Change Your Image
bonzi
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Midnight Sky (2020)
Pretty banal non-SciFi
Idiocies like "previously undiscovered habitable moon of jupiter" and lack of understanding of day-night cycle above the polar circle aside, this might have been a decent movie. But "plot twists" and "psychology" are banal and clicheed beyond comprehension: Augustine's daughter, of all people, among the returning ship crew; crewmember killed in action seen as a "surrogate daughter" by another one; *pregnancy* on interplanetary voyage; "meteor strikes" coming willy-nilly whenever another banal plot twist was needed; crew evacuating the station, arguably one of the very few safe places on Earth, "to be home" in the middle of (presumably) nuclear war, colony spaceship *not* taking off for the habitable safe heaven in the midst of the cataclysm?
The only redeeming feature is decent acting by Clooney. But that's far too little to pull this disaster.
Approaching the Unknown (2016)
Neither fish nor fowl
This film cannot decide whether it wishes to be a psychological study of loneliness (or just aloneness) and what drives people from other people, a classic "man against insurmountable obstacles" drama, or old fashioned cowboy/hero flic. In dong so, it achieves none.
Low budget is no excuse for dozens if not hundreds of perfectly avoidable factual errors and plot holes (then again, one of the main plot drivers is itself a giant factual error with attending plot holes). Goofs section here does not do this film justice - cringeworthy elements just pile on one another. For example, if it was too much trouble to learn typical callouts during a launch, the correct ones could have been gleaned in ten minutes by watching a video of any real one. Internet is chock full of conceptual designs for plausible interplanetary vessels with centrifugal artificial gravity, which the one in the film was not. Etc.
The film sometimes feels like a patchwork or elements lifted from far more successful works, and cobbled together into a incoherent, boring mess.
Clara (2018)
No, it really *is* just a chance, but never mind
This beautiful little film about the ways people deal with loss, tragedy, death, hope, life... doesn't lose too much because of its a bit heavy-handed insistence on "spirituality" or "paranormal" or call is as you wish. The way it attempts to explain it away in a pseudo-sciency way at the end is not too jarring, either.
Real human aspects of the story shine, and, contrary to what some other reviewers claim, this former physicist thinks it depicts science, both the method and the drive, pretty decently.
Mars: Power Play (2018)
EU "No" ?!?
The power play between the "megacorp" and governments was depicted pretty superficially.
EU never flinched at slapping corporate giants with hefty fines. Just saying...
Madam Secretary: The Common Defense (2019)
A not to "big pharma conspiracy" theorists
Consider, morons: what brings bigger profit, once or twice in a lifetime vaccine, or medication and life support equipment for the ill? Vaccine production has to be subsidized, and practically all research done by charities and government, because it is unprofitable. "Big pharma" *is* (partially) evil, but this is totally off target.
Then explain how smallpox has been eradicated. Also, how comes that the last holdout of polio are two or three pockets where radical Muslim clerics harangue against vaccination (in part thanks to US intelligence/special forces/whatever masquerading as health aid workers - not, *that* would be something to address in the show.)
Toen mijn vader een struik werd (2016)
If only wars looked like this
I get it - this is a film aimed at 10 year olds who should not be shocked with the actual horrors of war. The plight of the protagonist as she has to leave her home and try to somehow find her mother abroad is terrible enough. But the parents would be well advised to warn their children with whom they watch this film that actual wars are much, much worse.
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)
Meh
Far too much running about and fistfights with a superman, far too little darkness - boring. Plot "turns" telegraphed from light years away - no surprises at all.
After ten minutes of Enterprise being pummeled from all sides, hull punched through or burned away, people falling through shafts after artificial gravity fails, the works, the hero realigns the core by kicking it and all is peachy - not a messed hairdo anywhere to be seen, let alone a casualty...
Attempts to elaborate on "logic vs. emotion" on several fronts looked promising (and even kind of worked between Spock and Uhura), but fell far short of the potential. Likewise the moral ambivalence of both main villains.
Visuals were cool, though.
Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey (2014)
Who is the target audience?
Let's get this out of the way first: I enjoy this show immensely.
However, I am not sure which audience the authors had in mind:
For viewers with a merest modicum of general knowledge, intellectual curiosity and willingness to think, there is nothing new here. Of course, the marvels of our world are retold in a spectacular way (and hence my rating), but the retelling provides no more new perspective than a visit to a well curated museum of natural history.
Perhaps I am being cynical, but I am afraid that Giordano Bruno's "Your God is too small!" we saw in the first episode is lost on those who prefer stories bronze age herders invented for comfort to actual use of their own mind. Just look at 1-star reviews and often rehashed nonsense being spouted there, including "questions" and "controversies" (e.g. about evolution of eye) being clearly and directly addressed in the program. And yet, it feels (from the first two episodes I saw so far) that the series is aimed primarily at them.
I can only hope that some young viewers still stranding the fence between reason and fairy tales will fell nudged by Cosmos on the side of perpetual quest of knowledge. Despite my doubts about its chances of success, I admire this effort (and Fox decision to undertake it, in contrast with their usual stance) to stem the tide of manufactured ignorance, which I feel poses direct, dire threat to our civilization.
Other People's Money (1991)
Entertaining, spoiled by acting
This rather entertaining feel-good movie about a "corporate takeover shark" attacking a mom-and-pop business is ruined by some of its star lineup delivering mediocre at best performance. DeVito, of course, is brilliant as ever, and some minor roles are delivered quite well. But Peck's performance feels half hearted and mechanical, and Penelope Ann Miller acts on par with an average high school production.
Multi-layered interplay between DeVito's takeover artist and Miller's yuppie star lawyer is supposed to be the backbone of the movie. However, Miller wooden acting fails to bring any subtlety to it, and as the result I had difficulty believing DeVito's side, as well.
Gregory Peck was relying on clichés of his decades of acting, but failed to deliver convincing angst of a man losing the centerpiece of his life.
So, watch, but don'r expect brilliant performances.
Avatar (2009)
Predictable plot, but very enjoyable and visually breathtaking
Who ever saw the trailer will be able to predict the plot of this film (such as it exists) in detail - no surprises here whatsoever. But, reasons to watch the film go well past excellent special effects, masterfully choreographed battle scenes and tastefully employed 3D enhancements. Imagery of Pandora (the planet where the story takes place) and its life is breathtaking, and ecology is well thought-out and remarkably consistent. Even "planet as a deity" aspect has a convincing explanation.
I don't blame Cameron for "lifting" the plot from, say, _Dances with Wolves (1990)_ (qv), as some reviewers do (a more appropriate plot comparison would be to Ursula Le Guin's novel "The Word for World Is Forest", anyway). There is a small number of "archetypal" plots that get interpreted over and over again, and this is one. Likewise, some reviewers blame Cameron for introducing a "great white hero" as a "deus ex machina", as if the locals were incapable of fending for themselves. Again, wrong: sometimes it takes an outsider, someone unencumbered by the traditional way of thinking, to find a solution by doing the unthinkable. In this case, it was Sully asking Mother Eywa to take sides.
One commenter trashed the film as "Eko-pacifist propaganda". Well, I guess he prefers Fascist propaganda; I don't.
Cameron is quoted as saying he had stories for two sequels ready. I believe they will be used - this film is material for a "Star Wars" successor.
Surface (2005)
Mildly entertaining, at best
I expected more from this, after reading some glowing comments. It turned up to be a pretty boring muddle of confused plot, wooden characters, unconvincing dialog, pedestrian CGI, plot holes and all kinds of goofs.
Predictable as it is, the plot is often lifted from other SF works so literally that it could almost be some kind of stilted homage to them.
SF audience tends to consist of more technically and scientifically literate public than the average; those people usually have some idea about evolution, bathyscaphes, radar, sonar, plasma torches, ICU vital function monitors, lab equipment and even politics around winning grant money. So why is it that medical or crime dramas usually manage to get their science and technology reasonably accurate, and SF shows (that take place more or less now and here) almost never? I am only giving this 5 stars out of 10 because most of other SF shows are even worse.
Fail Safe (2000)
Just an interesting experiment
I rented this DVD thinking it was the original '64 movie, and wanting to compare it to, naturally, the great 'Dr. Strangelove...'. What I found was an interesting experiment in live television and not much more. Acting was mediocre (do these actors all require 20 takes to do a scene right?), tension was seriously lacking. I certainly hope the original was better, and that nobody collects enough hubris to try and remake Kubrick's masterpiece (funny, it is not mentioned in 'Movie connections' section).
Complicity (2000)
The film, while viewable, did not bring the novel's atmosphere
I am a great Banks' fan, and was awaiting this film eagerly. I am quite disappointed, though the film would presumably, if taken at face value and not compared to the novel, be OK.
[Further text might constitute mild spoilers to some readers]
The first thing one notices is that most material from the book is somehow stuffed into the film (with notable exception of Cameron's cancer and Basra Road episode - sorry for referring to the novel). The result is rapid succession of events that get barely touched, not leaving room for atmosphere or, paradoxically, even decent suspense to develop. There isn't a trace of suffocating mood of the novel. Events follow each other at the pace that does not allow them to evolve and to give viewer chance to absorb them. I think that Millar and Elsley would have done much better job if given (the superb BBC TV mini-series, also after Banks) The Crow Road format.
Otherwise, the film is technically good. Casting and acting is very good, with one crucial exception: IMHO, Cameron is too young, far too cheerful and devoid of air of impeding doom around him.
And BTW, DVD producers should have included, under excuse of doing that for the benefit of hearing impaired, English subtitles (Scottish accent is quite difficult for non-native speakers). I plan to watch the film one or two times more to see whether my opinion will improve by simply catching more of what was said :)