you get an incompetent politician who only cares about his approval ratings. Instead of cold, calculating aliens who conquer earth for its resources, you get goofy aliens who conquer earth for fun. And the secret weapon in this film is just as absurd as the one in ID, but this time there's no attempt to cover it up.

What's more, you get two convincing performances from Jack Nicholson. This is highly unusual in fast-paced films, where I usually see Jack Nicholson playing a character, rather than the character himself.

(criticism: The treatment of the Colin Powell character was rather tacky. How long is Hollywood going to continue doing this to black actors? I have to wonder if the epilogue was changed to avoid having it happen twice in the same film.)

Watch "Independence Day," and then while you're still on a patriotic high watch "Mars Attacks!" and be prepared to laugh your socks off.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

Calling Crow and Tom Servo...

[1/10 · 27 May 2002]

I could have taken this movie with the cliched dialogue and incoherent plot. With both of those AND bad/nonexistent acting and directing, it is quite possibly the worst film I've ever seen. I could only shake my head in disbelief that Lucas could create such garbage.

Bad directing: When Anakin meets up with Watto, the latter has several lines that imply a scene similar to Lando's first scene in "Empire" -- old acquaintances meet, one pretends to be angry at the other, and then the joke is revealed. How much of this do we see in the Watto scene? NONE! Instead we see Anakin fiddling with his hands, not interacting with Watto at all. This goes beyond the difficulty of acting on a blue-screen; Lucas didn't even try to set up the scene. See the refugee transport scene for another example of Lucas sleeping in his director's chair.

Bad acting: The lead actors (particularly Portman and Christiansen) recite their lines mechanically, without any use of dramatic pauses. They sound like they're reading the script for the first time. If either of their characters is supposed to have some physical attraction to the other, we don't see it here; the interaction never goes beyond the "just friends" level.

Brain-dead writing: Anakin has been assigned to stay on Naboo, and nobody seems to care that he runs off with her to ANOTHER PLANET! Obi-wan can't figure out by himself that a planet that clearly exists, but isn't in the records, MIGHT have been erased! Anakin jumps out of his "Fifth Element" hovercar, falls several hundred feet, and lands (safely) on the car he's chasing! And so on.

Apparently Lucas himself has mastered the Jedi mind trick. The weak-minded, who think a movie is nothing but action and visual effects, walk out thinking this is the best movie in the series. Those who expect a romantic drama with a coherent plot walk out nauseated.