The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

[Rayon Vert]

Color Out of Space (Stanley 2019). (1st viewing) This had a lot of promise but ultimately I wasn’t crazy at all about the way it unfolded in the back end. That’s disappointing because it was grounded in a solid script for much of it, with well defined characters that were played very sympathetically by the actors, giving it a solid realism to anchor us before the weirdness sets in. The problem as I saw it, about two thirds in, is when that strangeness gets narratively and visually articulated in ways that are much too concrete, with all of that not very original, overly physical-focused, Thing-ish stuff, so that it devolves into just another gory horror piece. That literal concreteness took me out of the mystery and the feeling that were present and more powerful in the build-up and in those scenes preceding, with those strange experiences of time alteration for instance and the behavior changes in the characters (speaking of which, I thought at first Cage was finally providing a more normal performance, but with what eventually happens to him then you understand why he was cast!). In a sense the director makes the mistake of giving graphic, specific representation to the Lovecraftian otherness thereby in the same process diluting it severely of that very otherness (especially so in moments where scenes ape past horror movies). That deflating ending can’t entirely take away all of the good stuff that preceded, though - this is still miles better than something like The Void.


Night of the Lepus (Claxton 1972). (1st viewing) I guess I had to see with my own eyes how awful this is. The fact that the berserk animals here are mutated adds a supplementary, more properly sci-fi dimension, but there was no way in the first place that the idea of making bunnies scary was going to fly. I did find it a bit cute how they attempted to make the rabbits look huge by scaling things down around them, but otherwise this was both ill-conceived and ineptly executed. Terrible idea to attempt to film giant bunny “attacks” (blood in the teeth, mixed-in lion growls), but then the attack sequences themselves are just the same, repetitive slow motion sequences of the rabbits racing to the same sounds and noises over and over again. And then there isn’t a single thing of worth in the script and characters, even with Janet Leigh on board. A total snooze fest.


The Bay (Levinson 2012). (1st viewing) So the folks living in a seaside Maryland town get a bad surprise when the farmed chicken excrement run-off creates nasty stuff in the water that eats through human bodies. Not a bad idea but there isn’t much of a script here beyond repeatedly showing people shocked in the process of the discovery of what’s happening, and the found footage format seems like a lazy attempt to hide that fact. No meaningful characters or relationships to really invest in or care about as well. It’s a little mind-boggling that this was directed by the same guy who did Good Morning, Vietnam and Rain Man.


Serenity (Whedon 2005). (1st viewing) I’d never heard of this film and in the first few minutes I could identify I was in the world of space opera. But it didn’t take that much longer to be surprised at the extent to which this was an explicit replica of the Star Wars saga itself, in terms of basic set-up, situations, characters and general vibe (although with extra big cartoon violent action). I’m surprised (or maybe I shouldn’t be) that this has the high rating it has on IMDB. I mean there were a few worthy action thrills, but on the whole this was really uninspired and forgettable. Not the kind of thing I would ever want to see again.


The Power (Haskin 1968). (1st viewing) Another one I didn’t know existed before. Wiki calls this an early example of the “tech noir” and in some ways it’s a precursor to DePalma’s The Fury. A space research laboratory committee works on a human endurance project and it becomes apparent one of them possesses murderous superhuman abilities, including telekinesis and the ability to control minds. George Hamilton plays the North by Northwest-type protagonist who’s at the same time trying to find out who this person is and running for his life. (Michael Rennie aka Klaatu, and Suzanne Pleshette aka Annie in The Birds are also in this.) Intriguing premise for a film of this era, with some interesting plot twists even though most of the focus is on the thriller aspect, but unfortunately the execution is mediocre and it’s only intermittently entertaining - really only mildly better than something like that flaccid 60s movie The Satan Bug I watched the previous week.


The Boys from Brazil (Schaffner 1978). (1st viewing) It’s too subtle to call it comedy but there’s a kind of light touch here most of the time that saves the film from taking itself too seriously, which seems like it was the right idea given the silliness of the premise. The fact that the actors are these major classic film stars somehow works with that tone as well. That’s not to say they aren’t good - Olivier’s performance is particularly fine, and Peck was no definitely no slouch either, especially in that climactic scene that was shocking in its brutality and especially effective. This wasn’t a great film by any means but overall good fun.

[therewillbeblus]

RV, have you seen the show Firefly? Serenity is the movie that followed the series made for fans of the show, which explains the high rating on IMDb and the context is pretty critical to one's bearings on the world of the film. Personally, I'm not a die-hard fan of either (and generally didn't care much for the movie), but I certainly got something out of it only due to watching the series first. While some post-series films can function independently, if memory serves this one is not that, and it would be a bit like watching the Veronica Mars fan-service movie without any of the prior three seasons for context.

[Rayon Vert]

No I haven't seen it, but I read about it afterwards. Your explanation helps put some context to the appreciation, but I have time imagining liking this movie more! It's not terrible, it's just mediocre fluff, and that's also probably what I'd rate most of the Star Wars films to be!

[therewillbeblus]

I totally agree re: Serenity and Star Wars, which is probably why we're simpatico regardless of context- but I do think if you saw the show, the film would make more sense and perhaps provide satisfaction in closing arcs rather than dropping you into a world you didn't sign up for participating in! Having said all of that, I barely remember anything about either the show or movie, and I don't think I watched them that long ago, so my defense is really born from the film's essential function in providing those fleeting pleasures one gets from fan-service, rather than saying that these will enhance its objective quality.

[knives]

Had a fun little Corman triple feature.

War of the Satellites isn’t a good movie necessarily, but it is a fascinating, anthropological puzzle piece. Not only is it one of Corman’s last films before hitting his quality sprint starting with A Bucket of Blood (Dick Miller even gets a prominent if out of character role), but it also shows how sci-fi was transitioning in America at the close of the ‘50s.

My general impression is that goofy ‘50s sci-if is actually a development of low budget ‘60s efforts with the ‘50s showcasing a different personality and set of interests. This film highlights that throughout treating seriously its Cold War and science skepticism. Political inter squabbling and the human element are given top priority as Sputnik represents both the fear of the new frontier and the red fear. This later metaphor plays out like a more right Invasion of the Body Snatchers with one heroic scene talking about the importance of retaining humanity rather then devoting oneself to abstract ideas.

The movie manages to have a forward looking elements. There is a goofy, small scene which seems to have made a world of impressions given its wide use for parody. It’s a pretty hilarious piece of comedy about stupid teenagers finding the alien craft when the lady only wants to be laid. It’s tonally out of wack with the pofaced front of the rest of the story.

After the fun of War I decided a little more Corman fun was due. Attack of the Crab Monsters is clearly a far lower budget, though the monsters are surprisingly well done, and just a different beast entirely. There’s no ideas here whether accidentally or intentionally with Corman instead offering scene after scene of plot based movement. The movie is totally bored with its own exposition with those scenes having an active cutting by comparison to the rest of the film and characters moving around their hands as if they want to get back to the good fight which is good because the Crabs aren’t that dangerous. This is no them, but it’s surprisingly good fun.

With the article reduced Day the World Ended I finished off my little bout of Corman with a story that leaves nothing else to go. I was expecting a light hearted romp, but even with the expected humor Corman delivers a dark and nasty film which gives the real sense of a world at extinction. Although the film clearly can’t afford genuine desolation the sparse setting and emphasis on survival makes the film unpleasant in a fascinating way. I’m curious how the original audiences reacted as it is such an unfiltered presentation of nuclear fear.

[Rayon Vert]

High Life (Denis 2018). (1st viewing) This didn’t work for me. I liked the beginning with Monte and the baby and didn’t mind the pacing but afterwards I had the problem of relating to the characters that was the topic of an interesting discussion between twbb and tenia in the film’s dedicated thread. Apathy is definitely an apt label for my experience, and the situations by themselves somehow didn’t engage any interest on my part either. That’s a pity given the artistry involved. I’ll easily take the flawed Aniara over this.


Silent Running (Trumbull 1972). (1st viewing) Slightly odd in the way it travels from its own original environmental focus to the plight of the lonely protagonist at the end, although that shift makes the film less predictable. Still I was only starting to warm up to it a bit at the end, in part due to the bit involving Lowell’s relationship with the drones, despite its manipulative sentimentality. I’m afraid I didn’t find most of this very good at all in terms of execution, including Dern’s overacting at the beginning, though I may be missing something because this film seems to have its fans.


Phase IV (Bass 1974). (1st viewing) As bottled spider wrote earlier, an impressive film both in terms of its visuals and the way it manages to stage and photograph the ant sequences. It’s almost formalist in its precision and its devotion to aesthetics. The narrative in itself is also refreshingly odd in how it focuses the interest more on the scientific mystery rather than on the human drama or the horror. Original and effectively eerie.


Blade Runner (Scott 1982). (revisit) I was curious to see this again after reading the negativity about it up thread, and after such a long time (I saw it quite a few times when it got initially released, but not since - so when the director’s and the final cut themselves were still things well into the future, and 2019 was unbelievably far away…). I wasn’t hot or cold about it as a young teen, and after all this time I was enough of the former to put it near somewhere near the middle of my list (as it stands now). I don’t have a hard time forgiving the flaws listed earlier because the look and mood of the thing is so immersive and impressive. Those first shots are absolutely mind-blowing for a pre-CGI film. And on top of the effects, the remarkable world-building and the incredible visual design you’ve got the photography itself that’s just so gorgeous. I’m looking forward to see and compare the sequel.


The Day of the Triffids (Sekely 1962). (1st viewing) What with the 50s novel this is based on and Invasion of the Body Snatchers, there seems to have been something in the sci fi air at the time about plant spores from space! The threat here isn’t as menacing as there isn’t the same level of intelligence and plan at work, but there’s something interesting with the additional apocalyptic effect of the world going blind. I know there were later adaptations - this one is just OK when it comes to the situations and characters, but the dumb monster movie effects and action sequences are definitely less than that, and unfortunately there’s just more of those the more the film winds down.


Inception (Nolan 2010). (1st viewing) I must be one of the last humans not to have seen this yet - in this current collective reality at least. I was prepared to be impressed and I was. It really leaves in the dust all those other psi action thrillers. On the level of conception, it’s just incredibly imaginative and clever all the way through, layer after layer, and I couldn’t find anything to fault in the execution either. Perfectly cast too. Where it goes on my list is just a matter of other films having more emotional resonance with me. This is by far the film I’ve seen since joining this thread that reaches as high on my list as it does, just knocking at the door of the top ten that will be hard to break through.

[therewillbeblus]

Wow, I'm jealous of your experience seeing that for the first time! I've been thinking of Inception quite a bit lately (and unlike you, I've seen it countless times, and have had ample time to analyze it to death) but, somehow, through a different angle of meta-audience-engagement, and how Nolan- consciously or not- is incepting his audience.

Spoiler

By focusing in on the (arguably) two most common broad experiences of loss and nostalgia, Nolan is gradually bringing us into confronting our own personalized-sensations from memory via character alignment. Dom lost his partner- most of us have lost a partner in some respect that has triggered emotional dysregulation and cognitive turmoil in coping with the intrusive memories creeping in; Fischer's loss in his father is also resonant for many- if not from a parent dying, someone else passing, or that process of being an adult and looking back to childhood as a time we want to unpack more to color in our existence with meaning. So by bringing us to these climactic moments of confrontation through the characters, Nolan is- like many directors who by trade 'manipulate' audience emotions- incepting us.

Inception, in this case, can be framed as eliciting authentic emotions through the planting of ideas. None of us came to the movie excited to delve into our deeply-engrained memories of pain, but the process of engagement still supports our own agency in forming our responses to these signifiers, much like Fischer has far more of an independently active part in his experience than we may give him credit for; but it still begs the question of what authenticity means... is Fischer's moment of emotional catharsis any less honest because the idea has been incepted by the team? Don't we have our perceptions and memories altered and filtered through different triggers and extraneous variables all the time, which help us find, or add, meaning to our experiences through psychological definition? This is where the line of "manipulation" is blurry, because it's impossible to argue that I have become who I am through my own means alone. We are manipulated daily, and this manipulation helps us form our identities and find existential purpose, so what does it matter if the factors that affect us are intending to do so, or do by happenstance? It doesn't seem to make sense to assign value to the outcome by the level of intent of the variables, only how gentle the process is at supporting me to feel like I'm in the driver's seat. After all, how do you measure subjective experience's value, except for inside of that perceptive vacuum.

When I damn a movie for being "manipulative" it's usually when that film forces an agenda down my throat in an aggressive manner that feels unearned and cheap; a violent attempt at incepting an idea in my brain through feeling. But films that are successful at eliciting an emotional response in me that I can call my own (i.e. Manchester By The Sea) are still manipulating, only with care and awareness is that the evocation of emotional-relatability must come from me as the conceptual point of entry. Fischer's experience in Inception is authentic because he arrived at meaning that is special and poignant to him and him alone, and nobody can take that away for him- even if this team of variables can claim objective credit, that credit hardly matters to the emotional outcome. To say it another way, what matters is the feeling of independently arriving at an idea, not the unconscious degrees to which the formation of that idea is credited to other dependents.

And so Nolan has incepted me with this film. He has planted ideas that I didn't necessarily choose to confront, methodically building to a point of surrogate alignment with multiple characters through the wonderful medium of cinema, and has provided me with the opportunity to bring my own experience through choice thereby earning my participation as both separate and in conjunction with his product. This is the power of what cinema can do at its best. Nolan is hardly the first one to try or succeed at it, but he is making a film about not only the process of involving an audience, but the nature of living- and arriving at an affirmation of our own influence in our lives, regardless of the variables that support said influence.

[Rayon Vert]

Spoiler

By focusing in on the (arguably) two most common broad experiences of loss and nostalgia, Nolan is gradually bringing us into confronting our own personalized-sensations from memory via character alignment. Dom lost his partner- most of us have lost a partner in some respect that has triggered emotional dysregulation and cognitive turmoil in coping with the intrusive memories creeping in; Fischer's loss in his father is also resonant for many- if not from a parent dying, someone else passing, or that process of being an adult and looking back to childhood as a time we want to unpack more to color in our existence with meaning. So by bringing us to these climactic moments of confrontation through the characters, Nolan is- like many directors who by trade 'manipulate' audience emotions- incepting us.

Inception, in this case, can be framed as eliciting authentic emotions through the planting of ideas. None of us came to the movie excited to delve into our deeply-engrained memories of pain, but the process of engagement still supports our own agency in forming our responses to these signifiers, much like Fischer has far more of an independent part in his experience than we may give him credit for; but it still begs the question of what authenticity means... is Fischer's moment of emotional catharsis any less honest because the idea has been incepted by the team? Don't we have our perceptions and memories altered and filtered through different triggers and extraneous variables all the time, which help us find, or add, meaning to our experiences through psychological definition? This is where the line of "manipulation" is blurry, because it's impossible to argue that I have become who I am through my own means alone. We are manipulated daily, and this manipulation helps us form our identities and find existential purpose, so what does it matter if the factors that affect us are intending to do so, or do by happenstance? It doesn't seem to make sense to assign value to the outcome by the level of intent of the variables, only how gentle the process is at supporting me to feel like I'm in the driver's seat. After all, how do you measure subjective experience's value, except for inside of that perceptive vacuum.

When I damn a movie for being "manipulative" it's usually when that film forces an agenda down my throat in an aggressive manner that feels unearned and cheap; a violent attempt at incepting an idea in my brain through feeling. But films that are successful at eliciting an emotional response in me that I can call my own (i.e. Manchester By The Sea) are still manipulating, only with care and awareness is that the evocation of emotional-relatability must come from me as the conceptual point of entry. Fischer's experience in Inception is authentic because he arrived at meaning that is special and poignant to him and him alone, and nobody can take that away for him- even if this team of variables can claim objective credit, that credit hardly matters to the emotional outcome.

And so Nolan has incepted me with this film. He has planted ideas that I didn't necessarily choose to confront, methodically building to a point of surrogate alignment with multiple characters through the wonderful medium of cinema, and has provided me with the opportunity to bring my own experience through choice thereby earning my participation as both separate and in conjunction with his product. This is the power of what cinema can do at its best. Nolan is hardly the first one to try or succeed at it, but he is making a film about not only the process of involving an audience, but the nature of living- and arriving at an affirmation of our own influence in our lives, regardless of the variables that support said influence.

I agree with your take of our individuality being co-created through interrelatedness, and that's a nice reading of how the film not only presents that to the viewer but makes him/her experience that.

What struck me in terms of the brilliance iof the film is that, even before getting into the complexities of the screenplay itself, there was obviously a lot of research and impressively deep thought that went into the ideas presented here themselves. I have a hard time off the cuff thinking of other sci-fi films that go so deep. That entanglement of the architects structuring the dream while the subconscious of the dreamer fills out the rest of the information is definitely one of those.

Wow, I'm jealous of your experience seeing that for the first time!

The fact that I've spent this decade-plus immersing myself entirely in the history of cinema and basically opting out of current film as a byproduct of that is now a fortunate experience when it comes to a project like this, when I'm getting to see a lot of the stellar ones for the first time, in fairly close succession. It so happens there's also a lot of earlier classic sci-fi that I never got to as well.

[therewillbeblus]

What struck me in terms of the brilliance iof the film is that, even before getting into the complexities of the screenplay itself, there was obviously a lot of research and impressively deep thought that went into the ideas presented here themselves. I have a hard time off the cuff thinking of other sci-fi films that go so deep. That entanglement of the architects structuring the dream while the subconscious of the dreamer fills out the rest of the information is definitely one of those.

Yeah I’ve said it before but it’s one of the most apt psychologically-conscious films I can think of, and maybe the best example of Nolan’s talents as an emotional filmmaker, taking grand intellectual ideas and ambitious economical constructs and using them to form a map that arrives at pretty simple, accessible emotional experience.

My thoughts from my last watch:

Revisited this again tonight, and was reminded just how therapeutically accurate the narrative is, which helps explain the emotionally affecting successes beyond the intellectualizations. The core idea of us being driven by emotion rather than logic, transcribed into dreamspace, is on point; as is the plan of planting a positive memory which trumps negative emotion. The ironic key is that Cobb's own strongest preoccupations are in reliving negative feelings of regret and holding onto memories marked with trauma, which is another reminder that expertise in optimal emotional strategies don't always reflect our own abilities to practice them. Mal's character is also a great example of loving someone with debilitating mental illness (there are some strong addiction parallels, as well as how we influence our partners with both love and harm, intentionally or otherwise, due to their unique forms of processing separate from our own control); and how this subverts her early-installation of the femme fatale cinematic role by giving us someone to empathize with is insightful on multiple levels, and reinvents the 'independence' from that characterization into something both metaphysical and starkly real. The density of the therapeutic process, and dissection of emotional unrest, is a lot more complex and interesting than the dream logic, spy mission plotpoints, or setpieces, and deserves its share of credit in the film's discussions, but all those elements still work for me like gangbusters. This really is intelligent filmmaking colliding with lavish ambition at its best.

[Rayon Vert]

The Time Machine (Pal 1960). (1st viewing) Interesting how the film updates the novella by incorporating “George”’s time traveling through that portion of the twentieth century, and also how it fits in that knowledge of the world wars into the late part of the story. It’s a very likeable film, with fairly strong production values and nice directing overall. There’s a lovely and endearing Victorian set-up in the beginning, which devotes quite a bit of time to scientific discussion of the protagonist’s discovery. That extended traveling through the century and then hundreds of millennia that follows and that is the first part of the film is very well done and absorbing. The narrative development with the Eloi and especially the Morlocks that follows was bound to disappoint relative to this, and unfortunately it does, but as Dr. Amicus said earlier in the thread it’s far from a complete washout either. Definitely worth seeing.


The Food of the Gods (Gordon 1976). (1st viewing) H. G. Wells again, but this time very loosely adapted in the service of some AIP schlocky nature’s revenge eco-horror. For those who don’t know, this involves animals growing to a monstrous size after feeding on a mysteriously appearing food source on a British Columbia island. This unfortunately apes Night of the Lepus in the effects - lots of shots of ordinary rodents climbing miniature cars and houses with growling sounds overdubbed. Like rabbits, chickens and mice don’t make for the scariest creatures! It’s a bad film of course, with a not very developed script and a couple of tremendously laughable effect scenes, but it’s one it’s possible to enjoy because of the better pacing, a few thrills and a bit more variety in the critters and the way they’re staged. It ends up more on the bad-but-fun Frogs level of quality, rather than the atrociously dull Lepus. These films all seem to feature one golden age Hollywood actor - here it’s Ida Lupino if that matters.


Sound of My Voice (Batmanglij 2011). (1st viewing) I’m not quite sure what to make of the ending but that’s probably part of the possibly non-linear logic point. Anyway, a really smart and completely captivating mystery. For my part, I was completely repelled by the Maggie character, especially in those confrontational group therapy scenes where she comes on so strongly manipulative. But in a way that only made the question of what her real identity was more interesting. Excellent script and the film manages to immediately create a tension that stays right until the end. Thanks for the rec, TW - probably not a film I would have noticed existed unless you brought it up.


The Andromeda Strain (Wise 1971). (1st viewing) I fell in love with this thing. It felt very slow and lumbering at first, actually for quite a while, but that pace turns into a virtue once we get to the Wildfire facility (and the fun of those lengthy decontamination procedures) and into the detailed, methodical process of finding and analyzing the organism. I just love how the entire film just gets almost singlemindedly devoted to following closely that scientific endeavor. Great production design for the whole thing too, from the facility décors to the computer visuals, and the ending is thrilling. (I could have done without watching the monkey “die”, though, even while knowing it was SPCA-supervised - a bit traumatizing; likewise those frequent, long scenes of the unattended infant crying.) If I knew this was going to be this good, I’d gotten the Arrow to watch this, but I’ll fix that right away. Goes high on my list.


V for Vendetta (McTeigue 2005). (1st viewing) I hadn’t seen this because I steer away from these dark sci-fi/fantasy comic book-y films that just don’t appeal to me, and this is very much what I feared it would be, a big cartoonish piece with an unsubtle message and predictable narrative. A mish-mosh of all kinds of cultural and historical elements, thrown together with not much originality. After an initially curiosity-inspiring start, it surprisingly became and stayed quite dull and unengaging for the rest of it. It blows my mind this has an 8.2 on IMDB. 6.2 would be more like it, and that’s being generous.


Predestination (Spierig brothers 2014). (1st viewing) I didn’t know the Heinlein short story this is based on and I was expecting a less original time travel action thriller à la Source Code or Looper. It definitely has some of that, but as bamwc2 who wrote-up this film earlier said, a huge chunk of the film presents the compelling drama of an

Spoiler

intersex

character growing up in the 50s and 60s (I was sure this aspect wasn’t part of the 1959 story since it seems to be advanced for that time and to fit our era’s concerns so much more, but in fact it is), who is very well played by the actress Sarah Snook. I was completely engrossed in it and almost forgetting this was a time travel movie. And when that time travel part does kick off, things get really complicated, at a near-Primer level you could say. It’s such an insanely good story you wonder why it wasn’t made into a film before. Ethan Hawke is very good also here, especially in the early, non-action and straight dramatic parts of the film where he’s the bartender in disguise. The philosophic-psychological theme about the ability to remake yourself is deeper to me here than in Source Code, along with the philosophical puzzle of the predestination paradox itself. It’s a film that definitely engages both the heart and the mind, and for me it’s better than those films whose names I mentioned in this write-up. There wasn’t a bad note through the entire film. A surprising winner, one that I heartily recommend, and it’s easily making my list.

[therewillbeblus]

Sound of My Voice (Batmanglij 2011). (1st viewing) I’m not quite sure what to make of the ending but that’s probably part of the possibly non-linear logic point. Anyway, a really smart and completely captivating mystery. For my part, I was completely repelled by the Maggie character, especially in those confrontational group therapy scenes where she comes on so strongly manipulative. But in a way that only made the question of what her real identity was more interesting.

Spoiler

What makes the ending work so well is that its ambiguity specifically demands that we sit with the fact that we cannot make everything tangible, through viewing a tangible gesture that's unexplainable with our own eyes. Much like The Leftovers, the viewers' personalized flexibility of belief, and particular deviation towards atheism or willingness to take leaps of faith, is forcibly elicited and revealed to us through the device of Maggie's enigma. It's a bit of a slap in the face that sobers us (or me, at least) up to look inwardly toward my complex conflict with the process of belief, rather than focus on outward judgments toward those who threaten that internal issue.

I highly recommend other Brit Marling-scripted vehicles. For this project, Another Earth, but The East is also good. I got really into her in college, and always admired how she devoutly invests herself in these kinds of indie projects that challenge audiences' atheistic sensitivity to mastery (and contributes to writing many of them, sharing auteurist sensibilities) instead of going the route of taking pretty-girl big-money roles which she must have been offered ten times over.

[knives]

Have you read the V for Vendetta comic book? It's different in a way that I suspect you'd enjoy a lot more.

[Michael Kerpan]

Nearing the end of Mushi-shi (Hiroshi Nagahama, 2005-2006). This is a 26-episode series, set around the Heisei era -- in a Japan (and presumably world) in which creatures on the border of "living" ("mushi" literally means "bug" but these are nothing like insects or anything else -- except maybe viruses, though these are much larger and some are huge) are invisible to almost everyone except rare sensitive individuals -- yet can have drastic (but rarely ambivalent to good) effects on humans and animals in their proximity. Mushi-caused illnesses are not treatable by doctors -- but sometimes can be cured or at least controlled by mushi-shi. The protagonist is a wandering mushi-shi (why he must wander is explained in the series). Pretty much all of his travels are in rural (usually coastal or mountainous) areas -- beautifully depicted. Though based on a manga series, this has very much the feel of low-key "new wave" science fiction of the 1960s-70s (with maybe a touch of magical realism). This really strikes me as very much a one-of-a-kind show, however. Highly recommended.

[therewillbeblus]

Have you read the V for Vendetta comic book? It's different in a way that I suspect you'd enjoy a lot more.

I second this rec- Moore is really talented at fleshing out his ideas on the page and juggling a lot in an expansive way. I don’t really like any film adaptations of his work, now that I think about it.

[knives]

Neither does he. Though the Justice League adaptation of his Superman birthday special is really great.

[therewillbeblus]

I haven't seen From Hell in long enough to forget any ties, but I was shocked to read the graphic novel years ago and find how radically different and flat-out unadaptable it is... I mean, I know the film is 'loosely' based on the source, but it seems like only the title and Jack the Ripper are commonalities. That may be my favorite written work of his.

[knives]

It’s a really great one. I actually think Scorsese in Casino mold or Ruiz could do an adaptation connected to Moore’s approach to history. Those two probably go to your point though on the difficulties such an adaptation pose. Who’s been good at adapting footnotes?

[zedz]

V for Vendetta (McTeigue 2005). (1st viewing) I hadn’t seen this because I steer away from these dark sci-fi/fantasy comic book-y films that just don’t appeal to me, and this is very much what I feared it would be, a big cartoonish piece with an unsubtle message and predictable narrative. A mish-mosh of all kinds of cultural and historical elements, thrown together with not much originality. After an initially curiosity-inspiring start, it surprisingly became and stayed quite dull and unengaging for the rest of it. It blows my mind this has an 8.2 on IMDB. 6.2 would be more like it, and that’s being generous.

I never saw this film, but from your description it sounds like it strayed very far indeed from Alan Moore's original comic strip, which is probably the least "comic-booky" of his string of 1980s interrogations of the super hero genre (Marvelman, V for Vendetta, Swamp Thing, Watchmen).

[colinr0380]

Jonathan Rosenbaum has recently re-posted a piece he wrote for DVD Beaver in 2006 about "ten neglected sci-fi films" onto his site. I was glad to be reminded of the wonderful Paris qui dort, and it is good to note that of course Privilege is out on Blu-ray now from the BFI and well as The Damned in the Hammer Indicator set.

I really like Rosenbaum's comments that both Point Blank and Zardoz could have been titled "Tarzan versus IBM"! I have not looked into it but is there a good version of Zardoz around at all?

[therewillbeblus]

I have not looked into it but is there a good version of Zardoz around at all?

Arrow Video put it out- I don’t have the disc but I imagine it’s good?

I like how Rosenbaum recalls his ‘a-ha’ moment with Stalker, realizing that the film is about those “dashed expectations” - I never considered that particular viewer-reflexivity, but it fits

[therewillbeblus]

The Andromeda Strain: Apologies to RV, who wrote up a passionate defense for this film, but I really disliked this one. As RV noted, the film is very scientific, and my distaste for the whole exercise is entirely sourced in a failure to acclimate to its wavelength like he experienced, though these science-heavy genre entries tend to distance me without any emotion or characterization to latch onto. The slow-burn tension and workplace dynamics under stress did nothing for me, and I’m not so sure the sterile vibe was intended to remain fixated in tone for the entire duration. I’ll admit that, at a certain point toward the end, some impressive suspense began to mount, as Wise’s direction brought the camera movement and paced editing to life in fresh ways that ignited a boost into its otherwise austere alienation. However, this was short-lived and didn’t propel the film into the thrilling final act that the brief change-up promised, instead fizzling back down from a boil against the grain of expectations, before then coming alive yet again for another anxiety-fueled climax that also felt shortchanged. For me it resembled a cycle of hope and subsequent frustration at not fully realising potential.

I’ll co-sign the intense disturbance with the monkey in a cage though. I’m not usually sickened by much in movies (and this case is likely triggered because we’ve had our cats in a cage-closet quarantine for six weeks due to pervasive ringworm that just won’t go away, leading to a lot of emotional dysregulation for everyone involved) but that scene depressed me to no end.

[Rayon Vert]

IMDB says this about the monkey scene:

The monkey was "killed" by being placed in a large set filled with carbon dioxide. When the monkey's cage, which contained oxygen, was opened the animal was rendered unconscious by the CO2. An assistant director was off camera and brought a breathing apparatus to the monkey, who recovered immediately.

The American Humane Association supervised the film, but that still seems like psychological/experiential harm to me. It definitely feels like it watching it. Like you, not a lot on the screen can make me squirm, but that hurt my soul. Hopefully it's not the kind of thing that would pass today.

[swo17]

And it's rated G!

[therewillbeblus]

That’s so fucked. It appeared that at a certain point the “dying” motions of the monkey squirming were special effects, which briefly calmed me down before I considered that this kind of CGI didn’t exist back then, so back to being traumatized.

[Rayon Vert]

Imagine it being okay to put a human actor through that. Is there a difference because it's a monkey?