Change Your Image
Beeblebrox
Reviews
GATTACA (1997)
Triumph of the Human Spirit
Gattaca is a return to the best of what science fiction is meant to be, a story of the human condition using a fictional world to distance the audience from the issues explored.
One difference in Gattaca is that the film exists in a very plausible world, perhaps a world we will see in twenty, thirty, or forty years in the near future. Genetic manipulation of the unborn is the common practice, to eliminate illnesses, malfunctions, and give the children chosen to survive the best possible advantages in a world where people are judged not by their accomplishments, finances, or status, but upon their very genetic code. Women steal cells from dates in anything from saliva left from a kiss to a stray hair, and genetically sequence their potential suitors to find everything from heart rate to IQ to estimated time of death.
In this world is born Vincent, an intelligent, sensitive young man with ambitions of working in the space program. Vincent is also a "God-child", a child born without genetic assistance with a heart condition and early death potential. Vincent's goal is entrance into Gattaca, an elite corps of space explorers that oddly looks more like a group of lawyers than astronauts.
Gattaca is more than a film about one man's attempt to beat the system. It is also a story of two halves of a man becoming a whole, body and soul, and in the end what they share is something that fuels the fires within many of us; the search for the unknown.
One of the most remarkable moments in the film is when the director of Gattaca is being questioned by a police investigator in a room where the employees of Gattaca are undergoing athletic tests on treadmills and other exercise equipment. The director mentions that now with modern genetic altering, he can expect perfect bodies with minds to match, and that his purpose in all of these tests, from the exercising to routine urine samples, is to make the employees of Gattaca meet their potential. "And if they exceed their potential?" "No one exceeds their potential," the director quickly retorts, "It merely means that we did not accurately judge their potential in the first place."
Are we the sum of our parts? There are many important questions raised in Gattaca, and every person who ponders what a strange creature man is should treat themselves to this film, an extraordinary debut from director/writer Andrew Niccol.
The Crimson Permanent Assurance (1983)
Full speed ahead Mr. Cohen!
CPA(I wonder if that was intentional?)leaves one quite daffy upon the first viewing. For those of you who may not be familiar with it, It is a short film at the beginning of Monty Python's The Meaning of Life. Pure Gilliam. He is one of the few people who can mix satire with lunacy in such festive films. If you like it, rent some of Gilliam's other accomplishments: Brazil, 12 Monkeys, and The Fisher King.
The Sweet Hereafter (1997)
Literary film excels in characterization. Possible spoilers
A tragedy changes the lives of a small Canadian town when a school bus full of children plummets into a lake, leaving only the driver and Nicole(Sarah Polley), a teenager alive. Mitchell Stephens(Ian Holm) descends onto the town to rally the bereaved parents to file a suit against the school district and bus manufacturer while dealing with the tragedy in his own life. As Mitchell digs, the pure(as newly fallen snow)image of the small town is blanketed with the soot of deception, abuse, and infidelity, as is Mitchell himself.
Atom Egoyan's directing skill is in its prime here, using a few classic shots and incorporating a few new ones. Ingeniously, the story of the aftermath of the accident is intertwined with the poem "The Pied Piper of Hamelin" by Robert Browning, which is used as a plot point and as a topic of discussion. Who is the piper? What did he(she) take away? Who did he(she) free? There are no easy answers, which is as it should be. As the trailer states, "The truth is only the beginning."
Highly reccomended film with an intelligent script, excellent direction, perfect pacing, great "Early music" score by Mychael Danna, and powerful performances by Ian Holm, Sarah Polley, and Bruce Greenwood(Billy Ansel). The DVD includes a great commentary by Egoyan and the author of the original novel, Russell Banks, as well as two trailers, Q&A with the cast, two documentaries, and the complete Robert Browning poem as an "ebook" extra. 9.5/10
The Crimson Permanent Assurance (1983)
Full speed ahead Mr. Cohen!
CPA(I wonder if that was intentional?)leaves one quite daffy upon the first viewing. For those of you who may not be familiar with it, It is a short film at the beginning of Monty Python's The Meaning of Life. Pure Gilliam. He is one of the few people who can mix satire with lunacy in such festive films. If you like it, rent some of Gilliam's other accomplishments: Brazil, 12 Monkeys, and The Fisher King.
The Simple Life of Noah Dearborn (1999)
A new plot from Mother Earth News
The best word I can think of to describe this movie is "nice." It is definitely not award winning material; even for a TV movie the plot is rather predictable, most of the talent is ho hum(Poitier does a nice job as the stoic Noah), etc. But, it is an enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours enjoying a simple story with your family and (for me) makes you think of how far some of our values have gotten off whack. That said, I think the movie is propaganda from Mother Earth News for self sufficient and back to the country living...my friends and I were joking about this for the first half hour of the movie, but we think the hypothesis was tested when the lawyer quit to start a vineyard. It was also nice to see on screen techniques of woodworking that have all but vanished in the "enlightened" 20th century. Like I said, nice.
The Blair Witch Project (1999)
A refute to the detractors. (possible spoilers)
Considering the comments of 90% of the comments on this site, this film has proven to be(for lack of a better word) powerful. There have been some criticisms that I think are unfounded, especially if you pay close attention to the dialogue.
"No real person would keep filming while going through what we saw on the screen." If the film itself did not address this issue, I would be inclined to agree. However, during one of the day shots Josh began repeatedly bothering Heather about why she was still filming. She replied that this(filming) is all I have left(to keep her sanity). Furthermore, when Josh goes behind the camera, he says something to the effect of, "you know, I can see why you keep filming. It's not quite reality through the viewfinder, you can trick yourself into thinking that it's not real." Heather was the only one I think who truly thought this way...she pretty much just bullied, nagged, and prodded the others into going along with her.
Another complaint was why didn't they use the stream or the sun to find their way out of the woods? Well, you could go for two arguments here. One, perhaps they were just too dumb or too scared to do it correctly. Which is fairly hard to swallow considering that following a compass' arrow isn't rocket science, but can be an argument nevertheless.(Perhaps Heather never read her bought copy of How to Stay Alive in the Woods) What I think happened is that the witch kept them where she wanted them. If this supposed supernatural being is real, I don't think confusing a group of lost students who are obviously out of their element would be that big of a deal.
It is not very difficult to tell who "got" the movie. It's not a question of academia, or film history, or even horror itself. The way the movie gets you is the involuntary empathy you are drawn into because of the immadiance which is achieved by only using footage shot by the actors from their cameras. Sure, many people hated the characters and found them annoying, but such is life. In the real world, not all are are likeable or sometimes even believable.
If you get a chance, read how the film was shot. It's an interesting story. Basically, the directors put the three into the woods with no script and two cameras and left them baskets with tiny portions of food and a few needed plot events. They told them, "you won't see us, but we will be watching. In the night we will mess with you. We won't hurt you, but we will try to scare the hell out of you." Did it work? I think so.
The film is full of gems. The humor, Heather's soliloquy, and of course, the end scene. Even using the black and white 16mm camera for the final shot gave it the crispness and utter dread that marks it as art that can only be fully appreciated if one pays careful attention to the initial interviews.
This film is more than a horror movie. It should be rated NC-17 not because of gore or porn(which there is none) but because of the utter frankness and reality that the film submits to the viewer. Children, the faint of heart, and those with mental or emotional stress should avoid this movie. Pardon the language, but the only succint way to describe this film is "It will f*ck you up." (stolen from one of the previous posts, would credit but don't have your name handy). I'm sure this is one of the best films I've ever seen, but I'm not sure if I ever want to see it again.