The Island of Dr. Moreau

To be fair, I'm watching this film pancake style, meaning they talked over much of the dialog and skipped a bit in the middle.  However, being one of the few to see this film in its original theatrical release in 1996 thinking it would be good - as opposed to the vast majority who watch it because it is so bad - I feel qualified to pass judgement.

It's just stupid.  There's barely a film here, pasted together in edit from the corny scenes, half-baked dialog, and who-gives-fuck acting from the cast who already knew it was doomed before shooting began.

The Island of Dr. Moreau

1996, 96 minutes, directed by John Frankenheimer

Iron Man 3

Can this series wind back down after the craziness of aliens in New York?  Clearly the audience expects bigger, better, more, but that's simply not possible with just an Iron Man and friends but no gods or hulks.  To take this on, the script weaves and dodges away from New York references, but does hit dead on with Tony Stark confronting growing waves of anxiety as he suffers from PTSD, and steps out of his suit for some action scenes au naturale.

Other than that, though, the continuity falls flat.  The usual brash Tony eggs on a new badass terrorist to attack him at his home.  When it happens, his suit is damaged, Jarvis shuts down, and all the old suits are trapped in the vault.  What happened to all the suits he kept in his New York penthouse?  Doesn't he own more than one server for Jarvis to run from?  With the President in trouble, where's Captain America?

Before I saw this, I read an interview where Gwyneth Paltrow predicted the end of the series.  I didn't believe her at the time, but after seeing the film, I agree that they've burnt through Tony Stark as a character and are ready to set him aside, pulling him out for cameo roles in the next few Avengers films.

Iron Man 3
2013, 130 minutes, directed by Shane Black

The Bourne Legacy

I thought this was a sequel with a replacement lead.  Needless to say I'm surprised to instead find it's a "co-quel", taking place alongside events of the Bourne Supremacy.  This makes it somewhat disconcerting as they keep referring to things that happened in a film I saw two years ago, not in retrospect but in real-time, in a way that seems vital to the plot.  Or, to put it a different way, the plot of that other film seems so much more important to this one.  It's sort of like the Rosencrantz & Guildenstern of CIA action flicks.

It finally picks up most of the way through as the action intensifies and the film is finally allowed to chart its own course.  And then it ends, all set up for a sequel.

Having dropped from a must-see theater experience to Netflix DVD, I suppose I can't downgrade the series any further.  Overall though, I'm disappointed that they weren't able to set this up better, with more tie-ins to the previous film actually in the previous film.

The Bourne Legacy
2012, 135 minutes, directed by Tony Gilroy

Errors of the Human Body

Geoff (Michael Eklund) is a controversial geneticist due to his research into embryo screening, based on (and using) the death of his newborn son to a unique genetic defect.  Former student Rebekka (Karoline Herfurth) lures him to the Max Planck Institute in Dresden after he's forced out of work in the U.S.  Slowly he realizes that there's some Days-of-Our-Lives-style backstabbing and intrigue going on at the institute - I say slowly because it took me a while to realize that this was the real plot instead of more exposition - and he steps right into it, while also dealing with the loss of his ex-wife and rekindling of an old affair with Rebekka.  Then the plot wakes up and gets very personal for Geoff, and it seems like the climax has passed and the film will end.  Only at this point it doesn't; the denouement is stretched out for 30 minutes so the writers can make one final point before they let the film end.

There's very little sci fi at Fantastic Fest this year.  Vanishing Waves is the best of the two I've seen, with Errors of the Human Body a disappointing second due to pacing issues.  I shouldn't spend the first part of the film wondering when it will finally start, and the last part of the film wondering when it will finally end.  I totally wanted to love this film and I didn't.

Errors of the Human Body
2012, 100 minutes, directed by Eron Sheean 

Red Planet

Part two of my year 2000 Mars film retrospective, Red Planet starts out almost exactly the same as did last week's Mission to Mars - right down to the machine-of-the-gods-style random event just as they reach orbit that nearly derails the mission (and drives most of the survival portion of the action).  Indeed, for a long while it doesn't feel as if any of the crew are safe, to the point that I was beginning to think this was a very high tech snuff film.

Instead, the crew finds Mars air inexplicably breathable, with an atmosphere caused by - something.  But the science has to take a back seat while they race across the surface to reach a way off the planet, before their rescue ship must return home.

They make an effort to explain "gravity" in space, and are even somewhat consistent with its application (and absence as necessary), but most of the special effects budget was spent on AMEE, their military hand-me-down, overly-complicated, psychopathic robotic scout.  Overall, with its solid cast of B-movie actors led by then stars Carrie-Ann Moss (hot from the Matrix) and Val Kilmer, this was a decent B-grade sci fi action film.

Red Planet
2000, 106 minutes, directed by Antony Hoffman

The Amazing Spider Man

As I recently said, I really liked the casting of the 2002-2007 Spider Man trilogy.  They weren't the best films, no, but the actors fit their roles so very well.  That already puts me off such a sudden reboot into new players in an alternate storyline.

Then there's the new Peter Parker himself.  I dunno about this kid who likes to shake his head side-to-side with his mouth partially open.  Did he do that once in high school drama class and his teacher said it "carried his emotion well", so he just keeps doing it as his only acting skill?  I swear he strikes that same pose a half dozen times in this movie.

I guess they're trying to write a better story, but they've mucked it up with the casting.  Sorry.  Reboot it again.

The Amazing Spider Man
 2012, 136 minutes, directed by Marc Webb

Outbreak

I think this is the first film I've ever seen with Dustin Hoffman in the lead role.  In truth, he struggles somewhat as an archetypical "good guy" without a character to absorb.  He stars as USAMRIID agent investigating a new disease that has appeared in sub-Saharan Africa.  As it spreads to the United States, he struggles to find the source, save his wife, and fight the establishment determined to suppress the spread through any means necessary.

Outbreak
1995, 127 minutes, directed by Wolfgang Petersen

The Skin I Live In

I'm sitting in Maudie's Mexican restaurant Tuesday morning, writing up my reviews of films from the past few days.  Maudie's salsa is good, not great.  "Pete's" tacos, with eggs, jalapenos, cheese, onions, sausage, are decent.  But if you put Maudie's salsa on Pete's tacos, something magical happens.  The flavors blend and merge and they become my favorite breakfast tacos.

I mention this because The Skin I Live In, the first secret screening of FF2011, is the best film I've seen so far.  And yet, I can't pin it down to any one thing.  Parts of the film are a little slow, a few parts are a bit uncomfortable, and a few continuity goofs just don't make sense.  But when you put the whole film together as the director did, something magical happens.  The bits and pieces from the three-act story join and it becomes totally fantastic.  It's Antonio Banderas at his creepiest.  You have to see this film.  Do your best to read as little as possible about it first.


The Skin I Live In
2011, 117 minutes, directed by Pedro Almodóvar

Before the screening, we were told that Sony politely asked us to not say what the film was, or to review it before October 12.  WTF?  It premiered at Cannes, so it's not like it's new.  All I can guess is that they want buzz in the days before its Oct. 14 New York limited release.  Sorry Sony, but this isn't the 1980s any more.  You don't get to control your films' social exposure.  And you certainly don't get me to join into your advertisement campaign unless you're comping me something. =)

The Lost World: Jurassic Park

Somewhere out there is a Fisher-Price My First Sequel workbook diligently filled out by this film's screenwriter.  I'm amazed at just how many clichés they can squeeze into a two-hour film.

So this time it's revealed that there's a second island filled with dinosaurs.  Old John Hammond, recently removed as Ingen's CEO, says this was the "breeding" or "B" island conveniently unmentioned in the first film.  (Later, though, there's some indication that this was the first attempt at a park, which likely went even more horribly wrong than the park from the first movie.)  Ever the optimist, Hammond thinks a team should be sent in to document the creatures, and Jeff Goldblum's Dr. Ian Malcolm is a perfect fit.  Oh, and Hammond has tricked him into going by sending his girlfriend, Julianne Moore's Dr. Sarah Harding, along first.  Did I mention that there's a stowaway and a secret second mission by Ingen's new CEO, Arliss Howard's Peter Ludlow?  Yeah, they brought a huge team, all of which, with the exception of the stereotypical hunter (Pete Postlethwaite's Roland Tembo), are complete idiots, hellbent on bringing the creatures back to San Diego and completely unable to take any reasonable means of precaution.

Hilarity ensues, which by hilarity I mean waiting inevitably for each and every one of them to be picked off and eaten.  Some go quick, some stay surprisingly long (and a few do walk away), but in the end it's down to Malcolm and Harding to save the city of San Diego while the entire U.S. military, coast guard, and local SWAT remain completely helpless.

While I've seen the first film several times (having, I presume, more appeal for TV networks and their viewers alike), this was the first time I'd seen the sequel.  I won't say it will be the last; next up on my Netflix queue is Jurassic Park 3, and as far as I know it's a clichéd clone again.

The Lost World: Jurassic Park
1997, 129 minutes, directed by Steven Spielberg

Resident Evil: Afterlife

This fourth installment in the Resident Evil film franchise suffers from a few flaws I've seen crop up in the series, namely the Too Many Heroes syndrome and Kill the Extras condition.  The fast-paced action just served to hasten many a demise - the group of characters was hardly introduced when they started getting picked off, leaving only the obvious heroes to the end.  And combining Alice (even her new mere mortal version) with other heroes makes some scenes almost comical.  How long can they extend killing one guy so that all three heroes get a few shots at him?  Finally, a cliffhanger ending on a film like this always disappoints.  There's no reason for it; people still attached to the series will watch the next one regardless, so it's just a point of frustration when watching the film on its own.

Maybe I'm just disappointed that the series has turned into a zombie splatter fest instead of the survival horror of the first film.  I suppose Alien must begat Aliens, etc.  But I hoped they could do better.

Resident Evil: Afterlife
2010, 97 minutes, directed by Paul W. S. Anderson

Resident Evil: Apocalypse

Meh.  All I could think was "transition film".  The introduced Sienna Guillory as Jill, complete with kick-ass action and a custom outfit (presumably from the games), only to have her quickly take the back seat to a more-awesome more-ass-kicking Milla Jovovich as Alice.  I can only assume this was to ensure that, were Ms. Jovovish to bail on the series, the next sequel could retain some semblance of continuity.

Stay tuned; the next sequel is coming up in my Netflix queue.

Resident Evil: Apocalypse
2004, 98 minutes, directed by Alexander Witt

Resident Evil

Having no history with the game series, I don't mind any discontinuities or breaks from lore that might disturb long-time fans.  Furthermore, I can tolerate the budget allocation typical of survival horror.  What I dislike, though, is poor casting - with several characters just plain wrong for their role - and Michelle Rodriguez cast solely for her ability to roll her eyes up into her head.

Still, the rest of the series awaits...

Resident Evil
2002, 101 minutes, directed by Paul Anderson

Æon Flux

I never really watched Æon Flux on television, even though it aired when I was in college and MTV was regularly playing on the common room TV.  That said, I'm familiar enough to know that the series existed, and lasted more than three or four episodes.

Sadly, this film really, really feels like they had to cram an entire series into an hour and a half.  Start to finish the pacing is just too fast.  Maybe if I didn't know it was an adaptation I'd be more comfortable with it, but I kept feeling that all these characters have bigger stories to tell that were shoved under the carpet so the arc could play out on screen.

Æon Flux
2005, 93 minutes, directed by Karyn Kusama

Gattaca

Not to dwell on a theme, but I tend towards sci fi. My current Netflix offering is Gattaca, a movie I missed in the theater. This is more sci fi than Jumper or similar action movies with a cheesy plot twist; true science fiction doesn't need special effects or choreography.

I quickly disliked the narration during the early flashback, but it was quickly over, and the story arc develops well from there. If you love the science fiction story, you'll enjoy this film.

Gattaca
1997, 106 minutes, directed by Andrew Niccol