Review for Westworld

Director: Michael Crichton
Released: 1973
Genre: Sci-fi/Western

Hollywood has a love-hate relationship with science fiction; the genre seems to experience very pronounced fluctuations in popularity over time. Between the release of Stanley Kubrick's 1968 work 2001: A Space Odyssey and George Lucas' cinematic behemoth Star Wars in 1977, science fiction was on the down and outs. The majority of such films produced in this time were muddled by mediocrity and messy conspiracy theories, the latter usually involving radical government organizations or renegade robots. I began that previous sentence with "the majority" not only to avoid stereotyping elements of cinematic history, but because I have finally found an exception to this generalization: Michael Crichton's Westworld.

The movie takes place in a massive, futuristic amusement park, with three sections: Romanworld, Medievalworld, and Westworld. Within these locales are realistic reconstructions of the different time periods. For example, Romanworld is populated with extravagant villas set amid dense chapparal vegetation, whereas Westworld features the landscape of the American southwest circa 1880, surrounding a small frontier outpost complete with saloons and brothels. Visitors to the park are free to do as they please, and mingle with the humanoid robots who staff the establishments. The machines add to the experience; in Westworld, they get into bar fights and mock shooting duels with the guests, and in Medievalworld there are sword fights and banquets galore. Of course, something goes wrong with the robots, and mayhem ensues. The chaos centers around an ordinary man being chased by a murderous android gunslinger, who is played very convincingly by an intimidating Yul Brynner.

I recently watched Futureworld, a movie that is largely identical, and vastly inferior, to Crichton's directoral debut, so I was not expecting to be impressed. But I was, for several reasons. Westworld manages to stand out from the crowd in nearly every way- how many other films can you describe as being a "sci-fi western?" Chrichton also delivers some very original sequences; for instance, Westworld was the first film to show a synthesized view of the surrounding environment through the eyes of an artificial being, a technique employed in later films such as The Terminator. The unstoppable nature of Yul Brynner's character (credited simply as "Gunslinger") also inspired the creation of several cinematic icons, such as Michael Meyers in the Halloween franchise.

So, there you have it: an early '70s science fiction movie that possesses all of the usual trappings (technical banter, robots run amok) of its contemporaries, yet manages to be genuinely thrilling and original.

3.25/4.00

Review for Ben & Arthur

Director: Sam Mraovich
Released: 2002
Genre: Gay and Lesbian Drama

My friends and I decided to test Netflix's "watch instantly" function- after seeing Stalker, I decided to cancel out the generous rating I gave the work by choosing the lowest rated movie on the Internet Movie Database (the IMDB) that Netflix had to offer. Ben & Arthur was the winner, at an impressive 10th place on the IMDB bottom 100 list, as rated by users. Now, I no longer consider the IMDB to be the end all be all of movie rankings (The Shawshank Redemption is the highest rated of all at the time of this writing, and some of my favorites barely crack 7.0), but every work at the bottom 100 is there for a reason.

In this respect, Ben & Arthur is a rare gem of a film, and not in the good sense. It is so abrasively bad, it is nearly impossible to watch all the way through. But watch it I did, and I must say it was a wholly unsatisfactory experience. The acting is horrible; the sound editing is aggravatingly incompetent; the scenes are captured by someone who bought the cheapest digital camera at Best Buy and read the first page of the instruction manual before shooting... the list goes on.

Ironically, the subject Ben & Arthur deals with is one that is strikingly pertinent in American society- the main characters, Ben and Arthur, are a gay couple who are trying their hardest to have their marriage recognized in the state of California. Along the way, they have to deal with Ben's brother, a deeply religious man who abhors homosexuality, Arthur's former wife, whom he is trying to divorce, and other people who are trying to stymie their efforts. It is a plot that would make for a very poignant, visceral film, if directed with skill and competence. Unfortunately, Sam Mraovich (whose name appears eleven times in the opening credits- the most amusing part of Ben & Arthur) completely robs the premise of any promise.

Ben & Aerthur was screened in one venue during its theatrical run, with the audience members comprising mainly of the cast and crew and Mraovich's family. I can only hope that I did not financially support Mraovich by watching it online.

0.00/4.00

Review for Stalker

Director: Andrei Tarkovsky

Released: 1979
Genre: Science Fiction

The year 1979 saw the release of several impressive features. Ridley Scott churned out Alien, Francis Coppola finally released Apocalypse Now after three years of developmental delays, and Woody Allen produced the majestic Manhattan. These works were fairly well represented at that year's Academy Awards (though not well enough), and they are certainly worth a watch. But in my opinion, the greatest film of that year was Andrei Tarkovsky's Stalker. In fact, there is not a movie that I enjoy watching more, aside from David Lean's impeccable 1962 film Lawrence of Arabia.

Like many Tarkovsky's other films, Stalker is a very slow, cerebral work, and requires several viewings to understand the finer plot details. I have personally watched it four times now, and I still see something new with each showing. The film is set in a futuristic and urbanized dystopia; the main character is a "Stalker," someone who navigates through a desolate, forbidden zone thought to possess supernatural qualities. He brings others into the area, where there is a room that has the power to grant a person's innermost wish. "The Zone" is a very dangerous place, and the Stalker takes many seemingly pointless precautions, urging those he brings with him to obey what he says. In the movie, a disenchanted writer and a struggling chemist are brought to the mysterious locale, and are faced with the choice of either believing in what the Stalker says or following their own instincts- and whether or not to enter the enchanted room.

Everything about Stalker is refreshing; the cinematography is majestic (with an average shot length of around a minute), and the mesmerizing score possesses an oddly meditative quality, adding to the mystique of the striking visuals; nothing about the motives and actions of the main characters is thoroughly explained, but rather left to interpretation. Also, I have never seen a film that so effectively conveys a feeling of urgency through such a peaceful and leisurely paced style.

While making Stalker, Tarkovsky was almost unable to procure the funds necessary to complete the project. During post production, the film reels with the original footage were destroyed in a processing accident, and Stalker had to be re-shot from scratch with a drastically reduced budget. Although I would have loved to see what the movie originally looked like, the sheer minimalism, near complete lack of eye catching special effects, and an aura of omniscient dregadation in the redone version contribute to a master work unto itself.

Most viewers today will struggle to adjust to the style of acting and direction in Stalker. Those who are willing to do so, however, will have certainly expanded their perception of the science fiction genre in film.

4.00/4.00

Review for Evil

Director: Mikael Hafstrom

Released: 2003

Genre: Drama

Evil is a semi-autobiographical work, based on a best selling Scandinavian novel written by Jan Guillou. It is first and foremost an uncompromisingly righteous, Scandinavian feature, as well as Sweden's 2003 submission for Oscar consideration in the Best Foreign Film category- however, it was not released in American theaters until 2006. I randomly stumbled upon Evil while on my Netflix account, and decided on a whim to watch it.

The movie takes place in the year 1959, and centers around Eric Ponti, an aloof and rebellious but intelligent teenager. One day, he is expelled from the public school he attends for his vicious bullying. His mother, in a desperate attempt to keep Eric in school, sells off a good portion of the family's furniture to enroll him in a prestigious boarding institution. Eric decides to do away with his violent behavior, but soon discovers that the students at the private establishment cause more trouble than those in the state school he was expelled from. For staying true to his own beliefs and treating the upper classmen as equals, Eric goes against the established hegemony, and is the target of an extreme amount of harassment. He never gives in to the pressure to fit in, however, and eventually justice is served against those who tormented him.

As I stated before, Evil is uncompromisingly righteous; its unwavering sense of morality makes for a very heavy-handed film. The result is a work that favors sheer visceral power over depth. I would have loved to have been shown a more informative account on boarding school life during this time- how did such antiquated hierarchies within the school system survive for so long after World War II? Why was a former Nazi party member allowed to teach anthropology, and was he ever actively replaced? How long did it take for official Swedish law to overshadow the cruel hazing rituals and other deranged, unquestioned policies shown in the movie? Institutional violence is a very serious and intriguing topic, and I believe such a fascinating subject warrants more merit and consideration in that respect.

Despite my misgivings, I still greatly enjoyed Evil- it exudes this sense of absolute justice, which seems to be director Mikael Hafstrom's ultimate intention. In that sense, Evil is a lot like movies such as Rocky: it is a wonderful, feel-good showing, if you can stomach the initial acts of cruelty... so long as you do not read too much between the lines.

3.00/4.00

Review for Falling Down

Director: Joel Schumacher

Released: 1993

Genre: Pitch Black Comedy/Drama

Years ago, I would routinely peruse the shelves of video cassettes in a now defunct Blockbuster outlet. One time, I came upon the sleeve for Joel Schumacher's 1993 film Falling Down. I remember being mesmerized by the cover image; it had Michael Douglas wearing horn rimmed glasses and a nicely pressed business suit, standing atop a pile of rubble, and holding a briefcase in one hand and a shotgun in the other. Such an awe inspiring sight immediately piqued my interest, and I asked my parents if we could rent that instead of Tremors. They gave me a resolutely negative response, and I soon gave up trying to watch it- but that mental picture of Michael Douglas being a badass never quite left my mind.

Well, over a decade later, I have finally taken the time to see Falling Down- and I must say, the film is not as memorable as the indelible poster art that so successfully promoted it. Granted, my expectations were fairly high; I expected Schumacher's film to be a cult gem, something along the lines of Stanley Kubrick's The Killing, but was instead shown a somewhat superior version of the first Death Wish movie. Honestly, I was somewhat disappointed.

Falling Down opens with a very dapper looking Michael Douglas stuck in a horrendous traffic jam. Flies are buzzing around, people are yelling at one another, and his air conditioning has just given out. After looking around and sizing up the situation, Douglas just snaps- he leaves his car where it is and walks into the adjacent bushes. We soon find out that he is on his way to his daughter's birthday party, as he embarks on a treacherous walk from East Los Angeles to Venice Beach. 

Along the way, Douglas becomes more and more violent, and gradually upgrades his weapons stash as he lashes out at perceived injustices. First, he assaults a convenience store clerk, and takes the man's baseball bat; soon after he uses the bat to attack a pair of menacing gang members, and takes one of their switch blades. The gangsters eventually track Douglas down and commit a drive by shooting, but accidently kill everyone on the street except him. As they flee the scene, they crash into a row of parked cars, and Douglas takes their gym bag full of guns. From there the conflicts escalate until an intrepid police officer (played by Robert Duvall) finally tracks Douglas down.

Falling Down is not a bad film, just a conflicted one; it is not sure if it wants to be a pitch black comedy or a humanizing drama. During the first half of the movie, Michael Douglas is just an average joe who has had enough- anyone could snap in the same situation, and then rationalize their acts of violence as they go on some pseudo moralistic rampage. That is exactly what Douglas initially does in Falling Down, and the movie manages to be funny without providing any reason for him going nuts. Later on, however, we are shown Douglas' family, and eventually the motives behind his irrational actions- Schumacher tries to put a face on the gratuitous violence, showing Douglas as a good person that was just wronged by society. It does a lot to cancel out the visceral force the previous scenes carried; a good amount of character development should have been provided in the beginning, or not at all- either decision would have resulted in a much different, but more cohesive work. 

Personally, I would have preferred Douglas going vigilante for no definable reason but to lash out at society's ills. Everything would be left to interpretation as to why he went bonkers; he did not need to be human for Falling Down to work. Still, seeing Douglas in a suit and tie as he shoots up a fast food restaurant for not serving him breakfast is unarguably priceless.

2.75/4.00

Review for Destroy all Planets

Director: Noriaki Yuasa

Released: 1968

Genre: Japanese Monster Movie

i

Destroy all Planets is a typical entry into the "giant Japanese monster" movie genre. Everybody knows about the massive creatures battle each other, and the city of Tokyo often suffers as a result. Hundreds of such movies exist, most of which are either sequels or spinoffs of the original Godzilla franchise. Despite the near universal awareness and mockery of such features, I doubt many people have seen such a work in its entirety.

Before watching Destroy all Planets, I had not seen one of these movies all the way through, aside from Ishiro Honda's original Godzilla film, Gojira. Destroy all Planets is certainly no competition to Honda's seminal work in terms of quality, but it is by no means the worst movie I have ever seen. It tells of an attempted alien invasion of Earth, thwarted by the beloved creature Gamera, a massive sea turtle capable of flying in space. The extra terrestrial force delves into the memories of Gamera (which allowed for director Noriaki Yuasa to splice in a half hour's worth of action scenes from previous Gamera films) and decide to prey on the monster's kindness- they kidnap two boys, threatening to kill them if Gamera attacks the spaceship. It all leads up to an intense (and somehow exciting) final conflict.

Now, despite my somewhat lighthearted recap on the plot of this movie, I must reiterate: Destroy all Planets is nonetheless a terrible movie overall. Granted, it was rerecorded for its American release, which I will account for in my rating, as I assume the original sound and dialogue is superior, but it is no wonder that one of its prequels was featured on an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. The pacing is terrible, the cinematography only occasionally interesting, and the soundtrack unmemorable.

Destroy all Planets is a better viewing experience if you watch it with other people, but even then it probably will not hold your attention very well; by the time the final battle scene came around, one of my friends was reading the comic section in the newspaper instead of watching the film. That all changed, however, when a giant alien squid creature decided to attack the gargantuan Gamera- seaborne and airborne attacks are launched, model landscapes are destroyed, and the whole spectacle is guaranteed to produce a few laughs... but surely Akira Kurosawa and similar directors would have scoffed at the general lack of quality evident in nearly every other department of production.

1.50/4.00

Review for This is England

Director: Shane Meadows

Released: 2006
Genre: Drama

Back when I was a senior in high school, I read about This is England in the show section of my newspaper. The writer of the article had a lot of good things to say about the film, which was written and directed by Shane Meadows. This is England is a semi autobiographical account of Meadows' childhood, and takes place in a small coastal town in northern England during the summer of 1983. The movie focuses on the main character, a 12 year old boy named Shaun, and his desperate struggle to fit in. Such a premise has been played upon countless times before; what sets This is England apart is Meadow's inspired portrayal of the social and political turmoil his country was experiencing at the time.

At the time in which This is England is set, Great Britain was seen by many as a conflicted socialist state within, engaging in seemingly petty conflicts to maintain the small fraction of overseas territories it once possessed. The number of unemployed in the nation had soared to over three million, and a large portion of the working class felt disenchanted with the policies instituted by the newly elected Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. Also, the British army was engaged in a struggle with Argentine forces over the Falkland Islands. This is England captures this perfectly, opening and closing with wonderful montages depicting the national and foreign dilemmas facing the country.

In This is England, Shaun has been unwillingly thrust into this chaos by the death of his father, who a year prior was killed in action in the Falkland War. Shaun is constantly made fun of by his peers for not identifying with any one schoolyard clique; after a fight with a classmate, he is let out of school early, and comes across a gang of older teenagers. One member of the group asks Shaun to hang out with them, and makes the boy feel better by poking fun at the classmate he picked a fight with. Soon, Shaun becomes close with the gang, which provides him with a much needed sense of identity. While his new friends engage in questionable acts of vandalism, they are not malicious people; they even decide resolve a conflict between Shaun and another member with a group hug, in between their ransacking of abandoned flats.

Everything with the new social arrangement seems fine, until one of the group's acquaintances, a white supremacist named Combo (played brilliantly by actor Stephen Graham), is let out of jail. He decides to take the gang in a new direction, effectively splitting up its affiliates. Combo is a very violent and unpredictable man, but immediately takes a liking to Shaun; the two become mutual best friends, despite their age difference. Combo begins to impose his radical doctrines on the group, aligning himself with the ultra conservative British National Front. Eventually, very bad things begin to happen because of Combo's impulsive and confrontational behavior, and Shaun must decide for himself who he should associate with.

This is England shows how good people get caught in with the wrong crowd, and how unemployed, disaffected men tend to gravitate towards the extreme in times of desperation. The dreary atmosphere of the region is perfectly shot- the shabby apartment buildings and overgrown weeds set against a dull gray sky exude a sense of gloom and hopelessness. Meadows perfectly captures a crucial moment in both his own childhood and in the history of his country in one fell swoop.

You can rent This is England on Netflix, or watch it for free on the Sundance Channel if you have Cox Cable (like I do). You will not be disappointed.

3.50/4.00