laserdude Reviews

After Earth (2013)

Best Science Fiction Films in a Long Time.

[10/10 · 5 June 2013]

I loved this film. It tackled an interesting premise about the nature of perception, the validity of fear, what happens when we wear out our welcome on planet Earth due to environmental carelessness, questions courage and how some deal with grief.

In this story, the planet Earth develops a natural defense system against mankind which in turn causes humans to have to evacuate the planet. Taking place some 1000 years into the future.

On their new home, planet "Nova", humans have learned to develop a more peaceful, planet friendly society. Dwellings look like sailing ships and very little construction is done on the surface.

Monsters also live on this new home, which are attracted to the emotion of fear and will do anything to evoke that emotion.

Stuff happens and Will Smith, Jaden Smith characters find themselves on the prohibited planet Earth, trying to survive, to be rescued, and to avoid the monster they brought with them. Along with the Earth's natural defenses which try to kill off the humans at every turn.

I like very much the ideas it tries to present. The survival suits change colors to alert the wearer of approaching threats, a multi-stick can convert to tools and weapons. Their ship is a mixture of devices both metallic and organic.

My favorite scenes are with Zoe Kravitz (real-life daughter of Lenny Kravitz and Lisa Bonet). She plays Jaden's sister who reappears to him in dreams and as a protective mechanism.

There has been complaints also about the monsters. Why have blind creatures in this story. But it is all for the point of undoing fear in the face of fear.

This movie makes my list of 20 best Science Fiction Films of all time. "After Earth" attempts to do many things.

About Earth being a thinking, living organism capable of defending itself. How a father falls on his military training to hold him together during his struggles with grief. How a son, so wanting his father's approval, will go to any lengths to prove his heroism.

Successful or not, it tries to explore multiple ideas. Which is what really good science fiction is about. Great movie...I totally recommend this film!!!!!

Prometheus (I) (2012)

Prometheus - Mission To Mars Clone?

[8/10 · 24 July 2012]

Prometheus having been out now over a month since it's U.S. release of June 8, 2012....it's probably safe to go into details about this film.

For me, Prometheus exists on two levels.

The first one dealing with the special effects, the physical environments, the planet, and most of the science fiction elements presented in this movie. It gives you the feeling of deep space travel and exploration. This level I loved the most as a sci-fi geek.

The second level is the way the story is told. Conversations between crew members felt like they were missing. Flawed actions go unexplained. And the story didn't flow naturally. Instead, it jumped through a series of assumptions to get to the next scene.

Spoilers Ahead:

In many ways, "Prometheus" is similar to Brian De Palma's "Mission To Mars". Both deal with space exploration and life from other worlds having something to do with mankind's beginnings.

The difference is in Mission To Mars, the story is allowed to unfold naturally. Meeting an alien race is done as a surprise. In Prometheus, we're hit over the head with the idea in the first twenty minutes.

I still recommend this film. As science fiction, it raises the bar visually. And perhaps will inspire other film makers to develop better stories.

Star Trek (2009)

The Star Trek Roller-coaster Ride

[9/10 · 11 May 2009]

There is so much to like about this movie. And so many questions about future adventures. I'm one of those rare persons who liked all incarnations of Star Trek...but for various reasons. The original T.V. series had it's sense of complete newness. And a kind of urban legend as reports came in years later of people who had received some kind of physical healing or emotional realization after watching reruns of TOS. Next Generation, Voyager, Deep Space Nine each had greatness in various episodes that sometimes surpassed the original idea of creating the episode to begin with. Even Enterprise had moments of pure genius in it.

For me the movies were always like a class reunion. And even in some of the films that brought heavy negative comments, there were elements that came close to exploring aspects of space travel and the miracles of the human soul that were quite stirring if the budget or the writing could have been allowed a deeper look into the story lines presented.

I like the new Star Trek very much. It's fun. Visually stunning in parts. The "space jump" for example (though perhaps violated the laws of physics) was something that drew me in as though I was falling through the cosmos along with the three trek-o-nauts to their heroic deed. Another favorite was the jump to warp-speed. Finally I got the feeling of what it might be like to travel faster than light.

And the actors playing their parts were actually pretty good. But for all the wondrousness's of this film - the general sense was that of a roller-coaster ride (one you want to go on again for the thrill - which I'm sure was the film-makers'intent). And that is okay. It was interesting to see new faces play familiar characters.

But I think the real test of this "reboot" will be to see where it will go from here. The basics have been layed down for a truly out of this world experience with a storyline to match. The potential is there, that is for sure. My only complaint was that at times the camera could have stayed still for awhile to allow the viewer to take in the amazing visual quality of this movie.

My other question would be related to model building - which I do on occasion. I wonder how detailed the model kit that gets released for public purchase will be? (of course that's just the geek in me talking). Many will enjoy this movie for the sheer fun of it. And the visuals will probably make you a little dizzy. But so do rollercoasters.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)

Why Have so many bashed this movie? It's GREAT!!!

[10/10 · 15 December 2008]

I went to see this movie The Day The Earth Stood Still (DTESS) with the feeling of wanting to compare this one to the original. I had read many of the comments about this movie and wanted to see for myself what the negative buzz was about. I was tremendously surprised at how much I liked this movie. I think a couple of things may have misled viewers because of the coming attractions of this film. It seems like folks were probably expecting the robot GORT to go around destroying cities and being a general baaaadasss character. But what DTSS turned out to be was a really good sci-fi movie. You have to really pay attention to the dialog to get the full jist of this tricky film. For Klaatu never really has any love or care for humanity. Their goal is to wipe mankind off the face of this planet to allow other forms of life to exist as well as future beings from other worlds. And pay close attention to what he says near the end of the film when he decides to stop humankind's extinction. He said it will cost you something. It's a tricky line, but if you follow it and watch the end of the film you'll understand why the Earth stands still. I won't piece it together for everyone...see if you can figure it out. I love this movie for it's smartness. Many have complained about this being another special effects, mindless mess. It is not. The visuals enhance it...but you really have to think along with the film and sit back an enjoy.

(Updated June 06, 2009). The film's ending where Kathy Bates character looks at her watch and sees that it has stopped. Then scenes are shown of trains, cars, boats stopping - suggests to me that the price humanity had to pay for their world being saved was to have all electrical and mechanical devices shut off permanently. Remember that Klaatu doesn't have any real love for the human race but begins to see the possibility of their having compassion. So since it was mankind's machinery that was effecting the planet, the best way to solve this situation without wiping humnity off the planet would be to neutralize all manmade things. Hence the title "The day The Earth Stood Still". I might have it wrong, but that's my take.

The Dark Knight (2008)

Aren't we a little overblown about Dark Night movie?

[2/10 · 29 July 2008]

The Dark Knight actually got lucky. Movies over the last six years have been crap. Scripts poorly written, over budgeted for the visual effect - yet not transferring well to the big screen, bad story ideas, copy cats of other films,lack of creativity, films that hold vulgarity and violence as a high standard of film making. That's what we've had over the years. Now comes Batman - Dark Knight. Which is written well enough but whose aim isn't good story telling. It's written to move about from pointless spot to pointless spot until you reach the end. Why another Batman Joker movie? It's been done already.

It has a mindless assembly-line quality to it as each scene is repeated over and over during the 2 1/2 hours of this film. The scenes are different only by location and a few faces. Something bad happens, the joker appears, Batman appears. Then the joker disappears and Batman disappears. Over and over and over again.

The other big comment people had made about this movie is that it is very dark. Like that's a good thing. I don't get it. Maybe because I've had too many real life experiences that were truly dark. Motion pictures trying to have this quality and then for others to celebrate this seems ignorant and not very entertaining. Besides, movies over the last few years are all dark - even the light-hearted ones.

This movie made me tired.

Apocalypto (2006)

Directorial comments from a non-director. It's crap.

[1/10 · 24 December 2006]

A couple of years back, I had the pleasure of seeing a movie called "The Island" being filmed in the metro Detroit area. If anyone has had that kind of experience, you know that it takes several hours just to set up a scene...then film it...check back on what was filmed and decide from there if you keep what you have filmed, film more if it doesn't meet your desired vision and then go on to the next scene you have planned to film.

Seeing "Apocalypto" with this kind of knowledge makes this movie even more disturbing. For any one scene on the screen (1 to 5 minutes) involves hours of filming. My question to the director is why? How sick can one person be to immerse themselves into such levels of gore and say you are making a good film? I understand about freedom of speech, but there is also the responsibility as a story teller not to sicken your audience. It shows a lack of respect for your audience when you are unable to tell a story intelligently without the use of such self-destructive images as was used in this film.

I understand why so many people have praised this film. Many of us are video game addicted. And Apocalypto has many qualities that are akin to the video game. It's fast moving. It's colorful. It uses images that stings the senses into believing we are watching something exciting. And it has the "easy" story line. That there is a good guy against a bad guy.

But let us be honest. It is a sick movie. And it is curiously insulting to watch film about a people we, the general public, knows nothing about. Since when did Mel become the great provider of the truth?

Yes,the movie is wonderfully filmed. But does that make it a good movie? A person taking a crap in the toilet, filmed in beautiful soundings with dynamic colors and a terrific sound track and with exciting music...is still that. A person taking a crap.

My challenge to Mel and to any other director out there today is this. Instead of taking so much time and money to make toilet films, place your energy into something we can feel truly excited about. There are millions of wonderful stories out there about people who have done incredible things. Do we really need films about how ugly the human race can be? What about the potential of humans to create miracles, build a life of beauty, stand together in peace, and explore the vast unknown wonders of this universe? We don't need more war stories...cop stories...some teenager trying to get laid stories...nor another "white guy" making up non-sense about a people he knows nothing about.

We are in the 21st century. Isn't it time for 21st century story telling. And not the same rehash of film done over and over and over again?

Doom (2005)

Could Have been Better Than it Was.

[4/10 · 23 October 2005]

I won't spend the time giving away any of the story-line since it seems everyone has done that already. I marked this review as having spoilers however, since if you have played the Doom 3 version from Xbox, then you already know what this movie is about. My complaint is that the producers had an opportunity to do a really good movie, and blew it. But the real problem is in Doom 3 game itself. So much had been dropped from the original story of Doom's other game episodes. I mean really, how many dark hallways do you need to walk down before it gets boring. And I was bored. In the tag line of the movie it mentions "all hell breaking loose". In the movie, hell seemed pretty tame. The monsters are very limited and the locations of where a marine might go to find these creatures had lacked imagination. Too much was explained and I didn't like the idea of people becoming monsters through a "zombie process". It was lame and has become a Hollywood gimmick. The original Doom games (though I suppose the best ones were those developed by fans) had you in environments that were so scary and unusual, that part of the fear was trying to figure out where you were as you searched for clues and fought off a variety of hideous creatures. The creatures in the movie were weak by comparison (but in some ways, they are weak in Doom 3). I did like some aspects of the film (the arc was kinda cool) and found the characters with some depth - though this too could have been explored further. I like Doom as a game series. The movie, instead of being a copy of the game experience, could have gone much further and would have been more scary and exciting if the producers had been more creative. Those loving the game series may be disappointed. Going just to see a monster flick, the movie might pass on these merits.

The Island (2005)

I Liked This Move and will buy it when it comes to DVD.

[9/10 · 28 July 2005]

I have a personal pleasure about this film. Many of the street action scenes were filmed in Detroit. I worked downtown and our department was about to shutdown. So I had the joy of seeing this movie filmed first hand. What a kick!!! The movie is basically two films as many of you may have already heard. The first half had wonderful science fiction themes though at times they resembled other futuristic films. The second half was pure action and very well put together. I can honestly say that this was a "fun" movie to watch. Good suspense, good visuals, the acting wasn't too shabby and the storyline stayed pretty logical through the majority of the film. I don't know if this qualifies as a spoiler or not, but there is a scene where one of the main characters has a confrontation in front of a huge statue inside a broken down complex. This is our old Union Train Station on Michigan Avenue. It was a perfect spot for this part of the story and a blast to see it on the big screen (as a child, I used to play near this statue..or something like it). This movie itself could have run another half hour to explore some ideas presented in the film. But as it stands now...it's pretty good. Want to see a good sci-fi with some interesting action sequences...then this is the movie for you.

War of the Worlds (2005)

War of The Worlds...no meteors?

[6/10 · 30 June 2005]

Saw WOTW yesterday. Have mixed feelings about it.

SPOILERS MENTIONED NEXT.......

The ending bothered me (though mirrored from the H.G. Wells' novel) for two reasons. (1) If "they are already here" wouldn't they have known that earth germs were fatal? Since the director changed how the invaders arrived, he should have changed their demise. Coming to earth in meteors suggested they would have had no knowledge of the affect of sub-atomic particles. (2) The ending happened too quickly...all of a sudden, they die? With all the butt-kicking the invaders do, there should of been more about humans defeating them in some way other than getting caught in a cage and sticking a hand-grenade up it's butt.

If you buy into Dakota Fanning's character, you'll get swept away by this movie. Her performance is very disturbing making the point that young children shouldn't be allowed to see this film. If you don't buy into her character, she'll annoy the heck out of you.

And what was the point of all the blood? What was this? The "Day of The Triffids?" or a "Little Shop of Horrors" remake? The special effects were good of course and the lightening sequences though confusing were very effective in building tension. But after awhile I kept wondering how many more basements were Tom Cruse and the kids going to hide in. It started to feel a little stupid and not thought through very well. The aliens looked too goofy with faces a little too Walt Disney-like. The aliens looked better and more weird in the 1953 version and fit the idea of there being everything in three's (remember, 3-legged machines, 3-eyes, the ships traveling in three's).

Finally, I also kept waiting for Sigourney Weaver to pop up and save Dakota Fanning. The child in danger-screaming for help-being saved-falling into danger again...was way too much like "Aliens". But this seems to be a general problem with most films today...directors love putting children in danger for some sick reason. I think that is the biggest flaw with this movie...it had a sickening feeling to it.

Star Trek: The Experience - Borg Invasion 4D (2004)

What great fun!!!

[23 October 2004]

My wife and I were at the Las Vegas Hilton this past Tuesday 10/19/2004. We each paid the $34.99 for both "rides" in the "Star Trek: The Experience". The "rides"; Klingon Encounter & Borg Invasion; are both covered by this ticket price and allows you to take each journey all day long and as many times as you care to do (or at least until it closes for the day). I won't go into spoilers here. But just to say I couldn't stop laughing. The Borg Invasion was soooo cool and the effects you are immersed in are a riot!!! One of the other passengers really got into it and was screaming his head off every time a Borg appeared.

My wife and I are Star Trek fans, so being in this environment where everything feels like a 23rd Century world was great. There were non-Star Trek fans who also came to enjoy the "rides" and they got a kick out of all the fun too. If you have never been, go and enjoy it. I found it helps to just play along with the idea (don't take the goings on too seriously) and you'll have a blast. The food in "Quark's Bar" was really good and I wanted to stay there a week. I'll be back again before the end of the year. Go with a group if you can, it's more fun that way. The story line in both "rides" are solid enough to move the action along and the visuals (the 3-D effect is fantastic) are great! I think if Paramount were smart, they should do some kind of IMAX film for Star Trek. Because what I experienced there at the Las Vegas Hilton has such a good quality, it would translate well for a more developed story on a huge screen. All-n-all, what great fun!!! Both "rides" has a hands on quality to them, very interactive. Also try out the rides more than once. I found things I missed the first time around with the Borg hiding around and all the special effects.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)

The visuals really bothered me.

[24 September 2004]

I am a great lover of movies that have really good visuals. (Of course there has to be a half way decent story..pretty pictures aren't enough). "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" is basically a fair film, story wise though the ending concepts seemed a little stupid (I won't give anything away here). But what really bugged me was the visual look of the film. There is a test I use for whether or not I really liked a movie. It's if I'd go back to see it a second time. Though "Sky Captain" was basically interesting, I wouldn't return to see it again. Compare this with my seeing "Chronicle of Riddick" three times (four if you count me re-sneaking back into the theater to see again). I'll agree that Riddick isn't a great film.

But the energy of it pulled me along and the visuals knocked my socks off. Sky Captain made it hard to see what was going on at times. I kept feeling like I wanted someone to go into the movie and turn the lights on. The look was too moody and it seemed like the Polly character and the Sky Captain dude were the only ones in the movie. I like Angelique Jolie (I know, I'm not spelling her name right) but her little walk on role was ridiculous. Some Star Trek movies a couple of years back had the same "too dark problem" in the movies houses and I was surprised to see how colorful they were on home video. In Sky Captain I kept feeling like the producers were saying "look how clever we are..." with the look of the film. If you're going to do this, make it a "black & white" movie and focus the stupid camera. Also it had the feeling of some kind of propaganda film (has a very Hitler - World War II look to it). I wasn't happy seeing this picture. It wasn't fun and the visuals really bothered me. When are movie makers going to make good sci-fi films? Why do we continually have to put up with junk? Give me a camera, I could do a great film at 1/50th the cost.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)

The visuals really bothered me.

[24 September 2004]

I am a great lover of movies that have really good visuals. (Of course there has to be a half way decent story..pretty pictures aren't enough). "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" is basically a fair film story wise though the ending concepts seemed a little stupid (I won't give anything away here). But what really bugged me was the visual look of the film. There is a test I use for whether or not I really liked a movie. It's if I'd go back to see it a second time. Though "Sky Captain" was basically interesting, I wouldn't return to see it again. Compare this with my seeing "Chronicle of Riddick" three times (four if you count me re-sneaking back into the theater to see again). I'll agree that Riddick isn't a great film.

But the energy of it pulled me along and the visuals knocked my socks off. Sky Captain made it hard to see what was going on at times. I kept feeling like I wanted someone to go into the movie and turn the lights on. The look was too moody and it seemed like the Polly character and the Sky Captain dude were the only ones in the movie. I like Angelique Jolie (I know, I'm not spelling her name right) but her little walk on role was ridiculous. Some Star Trek movies a couple of years back had the same "too dark problem" in the movies houses and I was surprised to see you colorful they were on home video. In Sky Captain I kept feeling like the producers were saying "look how clever we are..." with the look of the film. If you're going to do this, make it a "black & white" movie and focus the stupid camera. Also it had the feeling of some kind of propaganda film (has a very Hitler - World War II look to it). I wasn't happy seeing this picture. It wasn't fun and the visuals really bothered me. When are movie makers going to make good sci-fi films? Why do we continually have to put up with junk? Give me a camera, I could do a great film at 1/50th the cost.

Alien vs. Predator (2004)

But I like Sanaa Lathan

[17 August 2004]

This is a really tough film for me to review. In terms of the director following any history of these two sci-fi greats, he really butchered the series. Unfortunately this seems to be quite common lately (note how television's Star Trek has gotten so badly bastardized you don't even know what you're looking at). So if he wanted to make a monster versus monster movie, why not get creative and make up his own beasts and leave perfection alone. I guess asking for some real creativity in Hollywood now-a-days is asking for a little too much. I didn't know what creatures these were except they looked like the Alien beings and the Predator beings.

The opening scene with Sanna Lathan answering a cell phone while climbing the side of an ice-n-snow mountain - where is everyone's brain at...in the toilet??? Are you dumb-bells on crack??? Wouldn't an avalanche happen with a phone going off???

But I really do like Sanna Lathan. She can be a serious babe and believe it or not, the girl can act. She probably felt the same way about the script which is why no one has appeared on any talk shows pushing this movie.

I have to admit that some scenes really got me to jump and the tight confines of the pyramid got a little too hairy for me (I'm claustrophobic by nature). So as a basic monster movie it was probably better than Godzilla Vs. Atomic Man. But not by much. You couldn't see half of the fight scenes and the ending where forces are joined seemed really weird.

I take it back. This movie was not that hard to review. The basic look was okay, a scene with the northern lights could have been exploited better (I was making up dialog watching this flick), I liked Ms. Lathan, but the rest blew big time. God I feel like I owe Sanna an apology. And I didn't even have anything to do with this retarded film.

The Chronicles of Riddick (2004)

I'm a pushover for sci-fi flicks, Chronicles ROCKS!!!

[15 June 2004]

Give me some cool spaceships, a bunch of planets to go to, tripped out ray-guns and a visual scheme that draws you into this dream of imaginary places and you've got me hooked. I've heard complaints by some reviewers that "Chronicles" didn't make much sense and the acting was lame. All I can say is that these folks must of spent too much time with their face in the popcorn can. The movie (though not hardcore sci-fi) has some great action sequences that surpasses Pitch Black. The visuals ROCK and the storyline held up strong enough to merit another installment. This is really a good movie that has a way of pulling you into the action. Vin Diesel's character works fine for me even with the over the top tough guy act (hey...relax it's sci-fi adventure). Remember the crash scene in Pitch Black and how real it was? There's stuff in this film that'll throw you out of you seat. Go with people who like sci-fi adventure (or Vin Diesel fans). I promise you you're gonna want to applaud at the end. It's not literary film making, but it has real energy and is just plain fun to watch. I'm ready for Pitch Black # 3!!!