Fantasy/Sci-fi Movies

STARDUST starts with that most wonderful of fantasy concepts, a magical world that exists side-by-side with the real world, but in which no one chooses to believe. Most aren't even curious enough about it to notice that it's there, and that in itself is curious, since the magical kingdom is separated from the rest of England by only a stone wall. There's a world of metaphor there, but I will leave more philosophical heads to pursue that.
There is nothing wrong with enjoying this film on its own overt terms, as a splendid action/adventure/romance, a sprawling and rapturous flight of fancy.

They threw everything into this movie -- a little swashbuckling adventure, a love story, acts of heroism and sacrifice, ghosts, witches, charms, fortune telling with entrails, magic candles, unicorns, and never a dull moment. Though it takes a little while for the adventure to get off the ground, Stardust is a wonderfully inventive fairy tale that is original and defiant, as well as hilarious.

It's been a very long time since I've seen a real science fiction movie. Usually the genre focuses on the surface elements - the spaceships, the creatures, the battles, the blasters, the laser swords, the aliens and the hardware. Whatever happened to exploring the world of true science fiction? You know, IDEAS. Remember those? Great sci-fi deals with humankind's reaction to the unknown. How a society or a person may be affected by some evolutionary leap whether physical or technical. Steven Spielberg's "A.I. Artificial Intelligence" is a return to sci-fi in true form.
It's basically Pinocchio, on acid and CGI. But instead of going from wood to skin and bones to become "real," this story starts with the familiar human surface, then, throughout the story, tries to find the center of what makes it tick: The soul. And since David, the Pinocchio in question, consists of microchips and wires, that opens up a whole other line of questioning about how we program ourselves to think and how we begin to shape our personality as we grow. In the movie's eeriest scene, the question comes up, can the deepest and best part of us be packaged and sold for mass production and consumption? With computers taking over some of our personalities, how long will it be before we buy ourselves a programmed little wooden child? And at what point would the love for that child, as well as its love for us, become "real?"
One of Spielberg's most thought-provoking efforts, visually intoxicating, and exceptional movies I've seen to date.

Alternate universes, a truth-deducing object called an alethiometer (the shiny object of the title), armored warrior bears, external souls in animal bodies called "demons", a magical matter-forming property known as "dust" and a society-controlling religious body known as the Magisterium -- these are all concepts that readers of Philip Pullman's acclaimed "His Dark Materials" trilogy are allowed to absorb over the course of the hundreds of pages of the first novel, "The Golden Compass".
The movie, of course, doesn't have that sort of luxury, so director Chris Weitz plunges us into the thick of this dazzling world and expects us to keep up. And while some of the explanations -- and, in fact, the film itself -- seem a tad rushed, "The Golden Compass" is a breathtakingly exciting creation of a thrilling universe and its characters.
This plot may sound somewhat ludicrous on paper, but Pullman has created a logical, well-thought-out world that Weitz has brilliantly translated to the big screen. Sure, some of the CG moments look a little too CG-ish, and squeezing in all that plot and exposition into a movie that runs less than two hours leaves you feeling somewhat wiped out, but "The Golden Compass" takes you into a whole other universe and introduces you to its rules and logic. An overall impressive fantasy adventure film.

The film works on just about every level. Narnia has grandeur, imagination, mostly believable special effects, a war-of-the-world battle, heart and teary-eyed heartbreak, betrayal, and triumph. I grew up reading everything by C.S. Lewis and the movie remains faithful to the book in both tone and imagery, bringing the wonderous land of Narnia to life. Made me feel like I was 12 years old all over again, it was a joy to see one of my favorite stories brought to life.

Bombastic, whimsical, and delicious, THE BROTHERS GRIMM evokes all of the adjectives one comes to expect about the work of director Terry Gilliam. Like "Twelve Monkeys", it's weird. Like "Time Bandits", it's fanciful and just a bit dark. The film is more than a bit offbeat; and like all of his work, it is most certainly original.

The movie is at least twice as good as most people say it is and about half as good as I hoped it would be being a fan of the original Grimm stories. No the story isn't worthy of the masterful tale-tellers who gave the film its title, but Gilliam hasn't lost his manic visual touch or his flair for dangerously dark humor transforming familiar fairy tales into something that is distinctly his own, filled with hillarious absurdities and more than a little social commentary that is both entertaining and clever.

An enchantingly quirky journey that has its fair share of bumps in the road but is still none-the-less a great ride.

Spielberg's Minority Report is both breathtaking and disturbing, I was overwhelmed by just how damn good it was, this film works on so many levels that it blows my fragile little mind.
What I enjoyed most about Minority Report was its powerfully dazzling display of mind bending futuristic technology; where there are retina scanners on every street corner, every subway, every hallway of every building, and they all know who you are and say hello to you by name. You walk into the Gap, and instantly a hologram says, "Hello Mr. Smith, how were the wool sweaters you bought last time? Did they fit okay?" And the police can find you simply by asking a computer where you were scanned last in the city. Memories can be downloaded and put onto disk for future enjoyment, and some, like in other Phillip Dick short stories, can be created for your pleasure. In one scene, a man walks into a seedy memory studio and says, "I want to kill my boss." The proprietor responds, "No problem, we can do that for you." In another room, a man is having a fantasy about winning an award: "I'd like to thank the Academy," he says. I couldn't help but smile. There's even a moment in Minority Report that is better than anything Steven Spielberg has done since his early days: Tom Cruise, attempting to break into his own Pre-Crime Police Unit drops both of his eyes (yes, his eyes) that he has been carrying in a bloody ziplock bag. They go bouncing down a spiral hallway as he chases and stumbles after them, headed for a dingy looking sewer grate. I laughed out loud.
Its a first-rate sci-fi, action thriller with great futuristic toys and a premise that has more substance than your average sci-fi film; its intelligent, exciting, funny and emotionally involving, Minority Report shows you can have your popcorn, and eat it too.

Based on the Phillip K. Dick short story "Impostor" is not exactly crystal clear or, for that matter, consistently compelling, but it does a good job of making its main point, which is to evoke the suffocating, ever-spiraling paranoia so easily triggered in such an environment. It evokes a pervasive feeling of uncertainty that lies at the heart of the human condition, a feeling that logically will only intensify in a future when it becomes increasingly difficult, if not downright impossible, to distinguish the real from the artificial, even within one's self.

Sinise and the supporting cast are on target with their focused portrayals and Mark Isham's score is at once elegant and ominous, a major asset in creating and sustaining a tense atmosphere. The directing is top-notch as well, with a great twist ending.

"Impostor" is likely to be best appreciated by dedicated sci-fi fans, which I definately am, but if you find the question - "How can you know what you know or who you are when all your ideas are filtered through your own biased and highly fallible consciousness?" - even a tad bit intriguing then this is a movie for you to see. A thinking man's sci-fi flick staying true to Dick's original story and spirit.

This sci-fi thriller, based on a novel by Michael Crichton and directed by Barry Levinson, presents a riveting and rounded anatomy of fear -- the palpable heart pounding ideas and emotions which take over when we are cornered and have nowhere to hide. These scientists are forced to become intimate with fear, and, in the process, they discover some important truths about human nature.
The script interlaces just enough humor with the terror to keep from exhausting the audience. "Are you a religious man, Norman?" Harry asks in a moment on the brink of total disaster. "Atheist, but I'm flexible," Norman replies with a nervous laughter. The best parts of the movie are not the scary parts, of which several had me jumping in my seat, but the ones where they spend the time to consider the scientific implications of what is happening. At one point, Harry uses a beautiful bit of scientific logic to deduce their chances of survival. In another, Jerry(the alien sphere) informs his new human "friends" that he is happy. This troubles Norman greatly. He reasons that an alien with emotions is a scary proposition since beings that are happy can turn angry just as easily.
The movie involves your brains as well as your emotions, its a physical and psychological thriller that keeps you on the edge of your seat. Definatly an under-rated, under-appreciated gem, but not everyone's cup of tea.

Is sanity an absolute, or just a matter of perspective? Who among us are truly the sane ones? These questions frame a theme that's formed the basis for numerous past films centering around protagonists more than a few degrees off center from "normal" and the authority figures who try to help and/or "cure" them. K-PAX adds an extraterrestrial twist: the allegedly delusional person in question claims to be an alien from another planet. K-PAX suggests that perhaps the answers we find or conclusions we reach are less important than the questions we ask.

A sci-fi thriller that challenges us to ponder the nature of reality. In the agreeably low-tech world of 'eXistenZ,' the elaborately entertaining film by David Cronenberg, technology has sort of gone backwards, or sideways, and become technobiology, which imagines, among other things, guns made out of flesh and bone and virtual-reality gamepods that resemble nothing so much as pulsating sex toys.
The whole movie is a game, visceral as well as philosophical; it's a great wild ride of guess-what's-real hijinks. In Cronenberg's hands, however, such games are never played on the audience for their own sake: not for nothing do the game and the film have a metaphysical ring. A clue is provided the first time we hear someone pronounce the name -- "ex-is-tenz" -- which sounds closer to "existential" than to "existence." If, as existentialism has it, we are responsible for our own acts in this reality as we know it, what happens if that reality is false?
Even without the icky organic biomechanics, eXistenZ would be completely in keeping with Cronenberg's method, which is to suggest that the world as seen through the eyes of the protagonists (and therefore through the audience's eyes) shouldn't be taken at face value. Cronenberg uses the multilevel construction of a game to show us what he has always shown us: that there is more than one way to experience reality. As the plot of the game keeps shifting, we are left without any bearings, without any way to know whether to trust anyone, even ourselves. This, of course, is life -- or existence.
Depressing? Not the way Cronenberg approaches it. He's a laughing existentialist here, a philosopher who sees the comedy in disorientation.
'eXistenZ' is a fast and engaging joyride; it takes you around in circles, but you don't see the same things twice with a story that is essentially a mind trip. An instant cult classic in my book.

A stylish hybrid of futuristic thriller and film noir. Dark City trades in such weighty themes as memory, thought control, human will and the altering of reality. Yes its complex, but extremely compelling.
Part science fiction, part fantasy, and part psychotic dreamscape, Dark City is a visual marvel of a cinematic experience. One of the most imaginative and creative films ever made.
The experience of Dark City is one that no film lover should miss.

better than i expected it to be, kind of cute

I didn't dislike this, but I didn't like it as much as I wanted to when I first saw the trailer. The only real action in the film occurs in the very first scene. The rest of the movie is a meditation on love, loss, grief, science, and closure, more of a sci-fi think piece than the grand adventure I was hoping for.

The story takes place in three periods of time and cuts among them frequently: A 16th century conquistador named Tomas (Jackman) searches for the fountain of youth (here, the Biblical Tree of Life) amid the ruins of the Mayan civilization, having been sent there by Queen Isabella (Weisz), who's knee-deep in fending off the Spanish Inquisition. In 21st century America, we meet scientist Tommy (Jackman), who is researching brain tumor cures, spurred on by his dying wife Izzi (Weisz). And in the 26th century, Tom (Jackman, see a pattern here?) is all alone, traveling through space to an unknown destination, carried by Aronofsky's vision of the future of space travel: An oversized snow globe.

Though I'm sure this will be the subject of endless debate and interpretation, the three men are not really the same person over the 1,000 years, though I'm loathe to provide complete details for fear of ruining the plot's few worthwhile secrets. Aronofsky would like us to believe there's a huge mystery to unravel here, but it's not really the case. He begins the film intercutting among the three stories with abandon, and indeed we start off extremely confused. But soon it all comes together: Izzi is writing a story about Tomas (which may or may not be based in fact), and Tommy has previously uncovered an "old growth" tree in South America which has impressive rejuvenating effects. What to make of the snow globe in space, what with its cargo of one man and one giant tree? It's connected to both stories and is made clear in due time.

As always, Aronofsky demonstrates impressive technical ability behind the camera, and I can't complain one bit about either lead actor, with Jackman particularly expressive, pouring more emotion into his role than I've ever seen him do. It's Aronofsky's half-baked script where the film really falls apart, first trying the patience with its inscrutability then abruptly turning you off with its obviousness. For a film that spans 1000 years and reaches from earth to space, it all comes off as very small and staid. It's ultimately a story that just doesn't smack you with the grandeur it ought to.

As for me, I ultimately found the film interesting without being enthralling, pretty without being striking, and somber without being ominous.

Edward Scissorhands is a moody and bizarre modern fairytale that works on a number of levels - Visually, stylistically and emotionally stunning - Its Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, need I say more!

While "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is passable, it is not great science fiction. It will feed your sense of wonder but it has so many plot holes it leaves you wishing it were better, that there was something more needed. In fact thats exactly what I said leaving the theater, that it was good, but it needed more. Not sure what that "more" is exactly but I do know that there was definatly something missing about the film and that it could of been so much better.

Hancock is an engaging and thoroughly innovative spin on the superhero genre but when you have a movie that stars Will Smith and Charlize Theron the emphasis is going to be on the acting as well as the action. There are a lot of special effects, explosions, fights and car chases but the heart of the movie comes from the acting talent of the stars. Good stories are about relationships and Smith's relationship with himself is in as much turmoil as that with his environment, and it's utterly fantastic to see a movie like this be more character-driven than effects-driven. Yes, Hancock can fly and throw cars around, and the effects portraying that are predictably excellent and convincing. We have a totally gratuitous early sequence to showcase his powers and attitude, but it serves a purpose. The movie, praise the heavens, is smart enough to use the CGI madness in service to the story, which is more than I can say for most movies now a days. Lesser lights would have made the entire film about smoothing Hancock's rough edges, but the writers here are going for more than a comedy cliché redemption story. They're reaching for one of epic proportions and they go about it in a clever way that offers one terrific twist after another as Hancock's public image is restored, but it's healing his heart and his soul that is the real story. Again and again the writers take chances that in less sure hands would sink the film. The gradual change in tone from action comedy to action drama works because the characters remain consistent even if the idea of making such a switch is a bit jarring. But Hancock is a film with aspirations beyond it's cracking good special effects and nifty one liners, it wants to be more than a popcorn flick, and it succeeds.