Prometheus (2012)

Genre: Adventure, Sci-Fi, Thriller

Release Date: June 8, 2012

My Rating:  
(Click here for more info on my rating scale)


Prometheus is an okay movie overall.  It has several flaws, and it's a bit stupid in areas, but it's pretty interesting and thought-provoking.  And it's a good film to be seen in the theater, on the big screen.

Ridley Scott has returned to the science fiction genre and the Alien universe with Prometheus, which I finally saw in the theater today.  The initial opening shots of Prometheus show landscape shots, during the opening credits.  The land is completely lifeless, but there is water.  Then we see an alien spacecraft, and a humanoid alien nearby standing near the top of a waterfall.  The humanoid consumes a substance which causes its body to disintegrate and fall into the nearby waterfall.  This is immediately followed by images of red blood cells, which is then followed by shots of DNA strands, during which the title starts to appear in a similar way in which the title in Alien appeared.  This is a pretty good opening sequence, it sets the tone of the movie, and it already poses some questions.

Most of the story takes place during the final weeks of the year 2093.  The space vessel Prometheus is traveling through space to a planet in a system in orbit around a sun-like star.  This system was pointed at by several archeological findings, which may be a clue to the origin of mankind.  The ship is very near it's destination, and the 17-man crew awakens from hypersleep, except for an android named David who has been awake.  They arrive at the planet they are heading to.  It appears to be desolate.  But then they notice straight lines on the ground, which could obviously not have been created by nature.  These lines lead to some sort of big structure.  Much of the movie takes place in this structure, and on the Prometheus.

The ship lands, and some of the crew are sent to check out the structure.  Inside it, they find a series of tunnels, some of them underground.  While exploring, it initially seems that there is nothing alive.  However, this soon changes.  Complications arise, the plot thickens, discoveries are made, etc...  There's quite a bit that goes on in Prometheus, much more to the story than I've already given.  However, I don't want to give anything more away.  In fact, I've probably already given a little too much away.

Prometheus is set in the Alien universe, and it it's a prequel to Ridley Scott's Alien.  And it has several obvious connections to it, which I won't reveal in my review.  However, Prometheus also works very well as a stand-alone.  It obviously leads on to the Alien movies, and does get things where they need to be for the events of the Alien movies.  Yet it also has its own story and it goes in its own directions.  Scott's 1979 Alien was strong on suspense, and it was essentially a sci-fi haunted house story, and very scary. Prometheus does have horror elements, and some similar elements to that of Alien, but unlike that movie, this movie also contains some other elements.  It doesn't lean more towards suspense, action, etc.  It has a mixture that balances these elements.  Also, and best of all, the movie is intellectually stimulating.  The movie contains many mysteries and questions.  As the movie progresses, some of these questions are answered, and some are left unanswered and open-ended.

That's not to say that Prometheus is perfect.  It does contain flaws.  Most of them concern the characters, which are pretty flat.  None of them are truly round characters, or even interesting.  I didn't really care much for them.  That's not to say that I didn't feel anything for the characters.  I did feel a little bit, but it was marginal.  None of the characters are particularly memorable.  Then again, the first Alien movie had the same type of characters (in terms of depth, etc.), but it did have Ellen Ripley, who is somewhat memorable.  Noomi Rapace's character, Elizabeth Shaw, like the other Prometheus characters, is somewhat flat and underdeveloped, but she's the most rounded and best character in the film, in my opinion.

There were even a few flawed lines of dialogue here and there.  Also, the movie is not very good in terms of acting and reacting; the actors' performances are not very good, and the characters make a lot of stupid decisions.  There are also some mystery-elements and other things in the story that should have been better, and the movie did feel a bit clumsy and a bit ridiculous in a few areas; some things here and there were a bit poorly paid off, etc.  The majority of the flaws, in my opinion, occur in the the third act of the film.  I might have given the film a three-and-a-half-star rating, or even a four-star rating, but unfortunately the flaws did drag it down somewhat.

However, despite these flaws, the movie, while not great or anything, is okay overall, in my opinion.  This film is not about character arcs or relationships, or a story arc, but rather the mysteries, which, to say the least, are quite interesting, and there are a few memorable images and concepts.  The visual and special effects are good, and they actually contribute somewhat to the overall tone and atmosphere of the film.  I saw this film in 2-D, but I can tell that it would have been a good experience in 3-D as well.  There is some pretty good interesting technology in the film.  And not just the technology, it has a lot of good sci-fi elements.  And of course, best of all, is the mystery and the questions, and the cleverly-left-incomplete story.  That's what really makes the movie worth watching.  It could have been better with better character development and more emotional involvement, but it's effective as it is.

Prometheus is an okay movie overall.  It has several flaws, and it's a bit stupid in areas, but it's pretty interesting and thought-provoking. And it's a good film to be seen in the theater, on the big screen.  Also the conclusion of the movie actually invites a sequel to be made.  It doesn't necessarily need one, as it's okay left as it is, but it wouldn't be a bad idea at all.  But if they do make a sequel, I hope they continue to follow the character Elizabeth Shaw, and it probably will.  While the premise for Alien is more or less set up, the sequel should, and probably will, take this other direction; remember, while it's a prequel to Alien, it's also it's own thing.  And if they bring more depth into it (like James Cameron did in Aliens) in addition to the interesting mysteries and whatnot, I'm sure it would be a pretty good movie.



Cast and Credits:
Elizabeth Shaw: Noomi Rapace
David: Michael Fassbender
Charlie Holloway: Logan Marshall-Green
Meredith: Charlize Theron
Janek: Idris Alba

Twentieth Century Fox Presents
A film directed by Ridley Scott
Running time: 125 min.

Rated R for sci-fi violence including some intense images, and brief language

Men in Black III (2012)

Genre: Action, Adventure, Comedy, Sci-Fi

Released: May 25, 2012

My Rating: 
(Click here for more info on my rating scale)



Men in Black III is not a great movie or anything, but it's okay.  It's smart, funny, goofy, entertaining, witty, and, in my opinion, just as good as the first Men in Black movie.

It's been fifteen years since the entertaining first Men in Black film, and ten years since the flawed yet still slightly enjoyable sequel Men in Black II.  Now comes the third installment in the series, Men in Black III.  Of course, this sequel, like any sequel of this kind, especially having been made a decade after its last predecessor, gave me a few doubts before watching it.  However, I finally saw it in the theater today, and I enjoyed it.  Agent J (Will Smith) and Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) have returned to the screen, and they deliver some nice and witty entertainment.

The film starts out on a prison on the moon, called Lunarmax (which is next to the original lander and American flag from the Apollo mission), from which the antagonist, Boris the Animal, escapes.  In 1969, Boris encountered Agent K, who shot his arm off and had him arrested, and also set up some sort of defense system to protect the earth from any invasions by Boris' alien race.  Boris, having escaped from prison, travels back in time to this incident and kills K, altering the MIB agency and putting earth in danger (the protection system no longer exists - Boris stopped it from getting set up in the past).  So now, in the present, Agent J must travel back in time to prevent Boris from causing all this and restore the real timeline.  There's more to the story, but I won't spoil it.

Luckily, Men in Black III isn't just a typical modern generic blockbuster.  I even had a feeling that the movie was going to try and skate by with great effects but a thin story, but luckily it didn't.  Yes, it is a blockbuster, but it does retain the imaginatively and wit of the original Men in Black.  The movie has a lot of the tone that the original MIB films had, and some things haven't changed, and a lot of things have.  For example, the character Zed has recently died, and female Agent O has taken his place.  Even Danny Elfman's music is a bit different, although it does retain the main themes of the series.  The special effects are better than ever, and we even have a few new things of technology, such as interesting and awesome single-wheeled vehicles (as seen in the still above), and (obviously) the time travel technology.  And best of all are the characters and their relationships and interaction, which is where the real magic, and humor, of the movie is.  In his journey in this movie, J meets the younger K of 1969 (played by Josh Brolin).  Another character that I like is Griff, an alien who is able to see 4-dimensionally, and can see the many possible timelines that the future can follow.  We even have a brief scene at the end of the film that adds a new and somewhat emotional dimension to the relationship of J and K, but I won't spoil it.

Like I said in my review of The Avengers, I'm now going to the theater more often.  I started of my summer with The Avengers, and now I've seen my second film for this summer.  Men in Black III does have a few flaws, but they're not worth discussing, and they really didn't bother me.  The 106 running length of the movie pretty much flew by.  The film is not great or anything (it's definitely only a three-star film, in my opinion), it's only okay, but it's pretty entertaining.  Performances are good, and the actors really bring out their characters.  Danny Elfman's music score is good.  And, like I said before, the special effects are great, and they contribute effectively to the story and the film overall.  The technology in the film is nice, and the aliens and monsters, especially the villain, were well designed and excellently goofy and bizarre, like they're supposed to be.  And yes the film is a comedy, and it lives up to that name - the humor is good and smart.  As for the time travel, it's not completely accurate, but that's typical in this movie, and it can be forgiven because of it's wit and likable characters, among other things.  This sequel is unnecessary, yes, and it could have been disappointing, but luckily it wasn't.

It may sound like I loved the movie, but I didnt.  I just though it was okay.  But still, it's smart, funny, goofy, entertaining, witty, and, in my opinion, just as good as the first Men in Black movie.  I'm glad I saw it in the theater.




Cast and Credits:
Agent J: Will Smith
Agent K: Tommy Lee Jones
Young Agent K: Josh Brolin
Boris the Animal: Jemaine Clement
Agent O: Emma Thompson
Griffin: Michael Stuhlbarg
Young Agent O: Alive Eve

Columbia pictures presents
A film directed by Barry Sonnenfeld
Music by Danny Elfman
Running time: 106 min.

Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action violence, and brief suggestive content

How to Train Your Dragon (2010)

Genre: Adventure, Animation, Comedy, Fantasy

Release Date: March 26, 2010

My Rating:   
(Click here for more info on my rating scale)

How to Train Your Dragon a great family film, it's very entertaining, touching, good-hearted, and visually beautiful.  It combines elements of The Iron Giant and Avatar, and breathes new life into old, exhausted clichés.

I never saw How to Train Your Dragon in the theater.  However, I did watch it when it came out on DVD.  Having not heard much about the film and not knowing anything about its story or any of that, I didn't have any expectations prior to watching it.  However, I ended up loving it.  In fact, in my opinion, DreamWorks has surpassed Pixar with this film.

The story is set in and around a Viking village up north called Berk, which often gets attacked by dragons.  The protagonist is Hiccup (Jay Baruchel), a teenage Viking who wants to be like his father and the other Vikings and wants to kill dragons.  Unfortunately, however, while he's smart and nice, he's scrawny and weak, not to mention socially awkward.  And he often ends up inadvertently causing trouble.  Because of this, he's pretty much considered a loser is his society.  Early one morning during a dragon raid (the opening scene of the movie), Hiccup goes out and shoots down a young dragon, specifically a Night Fury, but nobody believes he actually did so.  He goes out and finds the dragon he shot down.  It's a young dragon, about Hiccup's age, but Hiccup can't bring himself to kill it, so he frees it.  He and the dragon, whom he calls Toothless (due to his retractable teeth), begin to develop a forbidden friendship, and Hiccup realizes that his people have misjudged the species, and that there's more to the creatures than he and his people originally thought.

The story is very simple, predictable, derivative, and clichéd, and it's a total retread of basic cinema clichés, but it works, and I found it entertaining and immersive.  There is not much depth, story development, or character development, but it's still pretty effective as it is.  Also, the wonderful animation helps contribute to the emotion and energy of the story.  So, overall, to sum this up, this film works in many of the same ways that James Cameron's Avatar worked, and in fact it works much better.  They both consist of simple, predictable, and clichéd stories.  They don't have much depth, story development, or character development (like I just said above).  However, the stories are sufficient, well-structured, well-paced, and coherent, and they flow and make sense.  The characters are not developed much, but they are sufficient and very likable.  Also, both use brilliant visuals and keen detail to tell their stories and bring emotion into them.  Although I do have to admit that HTTYD has a somewhat better script and better dialogue.  Also, like Avatar, HTTYD doesn't go much into the depth and backgrounds of the characters, or much into any of that stuff, but a lot of that stuff - character background, personality, relationships, etc. - are evident in the detail.  So, given all of this, I think it would be safe to say that, in many ways, HTTYD is the Avatar of 2010.

Now, HTTYD doesn't have a new world, like Pandora, but it does have beautiful scenery all the same. Also, it has the lovable dragon Toothless, who is a full character in the film.  He was excellently designed, and is very cute and lovable.  In addition to excellent physical design, has a great personality, is smart, and has an excellent balance between that of a person and that of an animal.  He is a great character, and, in fact, the most memorable character in the film.  The voice actors all put on good performances, and they really help bring out their characters with their voice.  Jay Baruchel did a very good job as Hiccup.  A lot of people say that his voice is annoying, but I personally disagree.  I actually kind of like his voice, and it's just right for the character in the movie, Hiccup, who is very likable.  The other voice actors did an equally good job with their characters too, such as Gerard Butler as Stoick the Vast, America Ferrera as the likable and beautiful Astrid (Hiccup's love interest), Jonah Hill as Snotlout, and some others.

Like I said before, the animation is absolutely beautiful.  John Powell composed and excellent music score for the film.  As for the target audience: everyone - in many ways, it's like a kids movie, but in others it's pretty mature.  Also, being a good comedy, it has some good humor.  But it doesn't let the humor get too abundant.  The humor is spaced out throughout the film and given at appropriate intervals, and is balanced excellently with the story, drama, emotion, and moral messages, much like The Iron Giant was.  In fact, the film has a lot of similarities to The Iron Giant, and it works for many of the same reasons that movie works.  Everything about the movie is very well balanced.

Overall, I love this movie.  It's a great family film, it's very entertaining, touching, good-hearted, and visually beautiful.  It combines elements of The Iron Giant and Avatar, and breathes new life into old, exhausted clichés.  Also, it has great staying power - it's one of those movies, like Ghostbusters, that never really gets old on repeated viewings.  Unfortunately, DreamWorks plans to make a sequel to it.  Wow, way to go, DreamWorks, ruining the best film you've ever made.  Please don't make that sequel.  This is the type of movie that's just best left alone.  Leave a good thing alone.

One final note: I've only seen this movie in 2-D.  I've never seen it in 3-D, and guess what?  I don't want to.  Aside from the usual fact that 3-D is unnecessary, this movie is so awesome that it doesn't need 3-D.

Cast and Credits:

Hiccup: Jay Baruchel

Astrid: America Ferrera

Stoick: Gerard Butler

Gobber: Craig Ferguson

Snotlout: Jonah Hill

Ruffnut: Kristen Wiig

Tuffnut: T. J. Miller

Fishlegs: Christopher Mintz-Plasse

Spitelout: David Tennant

DreamWorks Animation presents

A film directed by Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders

Music by John Powell

Running time: 1 hour and 38 minutes

Rated PG for sequences of intense action and some scary images, and brief mild language

The Avengers (2012)

Released: May 4, 2012

Genre: Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi

My Rating: 

(Click here for more info on my rating scale)

In my opinion, The Avengers is a pretty good and entertaining movie, and it's a good theatrical experience.  James Berardinelli wrote in his review, "The Avengers kicks ass."  I agree.

I saw The Avengers on Thursday (May 17), one day after I finished my second semester of my freshman year of college.  I don't go to the theater that often, but I do plan on seeing a lot more movies in the theater, mostly sci-fi, over the summer.  In fact, I'm already planning on seeing Men in Black III and Prometheus, among other things.  And so I have begun my summer with The Avengers; to reward myself for finishing the semester, and to relax after studying for and taking my final exams, I went and saw this movie in the theater.  Personally, I'm not much of a superhero fan, but I quite enjoyed the movie.  In my opinion, The Avengers is a pretty good and entertaining movie, and it's a good theatrical experience.  James Berardinelli wrote in his review, "The Avengers kicks ass."  I agree.

Over the last few years, five movies have been made - Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, The Incredible Hulk, and Captain America - which have built up to, and became prequels to, The Avengers.  There were even things in those movies that hinted at them all being connected, and now this movie confirms it.  The Avengers are all assembled in this film: Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, the Hulk, the Black Widow, and Hawkeye.  Yes, they're all played by the same actors, and they have the backgrounds that have been established for most of them in the "prequels" mentioned above.  The villain in the movie is Loki, who was the villain in Thor, and who now plans on using the Tesseract, a powerful energy cube, to open a portal to another part of the universe and attack the earth with a powerful army.  The Avengers are called together by Nick Fury, who runs an agency called S. H. I. E. L. D., and they must stop Loki from carrying out his plans.  There's more to the story, but I won't give any more away.

I'm sure there are things that can be criticized about the movie.  However, it's really not worth it, given there are so many good things about the movie, and the entire experience is very enjoyable, so I'm not going to bother with an in-depth review/criticism.  In a way, the film is sort of critic-proof (for lack of a better term).  So here's my advice: don't dissect or overly analyze the movie.  Just sit back and enjoy it.  That's not to say that it's a total Transformers-like junk movie or anything.  It's actually halfway decent.

The actors put on a good performance and really bring out their characters, and the interactions between the characters are good - the gathering of the different superheroes is handled pretty well.  The story is pretty solid, and it's coherent and appropriately paced.  The visual and special effects and action scenes are great.  Alan Silvestri composed an effective score for the movie.  Overall, the movie is halfway decent and entertaining.  It doesn't have much depth, and the story isn't the best, but it's fun nonetheless, and it handles its story okay.  The two-and-a-half hour running length of the movie pretty much zipped by for me.  So, while I don't think this movie is great, it's definitely entertaining and worth seeing, and it's a very good big screen experience.




Cast and Credits:
Tony Stark / Iron Man: Robert Downey, Jr.
Steve Rogers / Captain America: Chris Evans
Thor: Chris Hemsworth
Bruce Banner / The Hulk: Mark Ruffalo
Loki: Tom Hiddleston
Clint Barton / Hawkeye: Jeremy Renner
Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow: Scarlett Johansson
Nick Fury: Samuel L. Jackson

Paramount Pictures presents
A film directed by Joss Whedon
Running time: 143 min.

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sic-fi violence and action throughout, and a mild drug reference

Avatar (2009)

Genre: Action, Adventure, Family, Fantasy, Romance, Sci-Fi

Release Date: December 18, 2009



My Rating:   
(Click here for more info on my rating scale) 



In my opinion, Avatar is an okay movie, with a beautiful new world, an okay story, likable characters, good themes, some heart, and some nice entertainment.

I missed the initial theatrical release of Avatar in Devember of 2009, but I got the DVD the following July and watched the movie on my television at home, and I was quite blown away.  I gave the movie a full four star rating.  Between then and now, my liking for it has decreased.  How I feel about the story, characters, and everything else about the movie is pretty much exactly the same as how I felt about it when I saw it the first time, but to a lesser degree (I've changed my rating to a three-star rating); instead of loving it, I think it's okay.

The story is set in the year 2154, and it involves an RDA mission to an earth-sized moon called Pandora. We enter this new world through the eyes of Jake Sully, a paraplegic ex-marine who goes on this mission on short notice. For a while, the humans had some success in interacting with the Na'vi via "avatars", remote-controlled bodies. However, relations between the natives and the human have turned bad, and all interactions between them stopped. However, Jake eventually meets the local native tribe, falls in love with them and the new world, and ends up fighting against the RDA in defense of the new people and world he now considers his home.

Let's get the obvious out of the way: the CGI is visually stunning and almost flawless, and with extreme detail. In fact, the movie goes beyond having great visuals. It introduces a wonderful new world. It has a lot of earth-like characteristics, but it also has a lot of new and exotic characteristics (and even some uniqueness in the familiar characteristics) the combination of which is a beautiful world. Overall, the world is something we've all seen before, yet never seen before at the same time; simultaneously old and new. And it's all portrayed excellently with brilliant scope and spectacle. The same is true about the natives and the avatars. Like the new world, they are portrayed excellently with the CGI with utmost detail. The natives are humanoids, but they're ten to twelve feet tall, blue-skinned, and golden-eyed, and they even have tails. They are an interesting blend of human, alien, and feline. The same is true about the avatars. The Na'vi were well designed, especially Neytiri, who is beautiful. I found Jake and Neytiri to be very likable, and a great couple, and their combined physical appearance and personalities give them a likability that pierces through the special effects.

That's not to say that everything about the film is perfect. The story is extremely basic, extremely derivative, and a bit corny. The characters, aside from Jake, Neytiri, and Grace, are pretty shallow, especially the villains, who are very one-dimensional (but effective). Also, the dialogue is very clichéd and a bit corny, almost like something out of a kids movie. However, despite these flaws, the movie works. The story clichéd, predictable, etc., but it's coherent, well-structured, well-paced, solid, and consistent, and it flows. The characters, although lacking a bit in development, are effective. The three protagonists Jake, Neytiri, and Grace, should have been better in terms of development, but they are effective and I was able to have a sufficient emotional attachment to them and their relationships. Even the dialogue, weak as it is, gets its job done.

We've seen this story a million times, but never like this. The story could be considered a sci-fi version of Pocahontas or Dances With Wolves, set in a new fantasy world. Just like in original Star Wars trilogy, Avatar brings some new life into old clichés. In my opinion, the original Star Wars trilogy does a much better job at this, but Avatar does an okay job at it. The story combines elements of Pocahontas, Titanic, Braveheart, Star Wars, and even The Matrix.James Cameron also borrows from some of his own films, including Aliens (military/technology) and Titanic (the love story, and the way the movie is structured).

Also, the new world isn't simply in the movie to look nice. In my opinion, it actually feels alive, and it's very much a character itself in the film. I want to make it clear that I was not duped or blinded by the visuals. I felt that Cameron actually used the visuals and new world to evoke emotion, and also used them as part of the story itself. In terms of the script, the storytelling is basic, by the numbers, but I also felt that a lot of the storytelling was within these great visuals and the world, and in the way it was combined into the story. The effects helped me get immersed into the new world and helped me care about the characters and the story. Also, the film has great sound - quality, effects, editing, etc. These sound aspects also added a bit to the emotion and immersing effects of the story. I also liked James Horner's score, which, in my opinion, is some of the best work of Horner's career.

I felt that a lot of what made the story enjoyable was within the simplicity, and in the details. And, in my opinion, while the film doesn't have much intelligence, it does have a little bit, which very few other movies like this have. It's actually a halfway decent blockbuster, and it does not contain the obnoxiousness and imbecility of films like Michael Bay's films. Unlike those films, Avatar actually has some heart and soul, and characters that the audience can care about. There are definitely several things that can be criticized - the simple and derivative story, the clichés, the hammy dialogue, and the one-dimensional villains - but these things are typical of blockbusters, which is what this film is.  And a lot can be said in defense of these aspects in this movie (and it has a lot of Cameron elements in it). Besides, these flaws are typical of blockbusters.  Also, like Titanic, while the story is almost completely predictable, there are also smaller things along the way that aren't.
Overall, I thought the movie was okay. I found it somewhat emotional, memorable, and entertaining, and it's nice family entertainment. However, the movie that changes movies?? No way.

Cast and Credits:

Jake Sully: Sam Worthington

Neytiri: Zoë Saldana

Dr. Grace Augustine: Sigourney Weaver

Colonel Miles Quaritch: Stephen Lang

Norm Spellman: Joel David Moore

Trudy Chacon: Michelle Rodriguez

Parker Selfridge: Giovanni Ribisi

Mo’at: CCH Pounder

Tsu’tey: Laz Alonso

Eytukan: Wes Studi

Dr. Max Patel: Dileep Rao

Twentieth Century Fox presents

A film Written and Directed by James Cameron

Produced by James Cameron and John Landau

Music by James Horner

Running time: 2 hours and 42 minutes

Rated PG-13 for intense epic battle sequences and warfare, sensuality, language and some smoking

District 9 (2009)

Genre: Action, Sci-Fi, Thriller

Released: August 14, 2009

My Rating: 

(Click here for more info on my rating scale)

To put it mildly, District 9 is a smart, entertaining, creative, and emotional sci-fi film.  I wouldn't say that it's great, but it's pretty darn good.



Personally, I am a bit of a science fiction lover.  I have seen tons of sic-fi films, from fun and lighthearted popcorn flicks to deep and emotional ones.  I've seen clichéd and basic-formula ones, and ones that have a distinct uniqueness about them - new worlds, unique scientific concepts, memorable scientific technology and what not, and much more; and, best of all, unique twists on stories.  District 9 is one such unique science fiction film.  It has several obvious clichéd and borrowed aspects, but overall it's an original and creative film, and pretty memorable, too.  I didn't see it when it came out, and, in fact, I had never even heard of it until sometime last year.  So, after reading a bit about the film, yet still not knowing much about it, I decided to give it a try, and I'm glad I did.

District 9 eludes many expectations of a sic-fi audience.  The film is set in an alternate timeline, where, in 1982, a spaceship appeared over Johannesburg, South Africa (instead of a usual sci-fi setting).  The aliens on board, instead of being evil and strong with an urge do kill, are helpless and in weak condition.  The aliens, unable to operate the ship anymore, are taken to a temporary camp on the ground underneath where the ship is hovering.  Unfortunately, due to the the high population of these aliens, and to typical political flaws, over the years, the temporary camp eventually turns into a giant slum segregated from the rest of Johannesburg.  Also, the initial welcome wears off, and humans begin to discriminate against the aliens, nicknamed "prawns" due to their ugly appearance.  Finally, in 2010, the Multi-National United munitions corporation is sent to evict these prawns from the slum, with Wikus van der Merwe in charge.  In the process, Wikus is exposed to a strange alien chemical, at which point his personal nightmare begins and everything changes drastically for him, and the story really starts to get going and unfold.  I won't give anything else away about the story after this last thing: along the way, Wikus befriends an alien, and his small son.

District 9 combines dosages of the man-befreinds-other-race-and-turns-against-his-own-people theme, the don't-judge-a-book-by-it's-cover moral, political elements, elements of racism, segregation, and discrimination, and a bit of E. T. and some other themes.  It uses its running time wisely and tells its story very effectively.  Some of the film is in documentary-style, and part of it is in regular style, and there are even some shots seen here and there from security cameras, and things like that.  Visually, the film has a gritty, ugly look about it, adds brilliantly to the tone of the film, and gives it a bit of a more realistic feel to it.  Even the aliens themselves are pretty ugly, but they are very well portrayed with top-notch CGI.  In fact, all of the special effects in the film are very good.  Clinton Shorter composed a very effective score for this film.  It's not a great score or anything, but it does help bring out the tone and emotion of the film, just like the special effects do.

There is not a single actor in the film whom I have heard of before seeing this film.  However, the actors' performances are pretty good.  The actors really bring out their characters very well.  I liked the characters.  They are strong and dynamic.  Wikus is a good protagonist, and I really cared about him while watching the film.  I also came to like the aliens he befriends - they may be ugly, but I really felt true emotion for them and their inner characters, who they really are inside, especially the big one (the father).  I know hardly anything about director Neil Blomkamp, but he did a very good job with this film.  There are definitely some things that he could have done better, and the overall film was not great, but Blomkamp did a good job overall, and gave us a pretty good film.

So, overall, while District 9 is, in my opinion, not quite an iconic or classic science fiction film, it's still pretty unique, and it has some pretty memorable things about it.  It's not really something I might remember immediately many years from now as a classic film or anything, but, like I said before, it's pretty memorable.  It's a smart, emotional, and entertaining science fiction film, and it's definitely worth seeing at least once.



Cast and Credits:
Wikus: Sharlto Copley
Christopher: Jason Cope
Koobus Venter: David James
Tania: Vanessa Haywood
Fundiswa Mhlanga: Mandla Gaduka

TriStar Pictures presents
A film directed by Neil Blomkamp
Running time: Approx. 112 minutes

Rated R for bloody violence and pervasive language

Psycho (1960)

Genre: Horror, Mystery, Thriller

Released: August 10, 1960

My Rating:
(Click here for more info on my rating scale)

            Psycho is a good, memorable film.  I don't love it, but I do like it; it's a good piece of cinema and is notable for many things.  First of all, the black-and-white cinematography is good, and it really contributes to the tone and mood of the film.  There are several great camera shots and sequences.  The music is good too, and it also contributes to the tone of the film, probably even more so than the cinematography.  Finally, and probably most importantly, the film is noteworthy for its storytelling.  Alfred Hitchcock broke several Hollywood cinema traditions of the time, and created a film that contains elements that can be easily recycled, yet at the same time is very unique, and is a good mystery horror thriller.
            The story starts off with Marion Craine, an office worker in Phoenix who desperately wants to be with her lover.  When her employer entrusts Marion to bank $40,000, Marion leaves town, steals the money, and goes on the lam.  Along the way, she encounters a used car salesman and a policeman, who notice her somewhat nervous behavior, which she is not good at hiding.  Eventually, tired of her long drive and caught in a storm, she exits the main highway and pulls into the out-of-the-way Bates Motel to spend the night.  The motel is run by a young man called Norman Bates, who seems to be dominated by his twisted mother.  Events of the night change the course of the film afterwards starting, with an excellent and unforgettable sequence in which Marion is murdered in her shower, and her journey, therefore, comes to an end.  Soon after, others come to the motel searching for Marion, including Loomis, private investigator Arbogast, and Marion's sister.  They make shocking discoveries.
            The story isn't all that great, but what makes it good and involving is the way it develops and unfolds.  There are a lot of aspects of the movie that are not so special, and ones that have been used again and again over the years.  There are some things about the movie that seem cliché, and possibly a bit cheesy.  However, despite all this, after all these years, Psycho still has a uniqueness that is memorable and ultimately not copied to this day.  Like I said, it's not the most extraordinary story, but it's structured in a great way.  It tampers with some traditional narrative elements.  It starts out seemingly normal in terms of narrative.  Then, we are shocked at the movie's midpoint as Marion, our protagonist for the first half of the movie, is killed, and the course of the film is drastically changed, and what follows is a series of (like I said before) shocking discoveries and twists.  The audience's expectations keep being flouted, especially in the second half of the film, especially in two major ones, the second of which I won't spoil for those who haven't seen the film.  It doensn't have great story or character complexity, but yes, it's strong.
            The stark black-and-white cinematography used in the film is very good, and even further contributes the the tone of the film.  Also, by far one of the most important aspects of the film is the music.  Bernard Herrmann composed an excellent score for the film.  The film works fine with its narrative alone, but the music really brings it all to life and supports everything.  The music consisted of all string instruments, and the music is consistently dissonant and tense.  The music, like everything else about the film, can be easily recycled in movies, but, like I said before, Psycho still has a level of uniqueness that really can't be matched.
            Overall, it's an important landmark in the history of cinema, and it's still a good film, even to this day - not at a four-star level, but still very good.  I found it to be a very good movie experience.  If you haven't seen it, I recommend you do.

Cast and Credits:
Norman Bates: Anthony Perkins
Marion Crane: Janet Leigh
Lila Crane: Vera Miles
John Gavin: Sam Loomis
Det. Milton Arbogast: Martin Balsam

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock
Black and White
Approx. 109 minutes