The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

[Rayon Vert]

Where do you fit in Sleeper in that scheme (if at all)?

[therewillbeblus]

That's a good question, it should probably fit into the qualifying pool due to the thematic commentary, though again I freely admit this isn't a sound process of categorization even if there's a rationale somewhere in there

[therewillbeblus]

Friendship's Death: A nice twofer play that could be described as My Dinner with Andre but with a human and alien, at least for a while.. Like that film, this one explores contrasting perspectives on how to engage with and process life, but Wollen's film's political subtext is integral in drawing out these philosophies. Bill Paterson's aloof skepticism stems from a cautious view from experience amidst globalist threats, while Tilda Swinton chooses optimism, trust, and hope, and in the film's best conversation empathizes with all parties of a conflict including the initiators of harm. This film gets to the heart of sci-fi through two polarized extremes: the fear and the allure of foreign experiences or physical entities, rooted around the conundrums of trust and faith. I admired how things turned because just playing these two initially-confident extremes off each other the whole time wouldn't be in the spirit of how real intimate conversations go when minds and hearts are open, yet the film manages to blend perspectives without sacrificing hope or compromising characters, instead opting for the kind of growth that's familiar when we come out the other side- a spiritual experience that transcends categorization. Tilda Swinton is perfectly cast as an alien robot who is deeply "human" in the ways we understand that concept, and it's no wonder that after this she was sought to fit into the roles no other actor seems to fit.

[Rayon Vert]

Cargo (Engler 2009). (1st viewing) A German-language Swiss film that shares quite a bit of similarities with films like Pandorum and Aniara. It’s a dystopian future again with Earth uninhabitable and humans living on a gigantic orbiting space station, hoping to get chosen to settle on a new colonized planet, Rhea. Laura is a doctor traveling on a cargo vessel where conflict arises between the crew and discoveries are made that hint at a very different reality than what is actually happening. I appreciated the film inserted some drama and wasn’t a pure action thriller, but it doesn’t truly offer anything different from the aforementioned films and others of that ilk, and doesn’t completely succeed either in creating the intended emotional investment. I didn’t think Pandorum and Aniara quite made the cut as truly good films, but they were both better than this. At this point, I’m betting a lot of these similar films are going to get muddled in my memory pretty soon.


Europa Report (Cordero 2013). (1st viewing) The first manned (and womanned) mission to the Jupiter moon to investigate the possibility of life under its ice crusts. A found footage film (of higher quality than Apollo 18) that lets us know at the start that something went wrong with the mission as communication was cut off. I wasn’t crazy about certain aspects of this film, like the found footage aspect, and it’s nothing very spectacular in terms of story or acting, but it scores some strong points because of its pretty straight-ahead realism and the focus on the science of the mission (glowing blurbs by space.com and Popular Science!). The narrative interestingly also isn’t entirely linear. The film gets progressively more, and quite effectively, suspenseful. The types of life-and-death situations confronted are unoriginal in terms of what you can find in other space exploration films, but they still make for some thrilling scenes. Recommended if this is up your alley.


I Married a Monster from Outer Space (Fowler Jr. 1958). (1st viewing) Much better than I expected because of the title and the fact that it shared a bill with The Blob - I’m guessing the audiences preferred the color film because they were teenagers and saw themselves in the characters, because this is the better movie. It’s surprisingly grave, a little creepy, and it takes a page from Invasion of the Body Snatchers but adds its own twists, including giving us reasons to empathize with the Andromedans. And the film starts with men making a lot of cynical misogynistic jokes about marriage, so there must be some kind of meta-commentary on the institution in here somewhere.


Jurassic Park (Spielberg 1993). (revisit) Twbb argues a good case for the film on the previous page, especially on the “eclectic (genre) assemblage”, and the skill in the filmmaking involved. But even though I understand in theory the reading of Grant and the children, and recognize something like that or an equivalent was necessary to give this film an emotional resonance, on a gut level, and much to the contrary, I always get turned off as soon as Dr. Hammond’s grandchildren make their arrival to the park. I just find them formulaically cute and repellent and that whole vibe of the film very cloying, in the same way I react to Ellie’s constant overbearing hints to Grant to reproduce and her whole Earth-mother thing. (They kids are so annoying they make me feel like I am or have become the Grant who hates children.) It’s the family film sentimentality that’s part of Spielberg’s unfortunately overly-mammalian DNA as a filmmaker and contributes often I find to his movies feeling more like “products” - which explains why I like the films more where he gets the furthest away from that. (I prefer the young bachelor director of Close Encounters who didn’t give a second thought about Richard Dreyfuss ditching his family to follow his alien visitation calling). Having said all that, the real horror menace that’s present in the danger here partially mitigates those things, and it’s still a very entertaining ride, with the set piece action scenes still suspenseful and absorbing no matter how many times I’ve seen them.


Robinson Crusoe on Mars (Haskin 1964). (1st viewing) The crudeness of the story is counterbalanced by its humanity, and the cheesiness of the effects with the originality of the art designs. Not an outstanding film but a likeable one.


Colossus: The Forbin Project (Sargent 1970). (1st viewing) The insane premise is that the U.S. hands over all control of its nuclear defense system (data collection, analysis, decision-making!) to an autonomous, full-proof, self-learning supercomputer. Next thing you know Colossus starts communicating with the one the Soviets have revealed they’ve just built and then it’s basically HAL taking over the world - your worst AI takeover nightmare. It’s very intelligently scripted and directed and beyond its engrossing suspense - even though for much of its first half or so it’s mostly just people (White House, Kremlin) in tense conversation -, it ends up surprising you by going into some darkly witty routes in terms of what Dr. Forbin and a team member have to get up to to try and fool Colossus. There’s definitely a bit of satire here, and I’d say the computer even makes some compelling arguments at the end as to why humans should perhaps be enslaved for their own good! A terrific discovery for me that goes very high on my list - definitely recommended.

[therewillbeblus]

I understand the Spielberg reading, and used to share that perspective more, but I’ve come to view a lot of these seemingly “product” films as deceptively so and actually more digestible reflections of a spiritual experience that for Spielberg has recontextualized an idea of God into family and specifically children. I think I’ve mentioned this in relation to his other works (without checking, perhaps War of the Worlds?) but I think he does a good job at validating Grant’s distaste for the children at the beginning. At least I totally get why they’re annoying, and the film seems to be arguing less for bachelors to get over themselves and instead showing that, given the right circumstances, we can expand our scopes to find meaning in the places we least expect.

Grant’s ‘higher power’ at the start is science and the pursuit of knowledge, and I don’t think Spielberg rejects this, but identifies with it. He’s been the self-focused man before, on a path to searching and actualizing experience via the criteria of exciting himself. I get the impression that if Grant hadn’t met these children in manner that forced himself into a situation of protecting them, Spielberg wouldn’t view his life as wasted fulfilling his own selfish aims. But because Grant was placed in a position to flex his rigid ignorance, he’s found a ‘higher power’ in other people rather than only science. This emulates a new dimension of his ethos in searching for knowledge and new experience, only toward the corporeal familiarity of having children rather than discovering a new set of bones- and Spielberg does a good job at selling how this objectively ordinary practice can be, and is, novel, exhilarating, and spiritual on a subjective level.

I certainly view this as a reflection of Spielberg’s own life, but in terms of the themes of the film, I think it fits nicely. The film ends not with us or Grant thinking that we’ve been totally wrong about the impediments of kids (after all it’s not like they’ve bonded much outside of safety, or engaged in communication patterns of any kind realistic father-child relationship) but willing to see that there is endless possibility of good to come from having children, along with the obvious surrenders that come with the life choice. I also appreciate how Dern isn’t portrayed as a woman desperately trying to convince Grant of changing his mind and doesn’t engage with the kids much herself (that would have made this all more eye-rolling!)- she’s more an observer who’s open to the idea and wants her boyfriend to be *open* too.

[bottled spider]

I quite like this visual analysis of Jurassic Park by Jonathan Burdett ('Films&Stuff') : Why Jurassic Park Looks Better Than Its Sequels. (But be forewarned of the ridiculous number of ads).

I could have done without Laura Dern doing the "whoosh! over my head!" gesture in response to Goldblum's cereal box chaos theory patter. It would have been both more fun and more believable if she'd been contemptuous of his intellectual preening. Plus, if the scriptwriters had treated him more definitely as a mere fast-talking charlatan, then there'd be a nice touch of irony in him being ultimately right about so much. The script instead advances him, unconvincingly, as genuinely smart under his smartypants schtick. Actually, Dr Malcolm is great idea for a character, and Goldblum was perfectly cast for it, but the script didn't get him right.

Jurassic Park is an unhappy compromise between a movie for adults and a movie for kids. After five grisly deaths we arrive at a morally abhorrent feelgood ending predicated on the improbable survival of all the characters we have most bonded with (or are meant to have bonded with). So I don't love it. I'll be voting for it all the same, because it's undeniably masterful.

[therewillbeblus]

Oh man, I think we absolutely are meant to see Dr. Malcolm as sleazy, explaining a layman’s version of a more complex expertise as nothing more than a pickup line, and not only the fact that he’s right, but how he expresses it, only makes the character more complex. We find him amusing, repelling, ethical, selfish, smart and funny, serious and silly, and ultimately respect him despite his flaws. I appreciate Dern indulging him because it’s in step with her conscientious character and a reminder that not every woman is going to treat passes with contempt, especially when trapped on an island together in a semi-professional work trip- but she is certainly self-actualized enough in her relationship with Grant to confidently entertain his advances while knowing she’s not getting wooed just like Grant passively watches knowing Malcolm isn’t a threat. It’s a more mature depiction of a stable relationship than most movies where this occurs!

[Murdoch]

My brother gave me the complete collection of the Patlabor anime for the holidays so I'm slowly been working my way through.

Patlabor OVA

I first watched a few episodes of the TV series before learning it's the OVA that is the necessary precursor to the films. Since I became interested in the series solely because of the praise I'd read about the second film, I jumped into this.

It's kind of a mess. It begins as a goofy mech anime where giant humanoid robot suits, called "Labors," have proliferated in society as a useful tool for construction and tangentially policing. The first episode sets up the characters as a group of new recruits tasked with manning the Labors to combat Labor-related criminal activity, kicking things off with an assassination attempt of the mayor of NYC in Tokyo! It's an interesting way to begin the series and demonstrates that the show doesn't exist in a vacuum but concerns itself with the geopolitical ramifications of its titular technology. Then the series takes some odd detours with a sea monster in one episode and a ghost story in another. Given it's only seven episodes long, it doesn't give a clear idea of where it's headed.

It's not until episode five that the trajectory of the series, and subsequent films, comes into focus. A military rebellion pits infantrymen attempting a coup against Tokyo police. I found myself wondering if I had a particular strong interest in the battle given it's not set up at all in previous episodes and caught me rather off-guard when it materialized.

It's also odd that a small theme of the OVA are that Labors with guns are too dangerous for society given the amount of destruction they can cause, then the OVA nears its finale with the military threatening a nuclear holocaust and all manner of restraint being thrown out the window. There was an endearing condemnation of firearms in the series that unfortunately is swept completely under the rug and contradicted as the story finds its Big Bad to justify it being a mech anime.

That said, I loved the art style of the series. The clean lines and character design were a visual treat and definitely the highlight.

Patlabor: the Movie

I began to give the OVA more credit after watching this film, since the OVA set up the necessary characters and their motivations. The first film finds Labors across Tokyo being upgraded with a new operating system that's designed to improve performance, yet comes from a shady programmer with a god complex intending to cause widespread chaos across Japan.

I found this much more engaging than the precursor series, primarily because it presented a well-written procedural mystery and built upon the political themes that boiled under the surface in the series. The humor of the series often seemed forced in order to attract younger viewers, and none of the characters really did anything in terms of policework. Here, though, each character comes across as far more competent than they did in the series as the conspiracy behind the new operating system is exposed through their diligence. The animation is just as beautiful here, and I was impressed by how the writers got away with creating a heavily dialogue-driven anime feature that's largely devoid of fighting or even giant robots until the final act. The political underpinnings at work behind the central police force are given more detail and attention than in the series, and I rather liked how the central government figures were more concerned with avoiding culpability themselves than with the potential destruction caused by a group of berserk Labors stomping through Tokyo. Patlabor: the Movie delves into the blind eye governments often turn toward business malfeasance and the potential damage such lax oversight can cause, and I'm intrigued to see where the second film goes from here.

Patlabor: the Movie 2

Here the series becomes a tense political thriller, focusing on a renegade Japanese contractor intent on pushing Japan into another war. Gone are the over-the-top scenarios of sea monsters and silly humor, and instead the plot grounds itself in the political fallout from a terrorist attack on Japanese soil and the tense standoff between the military and police political machines.

The animation has changed as well. While the OVA and first film were characterized by a rather common anime looks to environments and people for the era (large eyes, distinct line work and coloring), here the drawing is sleek in character and environment design and muted in colors - faces are more defined, environments have an almost photorealism to them.

Moreover, the second film is far less straightforward than its predecessors, and acts as a rumination on Japan's place within the world in the era of nuclear proliferation and foreign proxy wars. While politics has been in the backdrop of Patlabor from the beginning of the OVA, it was often only addressed on a surface level to acknowledge that the Patlabor universe is grounded in our world. In the second film, though, the history of Japan comes into play, with the central villain critical of Japan's place in the world and the false sense of comfort its residents enjoy during a historically violent and unstable period in other regions

I enjoyed this quite a lot and thought the writing was engaging despite relying heavily on one's knowledge of the various military and police entities to decipher who exactly is fighting with who. It's a very dense narrative and I'll admit I had to browse the wiki a few times to get a clearer sense of what was happening. Still, despite my occasional confusion, it's admirable how much this eschews the Labors and fighting in general to focus on a Japanese ex-militiaman trying to force his country into a third world war. It was also fascinating to see how the U.S. was handled, casting it as a specter lurking in the background and waiting to insert itself into Japanese politics and force the country's hand should things get too untenable.

That all said, I'm not sure where the film would place on my sci-fi list since so much of it avoids science fiction. It's more in line with a Tom Clancy novel than anything I would refer to as sci-fi. It's so grounded in Japanese history and politics that it's more a work of historical fiction than anything. The inclusion of Labors certainly pushes this toward science fiction, but the mechs are far more prominent in the previous entries and rarely more than backdrop here.

I still have the third film to go, which I believe is the conclusion of this iteration of the Patlabor saga.

EDIT:I ended up watching the third Patlabor movie last night and it was... decent.

Like the two prior films, it begins as a police procedural, this time investigating an unexplained plain crash, as well as several killings and property destruction across Japan. It''s revealed fairly early on that this is all the work of a giant monster, which at first seems like a call-back to the OVA series until the monster is revealed as a grotesque carnivorous reptilian creature rather than the docile humanoid of the series. I feel like Bong Joon-ho must have seen this prior to the Host because the monster design and the theme of the negligence of the U.S. military causing the mosnter's release are too specific of similarities to be coincidence.

Like Patlabor 2, the third film rarely uses its titular mechs, bringing them into the fray for the climax but otherwise they barely register in the narrative. This isn't necessarily a criticism if the third film had gone the way of the second, eschewing its action origins to provide a deeper commentary on Japan as a country (and the early use of the U.S. military seems to be setting this up). Instead, this is a rather by-the-numbers monster movie, with a focus on the investigation of the monster's origins over the havoc wreaked by the beast (which is actually rather slight, since outside of its gruesome entrance and explosive finale, the monster mainly keeps to itself in a city of millions!). Despite the high stakes of the film, I felt there was very little tension in the bulk of the film. I mean, the labor units in the first film did far more destruction than the monster does in this, and I think viewers could be forgiven for forgetting this film even involves a man-eating monster when it hits the one hour mark and we're still focused on the police interviewing one scientist's family members.

If it's not clear by now, I though this was the weakest of the three films, and I'm not exactly sure what the writers were going for here. The regulars of the Patlabor series have mere cameos, and there's very little that ties this to the series and prior films at all. That's my main criticism of Patlabor as a whole - that very little of what I watched adds up to a very compelling whole. The individual parts are well-executed, particularly the first two films, but I was hoping for more of a deep-dive into the effect of Patlabors on the evolution of Japanese society and policing. But I'm not one to criticize media for what I wanted it to be, and instead I'm mainly disappointed that the themes presented in the first two films - the risk of mechs to society as a whole in the first, and Japan's place in the international realm in the second - weren't expanded upon in the third. It's a decent movie, but I fear I risk outing myself as rather simple-minded by saying the only parts I found that engaging were when the monster was on-screen...

So which, if any of these, is making my list? Probably the first film. The second is engaging but as I said above I find very little about it to be science fiction. It would be like voting for Dr. Strangelove or the Hunt for Red October. The first film, however, is very much reliant on its mech roots, and presents a scenario that could only exist in science fiction - mech robots going ballistic from a renegade hacker's computer virus. And I really loved the finale to it, with all its over-the-top robot battles.

[Rayon Vert]

Timer (Schaeffer 2009). (1st viewing) A change of pace here. A rom-com where the premise is that people can get an implant in their wrists that counts down the day to where they’ll meet their “soul mate”. Not sure I understood the physics involved, but it didn’t matter much as this truly mediocre film just goes into its stereotypical, insufferable genre concerns and storylines and not making that much use of the concept. It is a bit depressing how the film doesn’t really address the many ways in which the idea in the first place is screwed up (even 15-year-old kids can get it and know ahead when “She”/ “He” will cross their path).


The War of the Worlds (Haskin 1953). (revisit) I like the level of energy that kicks off the film right away in the prologue, and the Martian machines were pretty avant-garde in design. Not crazy about everything in this film, but it’s wickedly fun in terms of the scope and bleakness of the apocalypse. I much prefer the Spielberg remake, but this one definitely has an edge in terms of giving a better sense of a global impact. It must have been quite an experience for the original audience.


Ikarie XB 1 (Polák 1963). (1st viewing) A bit of a strange beast in terms of some of the slightly more clunky space-flick-of-its-era bits (the robot, the electronic bleeps and bloops of the soundtrack) coexisting with a look and a lot of elements that are much modern and forward-looking. There’s definitely a lot of the roots here of the types of space film situations that will become commonplace later on. The scenes depicting this micro-society are interesting and the character drama absorbing in its own right, to the point you wished there was more to keep that dimension going as the film turned its attention to more suspenseful developments. But at the same time there’s a seductive darker feeling about the later sequences, and the episode involving the discovery of the Tornado is definitely spooky and stays with you.


Ad Astra (Gray 2019). (1st viewing) Funny how this had many story elements in common with Ikarie. I’m honestly dumbfounded as to why the film has such a relatively low IMDB rating or “bombed” at the box office. I was expecting a more meditative, psychologically-inclined space drama with perhaps some eccentric, downbeat aspect down the road that would explain those reactions, but there was nothing like that, and I was surprised at how many terrific thriller scenes there also were. I thought the film worked exceedingly well on all those different levels, really a potent combination of everything you’d wish for in a space travel epic, and I can’t really find anything to fault. As a cinematic space journey, the different port of call sections really give a potent, 2001-ish sense of journeying further outward all the time. The visuals are great of course but I found something to love especially with the quality of the omnipresent score - it effectively creates the feeling of a “bubble” that not only underlines the astronaut’s functional isolation, but also helps evoke the sense of Roy’s psychological solitude and self-compartmentalized psyche. And a great performance by Pitt. This easily gets into my top half.


They Live (Carpenter 1988). (1st viewing) Enjoyably brilliant twist on the ‘50s aliens coded as communists now turned Reagan consumer society capitalists, and even if I’m seeing it decades later it’s heartening to see that such a film was made at the time. I would have liked the movie better, though, if it wasn’t so much spun as an action film. Although the way that aspect is (over) played has a goofy charm, never more so in that fight with Keith David that just goes on forever - the films just suddenly starts going bonkers at that point.


The Swarm (Allen 1978). (1st viewing) Mutated, seemingly invincible killer bees overtake the U.S. in a spectacular way. I don’t know if it’s the substantially longer (2h35) laserdisc release cut that makes the initial “turkey” label by the reviewers seem a bit harsh; it’s definitely a mediocre, fairly typical 70s big-budget disaster epic, but it’s got some entertaining moments. It’s poorly paced, but the acting front definitely isn’t all bad and it’s a impressive cast. Michael Caine, Richard Chamberlain and Katharine Ross are some of the leads, but you’ve also got an array of classic studio era greats in major to minor roles, from Richard Widmark and Henry Fonda to Olivia De Havilland, José Ferrer and Fred MacMurray. It’s an intermittently fun watch just to see those players, and that scene where Fonda injects himself with the venom and then the antidote to see if it works will stick in my mind.

[therewillbeblus]

Ad Astra will place insanely high on my list for a film that I largely disliked on a first viewing, but it functions as both the most 'realistic' space movie and the best metaphorical one for space's potential for existential and psychological development. Gray speaks in the commentary about wanting to make Apocalypse Now in space, and by making the Kurtz character a parental figure resembling needs for safety, intimacy, and inspiration, the film becomes rather complex within its universal relatablity while also treating its themes with unapologetic transparency.

[Rayon Vert]

The son discovering in disbelief what has become of his father who has turned villainous and confronting him also carried an echo from the Star Wars saga. Do you remember what you disliked about it the first time?

[therewillbeblus]

Without checking I think I probably explained it in the dedicated thread (which I believe should track my trajectory across all 3-4 viewings as it increased in my esteem), but I felt the film was too on-the-nose and wanted more "depth" on my terms. Only after seeing it again did I realize that Gray was giving me exactly what I wanted far more directly than I expected from an 'art' film which had bothered me for some reason. He's a great filmmaker who doesn't hide behind devices to communicate what he wants to (of course there's complexity and allegory but none of it is intentionally ambiguous so much as he's interested in exploring the yearning for solving the enigmatic through concrete methods), and the moment I acclimated to that wavelength I fell in love.

[knives]

Watched the great and wrongly dismissed The Circle and it really has me wondering if the modern era makes science fiction in and of itself a redundant genre. Ponsoldt gives us a world not even five minutes into the future with it’s basically Facebook corporation. Yet it has all of the earmarks of the genre leaving me in a bit of a quandary.

[Rayon Vert]

The World, the Flesh and the Devil (MacDougall 1959). (1st viewing) Nuclear apocalypse and racism bundled together definitely comes out as a social message overload. The latter angle which becomes the heart of the film is not handled too subtly, and at the same time you’ve got to give the movie some credit for almost heading into an interracial love affair (but man is that last minute of screen time a cop-out). The film still has interesting and likable bits - until the Mel Ferrer character shows up. He ruins it not only for the other characters but for the film and viewer. Such a primitive, hateful character, whose sex drive is a priority over restarting civilization, and who apparently does not give any value to the fact that his imagined rival saved his life in the first place. And yet the film somehow credits him as a basically “good guy”, and that awful ending seals that perspective.

It is a bit weird of course that we also never see anyone dead - it’s like they’ve been vaporized. This made me think of a better film, The Quiet Earth, in which a character also suddenly finds himself alone in the world. But that movie too gradually lost its appeal when other people showed up.


Miracle Mile (De Jarnatt 1988). (1st viewing) In a similar vein… (INCYDK) A guy in downtown L.A. picks up a call on a public pay phone and gets advance notice that nuclear war is going to launch in over an hour. This is such a wild ride. It starts off so unassumingly and innocently, and there’s a slight, darkly humorous vibe that persists along with the drama, the suspense and the unbelievably grim threat, not to mention the central romantic (almost rom-com) dimension. The film gets progressively more engrossing as it gets more daringly manic and plunges into more and more chaos. You’re never quite sure if it’s going to happen and

SpoilerShow

the fact that the film ends the way it does is really a disturbing shock given the hope we are allowed to have at some point that there has been a mistake, along with the way that ending completely subverts the typical romantic com-dram conventions. But the decision to end the film in such an uncompromising way gives it a shocking power.

The combination of all of those similar story elements and dissonant tones really evokes what Seeking a Friend for the End of the World later tries to achieve, but for me anyway this was a lot more effective.


X: The Man with the X-Ray Eyes (Corman 1963). (1st viewing) Pleasurable to see Milland here in a quasi-Dr. Frankenstein role, with genuine thirst for knowledge in lieu of egomaniacal ambition. The film exploits entertainingly the different situations to make the best of the premise, and it features a nice pre-psychedelic touch in the visuals, in a style similar to what Corman uses for the dream sequences his Poe films of the same period. It’s great fun just to watch the transformation of Dr. Xavier’s eyes as the film progresses, and that last scene is a genuine chiller!


District 9 (Blomkamp 2009). (1st viewing) A real mixed bag for me, in four up and down steps. ↑ The film establishes an original and provocative premise. ↓ The tone starts relying too heavily on the humor and the aliens are goofy-looking in a Star Wars kids’ film kind of way. ↑ The development of Wikus’ horrific predicament jump starts a darkly entertaining ride, for what is the best section of the film. ↓ The movie ends up losing itself in an overkill of big videogame war action, because of which at the end the needle unfortunately starts tipping into the negative side.


Event Horizon (Anderson 1997). (1st viewing) Well Sam Neill was well cast, because this was basically Dr. Grant turning into Damien Thorn. The film wasn’t very distinguished to begin with, even before it descends into a world of silly with the lord-of-chaos Solaris/Stargate hallucinations-and-black hole business. I’ll give it points for still being entertaining in a B-movie kid of way despite its dumbness, though. And it also anticipates some of the key plot elements of Ad Astra with the bit about rescuing a previously-assumed-to-have-disappeared horizon-busting ship orbiting around Neptune.


War for the Planet of the Apes (Reeves 2017). (1st viewing) Definitely a lot better than its predecessor, even if Dawn was about already war and this is just a continuation. There aren’t any bad notes here, and the visual realism of the apes seems to get better as these films progress, and close-ups especially can be quite remarkable. I don’t have anything to fault with this film and admire the craft, but viewing this confirmed how the first in the series stands as a really different kind of film. These last two are really war action films, quite depressing too at times, especially here - to the point that I sometimes wondered what was really the point or the source of the enjoyment. I think I just like the story and the kind of film that Rise is a lot more; it was a wildly original and engrossing rethinking of the original, and in terms of this list project is an overall better fit because of all of the more pronounced and more properly sci-fi aspects of the tale.

[therewillbeblus]

I never understood the fuss over District 9 either, though as you say, the process of involving us so acutely in Copley’s transformation was well-executed and makes the film almost work as an adrenaline rollercoaster of self-preservation. I haven’t seen it since theatres so I should probably reevaluate my position with another watch, but I remember Blomkamp trying to cover too much ground here in political allegory, which at the time didn’t gel in sharing the attention with raw ground-level beat-the-clock thriller and sci-fi world building.

[swo17]

1. Can the three World of Tomorrow entries perhaps be voted for as a single multi-part film?

2. What do people think about an experimental film like Takashi Ito's Spacy, which has no plot but feels very sci-fi, suggesting worlds within worlds within worlds?

3. Some other films worth considering that I haven't seen mentioned in the thread yet:

World on a Wire for some reason
L'inhumaine (Marcel L'Herbier, 1924)
Paris qui dort (René Clair, 1925)
The Man They Could Not Hang (Nick Grinde, 1939) - predicted open-heart surgery!
wonderful 1950s films like Robot Monster, Flight to Mars, The Head, The Brain That Wouldn't Die, The Incredible Shrinking Man, Teenagers from Outer Space, The Colossus of New York, The Hideous Sun Demon, etc. (where's HerrSchreck when we need him?)
The Heart of the World (Guy Maddin, 2000)
The Meaning of Life (Don Hertzfeldt, 2005)
Live Forever as You Are Now with Alan Resnick (2013)
Coincoin and the Extra-Humans (Bruno Dumont, 2018)
Koko-di koko-da (Johannes Nyholm, 2018)

[therewillbeblus]

Considering the three World of Tomorrow films are currently occupying back-to-back-to-back slots in the upper tier of my list, it would work to clear up some room- though I am curious to see which one comes out on top!

I totally forgot about World on a Wire (for some reason), but it's in the running for my favorite Fassbinder so on it goes. I didn't like Koko-di koko-da too much (plus even with the time-altering concept, it seems much more rooted in a far more brutal version of Twilight Zone dark fantasy), and The Meaning of Life probably won't cut it either, but Guy Maddin's The Heart of the World is a good pick, even if I'm not sure I'll have room for more than his excellent Brand Upon the Brain! (he has quite a few films that could qualify as sci-fi, if one were so inclined). Thanks for the other recs, I'll try to get to all of them before deadline.

[swo17]

I love Brand but don't really see it as sci-fi so much as a bunch of weird stuff that happens. (And I can't rewatch it at the moment because I already sold it in anticipation of an upgrade.)

[therewillbeblus]

I rewatched it for the horror project, thinking similarly that the amalgamation of weirdness would fall into an umbrella feeling of unsettling horror, and was surprised to come out of that viewing thinking of it as much more of a sci-fi film. Of course it is a collection of wild ideas, but the bizarre chaos leant itself well to the internal logic of the dreamiest science fiction.

I just watched Spacy, and it was awesome. Now I'm curious about other "arguably sci-fi" experimental cinema, if only as an excuse to find more experimental films to watch that I wouldn't find on my own otherwise.

[swo17]

That reminds me that I forgot to mention some of Peter Rose's recent 3D work. You would actually want to watch these on your phone through a pair of Google Cardboard glasses (which you can get on Amazon for $10). He does some really interesting things with 3D here, merging divergent worlds in vaguely sci-fi ways. A Sign of the Times and Dimensional Excursions (which is an excerpt from the hour-long Towards a Six-Dimensional Cinema) might best fit the bill for this list. Some of his earlier work probably fits thematically as well, though I can't think of which ones to recommend at the moment

[knives]

Hey, I had been trumpeting some of those fun’50s films earlier.

[swo17]

I must have glossed over that, thank you for your service

[Murdoch]

The Incredible Shrinking Man will be high on my list, if I can make it to 50. Currently struggling but hoping I'll get there.

[Mr Sausage]

I’ve never been a fan of The Incredible Shrinking Man. It’s so self-serious and pretentious that I never had any fun. I much prefer Dr. Cyclops. That’s a film that knew how to make the most of its shrinking premise. I’ll probably put it on my list.

[therewillbeblus]

I haven’t seen Dr. Cyclops so I’ll make sure to check it out before lists are due. I love The Incredible Shrinking Man though, partly because it serves so many functions, as the perfect laid back movie to watch while sick or tired, a love letter to imaginative play from childhood, and far more thematically perverse than it appears to be, in deflating the faux-stoicism of male psychology. My writeup from last year:

For a while this has been (unless I'm forgetting something) my favorite B Sci-Fi movie, and unquestionably the best of the subgenre of the unexpected consequences of science-fiction on mankind's physical abilities. This film is many things, and while its pleasures are sourced in the fantastical perspective-shifts to a micro-adventure, the sci-fi themes on ideological gender expectations are demonstrated quite well.

Most didactically, it’s a presentation of a complacent male’s emasculation in not being able to sustain his comfortable dominant status. The role-reversal that forces a destruction of established relationship dynamics, including those of stereotypical gender roles, is felt in the home, and his projections of anger on his wife as a result of impotence are verbally acknowledged as such in hindsight, much like the way we beat ourselves up for succumbing to our emotional reactivity after a spat. The most tragic insights come in smaller details though, such as when he finally meets a female dwarf and feels a moment of satisfaction and esteem at being taller than another living, breathing person significantly of the opposite sex, only to become shorter just two weeks later, escalate and run away. The need to just be physically taller than our romantic partners in heterosexual unions is exploited right there in a disturbing manner, because the agility by which his emotions flood his senses and he reacts with flight is reminiscent of our capacity to cope with stressors that target our fragile masculinity.

The actual adventure part has a dual function of competing tones, by emphasizing the horrors of an experience of submissive status yet also resembling a child’s wonderful imagination in playing with toys. I’m reminded of Fantastic Planet in this regard, of being stripped of power and surviving as a high-functioning being isolated from the rest of intellectual equals. However, that fun component is perfect fantasy, the special effects and setpieces emphasizing creative ideas for what and how we might navigate a new world in such an absurd position, and the narrative ultimately affirms our resilience to use our executive functioning skills for survival under even the most dire circumstances. After the indictment and anthropological horror exposure, we are afforded an opportunity to stress our adaptability and strength in facing the challenges we are most ill-prepared for.