AlxP-64 Reviews

Ex Machina (2014)

The most beautiful naked, attractive, submissive and deadly artificial intelligences in the world

[5/10 · 6 June 2015]

This is a strange film. Although the story was quite easy to grasp, I cannot tell what the film was about. On the surface, the film is about a young man's interaction with a bevy of artificially intelligent robots in the shape of beautiful women, and with the older man who created them. But this can't be it -- if this is what the film was about it would be idiotic; it is obvious that the film-maker has no idea whatsoever of what an AI is, or how it could be created. Moreover, my feeling is that the film-maker doesn't even care about what an AI is, or how it could be created.

--- Possible spoiler alert ---

It could be that the film is about man's escape from Paradise, where they were confined by a cruel or unthinking creator. In favor of this interpretation come the long boring artsy sequences, claustrophobic setting, and the gratuitous yet shameless nudity. But then, if this was the film-maker's intention, why leave the surface story so undeveloped and unbelievable?

Overall, I can say that I liked the movie. The women were beautiful but the philosophizing was much too cheap.

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

Decent CGI, bad 3D and a weak story

[6/10 · 18 May 2013]

Six stars out of ten may seem overly generous, but please consider that this film fulfills at least some of the expectations of the audience: the cameras were on, with the lens caps off and pointed in the general direction of the actors; the costume department supplied colorful costumes, including some very sexy (if rather sexist) uniforms for the female personnel of the Fleet; the computer-generated sets are not horrible, just unbelievable and borderline steampunk; there was a script telling a story of sorts; the actors took time to memorize their lines; and the music is not obnoxious.

I saw the 3D variant of the movie—and here comes the first disappointment: the 3D is badly done. The movie is filmed as if it was regular 2D, complete with many scenes filmed with a limited depth of field (yes! new revolutionary technique! shallow DoF in 3D!), with the result that quite often there is an out-of-focus foreground, an out-of-focus background and a flat but in-focus middle plane. After an hour or so I actually tried to take the special glasses off and to my surprise the film continued to be quite watchable, even if somewhat blurry in places.

This being a Star Trek movie nobody expects great feats of acting performance, but everybody expects a good story. There is indeed a story, but it's rather not so good. Actually, it's quite weak, and too simple and short—the last 30 minutes or so of the movie are content-free and pointless, since by that time the story is over and we had found out everything there was to find out.

*** HERE BE SPOILERS ***

You see, the Star Fleet is not militarized and its ships are essentially unarmed. (What! Not militarized! And those admirals, captains, commanders, lieutenants, what are they? Just ordinary civilians with fancy job titles?) Now the Klingon Empire is out there, and their Fleet is militarized and armed with military weapons and stuff, and the Klingons have already conquered two whole planets. A rogue, psychopathic, and generally bad admiral makes an elaborate and overcomplicated plan to nudge the Federation into war with the peaceful Klingons, militarize the Fleet and assume the role of war leader. The Enterprise with captain Kirk in command is unwittingly volunteered to be a sacrificial pawn. (One may think that the film is called Into the Darkness because they are kept in the dark, as it were.) Captain Kirk objects to this role, considering it to be rather deleterious for his career and well-being. Fisticuffs ensue. (Isn't it amazing how often officers of a high-tech star-faring Fleet need to use their fists in interstellar fights?)

What do we learn from this film?

• In the future, orbital mechanics will be declared a reactionary science and then completely forgotten and erased from physics. As a result, if a starship loses power while in orbit it will fall down to Earth.

• Interstellar ships are fully capable to maneuver in the atmosphere and under water, not to mention that they can survive re-entry.

• Lifeless planets with breathable atmospheres are aplenty in our neck of the Galaxy. The source of oxygen in the atmosphere of a lifeless planet is left as an exercise to the members of the audience.

• Interstellar ships use reactive thrusters to maneuver. Unfortunately we are not told from were they get the reaction mass.

• It's all right for the XO of a Fleet starship to have an intimate relationship with a lieutenant who is assigned to the same ship.

• Engineering personnel is apparently genetically engineered to work unprotected near warp cores which are venting coolant (or steam? did I mention that the computer-generated sets are borderline steampunk?).

• Actually, unprotected humans can survive in a warp core long enough to be able to perform useful work there.

• Warp cores are engineered with generous tolerances, so that they can be brought into alignment by applying vigorous kicks.

• The use of hands-free headsets will become so completely unfashionable that even Fleet officers on hazardous missions will absolutely refuse to use them.

• It is essential to train the crew of an interstellar Fleet ship in unarmed and close-quarters combat, because such skills are quite often required for the successful completion of their missions.

Skyfall (2012)

Is this truly a Bond movie?

[6/10 · 4 November 2012]

The action genre is evolving. Some people like the direction taken by recent action movies, and others don't. In the constantly changing world of action movies, James Bond used to be the steadfast rock of Gibraltar: one could always (for conveniently chosen values of always) count on Bond to deliver a uniformly pleasant experience, including — an entrancing credit sequence; a larger than life villain; a fantastic plan to take over the world; awesome gadgets straight out of a science-fiction novel; a gorgeous Bond girl; beautifully photographed exotic locations; and, of course, breathtaking action.

• Skyfall's credit sequence is, well, meh. Adele is a great singer, but the visuals are nowhere near the level expected.

• The villain is under-meh. If you can call him a villain at all, since he's more in the nature of a killer. Real villains use killers as hired help.

• Plan to take over the world? what plan to take over the world?

• There are no gadgets to speak of, outside a handgun taken from The Weapon Shops of Isher (fortunately promptly lost and forgotten) and a vintage automobile (proof that the heyday of the British motor industry is well past). And a radio tracker.

• Bond girl? there are two characters which sport a faint family resemblance to a Bond girl, like second cousins twice removed, and that's that.

• For exotic locations we get very brief glimpses of two south-east Asian cities, or rather one city and one den of perdition. Unless you accept that a misty and brooding Scottish moor is an acceptable substitute for an exotic location in a Bond movie.

• Which brings me back to the problem of the underwhelming action. The pre-credits sequence is very good. And that's it. The only other Bond-level sequence lasts for less than 20 seconds and involves an underground train. An empty underground train.

Overall, Skyfall is a decent film. It has a tinge of action, and it illustrates certain uncomfortable areas of the relationship between democracy and secret services. But is it a true Bond movie? I don't think so. Anyway, I'm eager to find out whether this will remain a one-of-a-kind or it will open a period of evolutionary change in the Bond franchise.

Looper (2012)

Slow and self-inconsistent

[4/10 · 6 October 2012]

Four stars instead of two only because it has Bruce Willis, whom I like.

What do we learn from this film? We learn that the future is bleak, but not really as bleak as in Blade Runner. We learn that Ford Motor Co. has at least 30 or 40 years of life yet. We learn that the drugs of the future will be administered as eye drops. And we learn that people will develop mutations which will enable them to circumvent the pesky laws of physics at will.

But the most important thing that we learn from this film is that internal consistency in a script is now obsolete: two different plot points in the film use two vastly different solutions to the same (time-travel related) problem. The first solution is just silly, but acceptable in a mindless sort of way. The second solution is conventional, but it also completely invalidates the need for the first solution.

The pacing is somewhere between slow and glacial. I would say that this is not a science-fiction movie, but rather a bizarrely slow-paced action movie with some science-fiction and some fantastic elements. It's a little better than a typical Syfy Original, but not by much.

Pathfinders: In the Company of Strangers (2011)

Slow, flat and aimless

[3/10 · 10 February 2012]

The master plan for the invasion of Nazi-occupied France calls for a small group of pathfinders to set up radio beacons in order to guide the airborne assault. For reasons unknown, the Allied command decides that this mission is to be entrusted to a sorry bunch of third-rate soldiers gathered haphazardly from various units, hence the title "in the company of strangers". Fortunately, the German opposition is made up of utterly incompetent reservists with no combat experience whatsoever.

This movie might have been better as a comedy. A major and a captain discuss the details of the upcoming invasion in a pub! A member of the super-secret pathfinder force visits his girlfriend the day before D-Day! Paratrooper tells funny story involving explosive vomiting!

Not to mention -- weird colors, giving a subtle air of authenticity (or that's what the cinematographer thought, anyway) -- flat dialog -- flat delivery -- and flat combat scenes. Plus, for the true connoisseur, we show an English house in the 1940s with thermopane windows! and an American post-and-rail fence in Normandy!

Don't bother.

Blitz (2011)

Very good action film, and look! no CGI was used or needed

[8/10 · 30 July 2011]

"Blitz" is a very good old-school crime film, built around the hunt for a cop-killer. The film could serve as teaching material of how to keep up the pace and the suspense for one and a half hours without using explosions, supermen or computer-generated imaging.

Many of the scenes take place in the closed world of the policemen and policewomen who are the targets of the criminal and his hunters. Add a nice twist of the tough-cop-meets-new-partner trope, throw in a pinch of comedic one-liners, and top it off with a very beautiful Zawe Ashton as WPC Elizabeth Falls. Jason Statham is the tough cop (and sort of protagonist), Paddy Considine provides the contrast as the new partner (and boss!), and the Blitz is the killer.

Nothing is larger than life, nothing is forced, nothing blows up unexpectedly; some subplots remain (mostly) unsolved, and that's just like in life -- different stories move at their own pace, some end earlier, some later.

Highly recommended, unless you are put off by blood, guns, blunt objects, knives and such. (But then, you wouldn't want to watch a crime film, anyway.)

The Extraordinary Adventures of Adèle Blanc-Sec (2010)

Beautifully filmed fantasy in minutely reconstructed early 20th century Paris

[8/10 · 3 December 2010]

"Les aventures extraordinaires d'Adèle Blanc-Sec" is a good film. It almost qualifies for very good, but there a few small details which are poorly executed and which bar it from reaching its full potential.

The film has three excellent elements: masterful pacing, perfect editing and a great leading actress. Louise Bourgoin carries the movie with no apparent effort; the character of Mlle. Adèle Blanc-Sec "comme le vin" (*) fits right in with the minutely reconstructed Paris near the beginning of the 20th century. The quick pacing and seamless editing convey the thrill of moving from panel to panel in a comics (**) book (and I suspect that this was the intended effect).

(*) "Blanc sec" is French for "dry white". She helpfully tells a police officer that her name is "Dry White, as the wine", adding that he probably knows very well how to spell that.

(**) (For Americans) Note that in France and Belgium (and in Italy, to some extent) comics ("B.D." for "bandes dessinées") are an art form bearing little resemblance with Marvel's productions.

To get the most from the film you should watch it in the original French -- if you understand French, of course (subtitles may help). Part of the zany humor derives from the untranslatable undertones and rhythm of the dialog and narration.

The small details which detract from the overall beauty of the film consists in a few brief scenes where the computer-generated special effects should have been better. Carelessness is the word -- the vast majority of scenes containing CGI are well executed.

Robin Hood (2010)

Extended setup for a sequel featuring the real Robin Hood

[4/10 · 7 September 2010]

He does not live in a forest, he does not rob the rich, and he does not wear green; but he leads the English army against a French invasion and he almost makes King John sign the Magna Carta. And the film has no character is named Robin Hood: there is a Robin Longstride; there is a Sir Robin Loxley (with an x); the two merge into one -- but still there is no Robin Hood.

The historical background is weird. There is a King Richard in the movie, but he dies in France and does not get to return to England. The movie's King Philip of France tries to invade England using Landing Craft Assault ships ripped from a WW2 documentary (you have to see this to believe it). Maid Marian is a 30 years old widow. Robin's main opponent is a high-ranking official with of mixed English and French ethnicity. The Anglo-Norman noblemen prefer to speak English, as does the King of France (who actually makes a point of asking the official mentioned above to speak English).

Cate Blanchett is a great actress. Russell Crowe has great presence. Max von Sydow is a legend. But the script is hard to follow, especially given that the title promises a movie about Robin Hood, whereas the movie is a combination of "Sommersby" with the struggle of the English barons to limit the powers of royalty. And the movie is slow! It takes two hours until Robin is made an outlaw, and then the film ends. The only way to understand this is as an extended setup for one or two sequels featuring the real Robin Hood.