-
#10 – Kronos (1957)
Kronos (1957)
Film review #10
dir. Kurt Neumann
An old B-movie sci-fi from the 1950s. Kronos is not very well known, but has some interesting aspects to it.
When a strange asteroid is spotted in space, two scientists at Lab Central try to work out it’s origins. When it makes unnatural movements and deviations from it’s course, Dr Leslie Gaskell and Dr. Arnold Kulver suspect there may be something more to it. At the same time, a strange spark of light has taken possession of the Labs director: Dr. Hubbard Elliot. The asteroid continues on a collision course with Earth and panic spreads across North America, fearing it will crash onto a city. These fears are unfounded, when it crashes into the Pacific Ocean, near Mexico.
The scientists, along with Vera Hunter go to Mexico to investigate, and while they’re there, a strange construct appears. This “monster” (named Kronos by Gaskell, after the monster of Greek mythology), proceeds to march upon a power station to absorb it’s energy. Dr. Elliot is fighting the influence of the alien intelligence intermittently, and after Kronos absorbs the energy of a H-bomb, he regains control of himself to reveal the purpose of Kronos: To drain the planet of all it’s energy. In a race against time to stop Kronos from reaching the atomic weapons facility and its nearly unlimited energy, Leslie and Arnold engineer a plan to reverse the charge of Kronos’s energy convertors, effectively destroying itself.
The plot may seem a bit confusing, but it addresses issues such as energy consumption before many other films or TV series did. The science of the movie moves between factual and fictional rather seamlessly, making it hard to pinpoint where the real end science ends, and the fictional science begins. This, however, is probably a good thing for movies such as this, which are released onto a general public that really isn’t that clued in on science, namely the American movie-goers of the 1950s.
On that subject, the movie is very much an American movie. Movie staples such as the spinning newspapers aid the transition of science into the cinema mainstream. A sound move perhaps, since movies in the same genre from the 50’s, such as The Day The Earth Stood Still don’t rely much on the technical science, and generally put an alien or scientific spin on common human dramas, which is not the case for Kronos.
The main characters are very much the same as every other movie character at that time in America, with a little cowboy attitude, and the relationship between Leslie and Vera, which seems very normal, talking about going to the movie themselves, and frolicking on the beach. Perhaps this humanises the notion of what sort of person a scientist is, as their perception at this time would be of someone who develops weapons of mass destruction, rather than someone who furthers knowledge and understanding. The character of Dr. Arnold Kulver probably fits the traditional scientist model more so, with his glasses, and bow tie, and how he seems to have more of a relationship with the computer SUSIE than an actual woman. He plays more of a “sidekick” role, which fits with a lot of American drama at the time, putting the role of the “brainbox” as the assistant, and never as the star. Though Leslie is a scientist too, he rarely plays to the traditional convention of one like Arnold does.
Apparently, the entire movie was filmed in just two weeks. Which seems rather quick even for the 1950s. There is a lot of stock footage, and there are only a few actual locations/sets used, and the special effects are quite underwhelming. Lab Central has a very postmodern look to it, with its dome lighting and physic models, and a rather impressive looking computer called SUSIE (short for Synchro Unifying Sinometric Integrating Equitensor…sounds either very complex or just nonsense depending on your perspective). This computer may look rather grand and complex, but its function could probably be accomplished now using a computer about a tenth of its size. Back when it was produced though, when people had no concept of personal computers, this is what computers would have been recognised as: Large sets of blinking lights and switches that occupy entire rooms.
There’s a small religious reference in this movie. When the scientists go to Mexico, they stay with a man who (though he speaks entirely Mexican), is clearly religious, with a cross on the wall, and who kisses the cross on his neck when Kronos appears. It seems science-fiction movies from this era always find a way to shoehorn religion in their movies somewhere. Like The Day The Earth Stood Still as well, it addresses the danger of atomic weapons, though not in their destructive power, but how they feed Kronos to make it more powerful.
So while nothing particularly special in terms of production, Kronos offers a view of the perception of science in the 1950s. The plot is riddled with scientific jargon, and the plot requires some deduction since it isn’t explained until very late on. A disaster movie that is powered by, and eventually stopped by science.
-
#9 – The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)
The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951)
Film review #9
dir. Robert Wise
Classic sci-fi movie from the 1950’s. The plot is a classic sci-fi trope of the self-destructive nature of man and its far reaching consequences.
When an unidentified object is spotted in Earth’s atmosphere, people around the world rush to identify its origins. Like many movies where first contact is imagined, such as Contact or Close Encounters…people’s reactions to the unknown is one of fear and terror. When the alien lands, it is surrounded by military personnel and tanks. The alien is accompanied by his robot “Gort”, and is then (accidentally) shot, and it turns out he is very much human in appearance. As the movie progresses, the Alien injects his fresh perspective on some of the sights in Washington, and its inhabitants. He says he has a message for the people of the world…and a warning, which must be heard by all of the inhabitants of the planet…
The Day The Earth Stood Still takes a rather simple approach to representing aliens. The alien (Klaatu) is identical to humans in appearance, he even gets a check up in hospital which seems to confirm his physiology is similar to humans as well. Being able to learn our language through broadcasts is a feasible premise, though. It’s easy to look back at movies such as this (which was considered a big budget movie at the time) and criticise the interpretation of aliens and first contact, but they really set the benchmark for films of this kind, and were successful upon their initial release.
As with a number of other sci-fi movies that deal with the whole “first contact” situation, religion surprisingly makes an appearance again. The one line which stands out in this respect is when Klaatu is revived and is asked whether he has power over life and death, he replies: “that power is reserved to the Almighty Spirit.” Strange, ambiguous words from an alien. Apparently, this line was inserted because the MPAA thought Gort’s power over life and death to be too God-like, and an affront to religious beliefs.
What I didn’t pick up throughout the movie (and it seems not many do) is Klaatu’s similarities to Jesus. Arriving from the sky as a messenger…Powers to perform miracles…Even when he pretends to be human he adopts the name “carpenter” (The profession of Joseph, Jesus’s Father). The screenwriter figured these associations would be “subliminal”, but it seems very few people see them the first time watching the movie. Perhaps when you’re watching a sci-fi movie such as this, religious connotations aren’t exactly things you might expect to find…
The maths and science behind the story doesn’t add up in some places (This film was made before the first satellite was launched into space, let alone the first man), but the accuracy isn’t really the point of the movie, it is about the consequences of continued war and aggression on the planet, and how it could easily end in our untimely eradication. A stark message…and warning indeed.
-
#8 – Primer (2006)
Primer (2006)
Film review #8
dir. Shane Carruth
An independent film all about time travel. Two guys working on a range of bizarre inventions stumble upon the secret to manipulating time itself…
For an independent, low-budget movie, Primer should be noted for it’s very complex and technical plot. As each step in the development of this time travel experiment is discussed and laid out in the dialogue, it is obvious that there is a lot of technical thought that has been considered. Even when stepping into the scientific unknown of time travel, there is still a lot of technical background, which although works nicely within the context of the script, it may take scientific and mathematical liberties at some points, but with the sheer amount of technical information pouring out of the script, it is difficult to determine the real and fake science, which I would say work’s in the movie’s favour.
There is a real trash aesthetic throughout the film. Being an independent film about two guys working from their garage, this is probably what you should expect. The cobbled-together machines give no clue or framework for understanding what is going on, so it requires an attentive viewer to decipher how everything works.
As you can guess, it is pretty easy to get lost in this movie. If the techno-jargon doesn’t get you, the amount of different timelines that start piling up most certainly will. Just google search “primer timeline” and you’ll get a large number of graphs and charts which people have used to try and decipher the events of Primer. Interesting fact: I never heard the word “time” or “time travel” anywhere in the film.
If there is one clear message to take away from Primer, it is this: Time travel is messy. Just by doing one simple journey backwards in time throws up so many complications, and even with the precautions the main characters take to remove themselves from the continuum, everything still manages to pile up so much that they have to leave their old lives behind while another version of themselves goes on in their place.
It’s very much a Pandora’s box: Once you open it, you can’t really put it back. Perhaps the “time machine” (this definition is never used in the movie by the way) being in the shape of a box signifies this rather nicely.
So is it possible to answer the tag-line question: What happens if it actually works? Not in my opinion. What happens seems to be far out of the control of two guys working in their garage.
-
#7 – Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
Close Encounters Of The Third Kind (1977)
Film review #7
dir. Steven Spielberg
1977’s “other” sci-fi movie is the film of choice this week. The title of “other” is solely due to 1977 being the year that a little sci-fi movie called Star Wars was also released…
As in Contact, the film deals with the possibilities of first contact with extraterrestrials. In parallel to this, it also deals with the impact on the lives of people caught in the middle, having received a message from the aliens.
Imagining contact with aliens is imagined in many different ways, and in Close Encounters… it is probably the highlight of the film. The use of sound and light is quite spectacular, using bright beams of colour-coded light, and playing musical notes to communicate is something that would be a real possibility in the future should we ever have to communicate with aliens. The idea of mathematics being the only “universal language” is something that should be remembered. Combined with the use of sound, it really accentuates the relationship between music and mathematics.
The inclusion of a church/prayer scene just before the volunteers go aboard the UFO is of significance. Again, like Contact, religion and science mixing seems like a dangerous and messy thing to do, but if one is going to choose people to represent humanity to extraterrestrials, shouldn’t they represent the ~90% of people on the planet who believe in a religion?
Being a big budget movie by Steven Spielberg, the special effects and locations are grand in scale and don’t disappoint. The music being composed by John Williams as well is interesting, seeing as he composed the music for Star Wars the very same year. Two different science-fiction films produced two different soundtracks.
The main difference between Close Encounters… and films like Contact is the fact that Close Encounters… actually shows the aliens in the flesh. Rather controversial, since there is no way to imagine what aliens will look like…but the film is not a scientific simulation, it is a drama and a mystery, and perhaps having a resolution helps complete the story in a more traditional sense. The aliens are only seen with light shining from behind them, and subsequently darkening the features of the alien. It is important to note the short, skinny and silver figure of the alien is seemingly based on the various U.F.O. sightings and close encounters people have reported over the years, so it builds on the real-life accounts and takes them one step further.
There are still many questions at the end with regards to the aliens, how they got to Earth, what they are like etc. since the mothership only appears during the last 10 or so minutes. But since this a first contact situation, merely establishing a means of communication would be extensively difficult, and it would take a long time before meaningful dialogue would take place between two species. I think a line in the film sums it up perfectly:
“It’s like the first day of school…”
-
#5 – Dr. Strangelove (or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb)
Dr. Strangelove (Or: How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb) (1964)
Film review #5
Dir. Stanley Kubrick
A landmark film by 2001: A Space Odyssey producer Stanley Kubrick (Though Strangelove preceded it by five years), a strange mixture of dark comedy, farcical fiction and cold war commentary. Through a number of coincidences, paranoid predictions and false starts, everything builds up to the outbreak of all out nuclear war. The movie keeps you on edge though as to whether the whole situation will end in aversion or disaster.
I must say the film does a good job of switching gears a lot, from the army barracks where General Ripper has lost the plot, to the cockpit of a B-52 bomber, and the Pentagon war room (Modelled after the NATO conference room). The films most poignant message seems to be an anti-cold war one, and how one loose link or poor decision is all it would take to bring about a nuclear holocaust. There is no clear cut hero or villain in the movie, it would seem that everyone is just a victim of circumstance, caught up in a game of strategy (The “Game Theory” model maps itself pretty well to the era of cold-war politics, with everyone always trying to be one step ahead).
As with 2001: A Space Odyssey, Kubrick is trying to be as accurate as possible with regards to sets, design, and the script. The beginning of the movie states itself that the responses of the air force is depicted as accurately as possible if this situation were ever to arise. Indeed, every decision and tactical move is followed accurately according to policy or orders, and it’s little things such as mechanical failure or the Russian Premier being drunk that just seem to make the situation spin out of control.
So overall, a very serious political message understates this dark comedy, and the farcical nature of the script shows just how close humanity stood on the brink of nuclear annihilation. Accuracy was a crucial part of getting this message across, and the fact that this whole situation started because someone took communist propaganda way too seriously and thought the “Ruskies” were contaminating water and invading his bodily fluids shows just how dangerous the games of the cold war propaganda could be…
Also, I didn’t realise Peter Sellers was playing three different roles when I was watching. Talented man…
-
-
#4 – Metropolis (1927)
Metropolis (1927)
Film review #4
Dir. Fritz Lang
Widely regarded as the one of the most important science-fiction films, and most certainly one of the first. Metropolis is A silent German expressionist movie that tells the story of a dystopia that has a deep divide between the working class of the so-called “undercity”, and the upper class who live above ground. The sets and design of the city seems to be influenced by the artists movements of the time, such as modernism and futurism (This is true especially in terms of the cars). When this film was released in 1927, it should be noted that the world’s population had no real concept of technology and architecture on the scale that this film shows, so seeing it back then must have been a truly unique experience.
The film also delves into some religious iconography too. With numerous scenes taking place in abandoned cathedrals and catacombs, long since abandoned as obviously technology has overcome the idea of a God, and secured man’s triumphant victory over the notion of any deity. The ideas of the “mediator of the hand and head being the heart” is an interesting concept that is explored too., and perhaps serves as a warning about how much power we as a species should submit to technology, as it might not be worth the cost to our humanity…
The plot generally centres around the privileged son of the leader of “Metropolis”, and as we see him travel around the city, we see the differences in the classes is very apparent, and the upper and lower classes seem to lead completely different lives. For example, the Lower classes never see the sky as they live so far underground. The upper classes themselves are not taught about the lower classes, and their existence is barely acknowledged. But perhaps the most interesting difference to me is the concept that the working class do ten hour shifts and the clocks in the undercity only going up to ten was something I found pretty interesting: Different classes having different time structures…very intriguing. Perhaps you might think that the issue of class and division is something that has been addressed in cinema so many times it is nothing special, but you have to remember that Metropolis was one of the first films to address such concerns.
Metropolis was also one of the first films to utilise the concept of a human-like robot. This machine can copy a humans features exactly, and plays a key part in the plot of the movie. Just another example if the blurring of the boundaries between humans and technology.
If you think some of those images seem familiar, you may be right. The music video for Queen’s “Radio Ga Ga” uses footage from the film, and the singer Madonna’s song “Express Yourself” is written about this movie too.
So overall, I would highly recommend watching Metropolis if you have any interest in the history of science-fiction or cinema in general. It has a lot of firsts for cinema, and sets the benchmark for science-fiction story telling. Perhaps a two-and-a-half hour silent film is not everyone’s idea of a good movie, but what it accomplished at the time of release set itself apart from everything else, and no doubt has influenced cinema and science-fiction to this very day.
-
#3 – 2010: The Year we Make Contact
2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984)
Film review #3
Dir. Peter Hyams
The sequel to the classic 2001: A Space Odyssey. If you’re looking for more of the same artistic flare, you may be suprised.
2001 and 2010 are a bit like chalk and cheese, but both of them are equally enjoyable, just probably in different ways. While 2001 has a very artistic direction and production, touching on the notions of the sublime and the numinous with it’s ambitious set design and large budget, 2010 is a more traditional cinematic venture with more a more traditional script and soundtrack.
2010 elaborates more on the concepts introduced in 2001, one of the most fundamental parts of the story is the continuation of the Cold War between the United States and Russia, which was mentioned briefly (one line?) in the original movie becomes one of the main aspects of the story, with the U.S. and Russia on the verge of all out war. Being produced in 1984, when the Cold War was still ongoing, there was an obvious prediction that it would continue into 2001 and 2010 as depicted in their respective movies (Though the novels they were based on were published much earlier).
The sets in 2010 are much darker and murkier than the 2001 designs. Maybe this is due to the ship being mainly set on board a Soviet ship The Alexei Leonov). The controls and monitors of the ship are adorned with Russian letters and characters. When the film switches to the shots of the Discovery (The U.S. Ship) the white, sterile environments could not be any more different. The re-creation of the ship from 2001 is very accurate, though only a few sets of the original ship was recreated probably due to budget constraints.
The Discovery still looks more advanced than the Alexei Leonov, possibly because the Soviet ship is full of a lot of standard sci-fi set aesthetics, such as flashing buttons, and monitors with 80s computer graphics, which show their age when watched now (It’s pretty hard to be convinced that this ship could make it to Jupiter…), though the Discovery has aged much better, as it still looks futuristic and advanced, possibly because 2001 was produced to be as scientifically accurate as possible, whereas 2010 seems to take a few “scientific liberties” to up the action-drama element of the film.
I like that 2010 doesn’t answer all the questions 2001 raises, and where it does, it seems to answer them with more questions, for example, 2001 did not show any aliens on-screen on the advice of Carl Sagan, who famously said that aliens would look so different to us, that trying to create that one screen could never do the truth justice. In the end. HAL becomes a hero of sorts, David Bowman from the original appears, but his appearance seems to suggest he has become a higher life-form of sorts, and the monoliths, shown in the first movie to be somehow responsible for advances in the evolution of man, now makes another impact on the evolution of man, stopping the Cold War and heralding a new era for the Earth. Never explaining what the monoliths are, just what they are capable of. As well as this, new life is just beginning on Jupiter’s moon Europa, who may one day join with humanity the way the east and west have now joined together on Earth.
So overall, another interesting and enjoyable movie. Completely different genre to it’s predecessor, but still tells the story it begins well, and taking on the issues that were at the forefront of the agenda when it was produced. It does not try to emulate 2001’s groundbreaking style (Which would be a folly as far as I’m concerned), but tells it’s own story and leaves a poignant message about the mysteries of our universe.
Finally, should the title of the film be changed to The Year We Made Contact, now 2010 is in the past? Or should it still be make since making contact with aliens is still something we have yet to do? Hmm…
-
#2 – 2001: A Space Odyssey
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Film review #2
dir. Stanley Kubrick
Stanley Kubrick’s landmark film that really set the bar for set design and technical wizardry in the genre of science-fiction. Based on the short story by Arthur C.Clarke entitled “The Sentinel”, the film is split into four main sections. The first, entitled “The dawn of Man”, is set millions of years in the past, and follows a tribe of ape men, who stumble one of the mysterious black monoliths, and soon after figure out how to use tools and weapons. The next act is set en route to, and on the moon in the year 2001, where another monolith has been uncovered. It emits a signal which kills everyone at the site, which leads onto the third act, in which a crew (Lead by Dr. David Bowman) is tracing the signal the monolith sent to Jupiter. The final act entitled “Jupiter and beyond the infinite” is ambiguous as its title, with Bowman arriving at Jupiter, and encountering a large monolith which takes him on a journey far beyond human experience…
A lot of the images and scenes in 2001 have become culturally famous and recognisable outside of the film. The Discovery’s computer, HAL 9000 is one of the most recognised characters that is basically just a computer. The image of the monoliths is also one that has transcended its origins in the movie and is recognisable in other guises; reparring and being referenced in numerous TV show and such over the years. The “match-cut” of the skeletal bone to the space station which joins the first and second acts, as well as the final image of the fetus overlooking the Earth are also famous and recognisable scenes from the film.
Kubrick’s films are well known for their ambition and technical accuracy. The models of the spaceship and the accounts of artificial gravity were all carefully worked out and portrayed as accurately as possible. Since man had not even landed on the moon when this movie was released, I imagine there was a lot of guesswork done, based on mankind’s very limited experience in space. For the most part though, it seems to have aged extremely well with time, and these sets and technical props are futuristic, yet still have that sense of attainability. The only exception to this, is the obvious fact that 2001 has been and gone, and it looked nothing like what this film portrayed (For a start, the cold war ended twenty years ago), still, it could eventually happen a little in our future…
The use of sound and special effects has a very “artistic” direction in this film. The soundtrack is composed of a number of classical pieces, and accompanied by a lot of silence. Dialogue is also only used minimally throughout the movie. Because of this, it deviates from the traditional scripts of cinema being action-orientated, and 2001 develops along a very unique artistic direction, touching along aspects of the sublime and the numerous, especially during the final act. The special effects and design are well very well put together, so much so I think it would still look relevant if it were released today, as the movie as a whole has aged very well.
Overall, 2001 is a key movie in the development of science-fiction in cinema, and has a lot of cultural significance. On top of this, it is also a joy to watch. It is something one has to watch with an open mind, since comparing it to other films would be futile as it is truly a unique experience.A lot of the images and scenes in 2001 have become culturally famous and recognisable outside of the film. The Discovery’s computer, HAL 9000 is one of the most recognised characters that is basically just a computer. The image of the monoliths is also one that has transcended its origins in the movie and is recognisable in other guises as it is referenced across TV shows and other mediums. The “match-cut” of the skeletal bone to the space station which joins the first and second acts, as well as the final image of the fetus overlooking the Earth are also famous and recognisable scenes from the film.
-
#1 – Planet of the Vampires
Planet of the Vampires (1965)
Film review #1
Director: Mario Bava
A classic sci-fi movie which apparently was a large inspiration for future sci-fi movies such as Ridley Scott’s Alien (1980). The imagined ship designs and architecture is busy, yet plain: created with large angular panels of stainless steel and sequences of blinking lights and buttons. The lustre and sheen of the steel sets still belies a sense of darkness, which compliments the horror genre of the movie. Compare these to the set of the “alien” ship about halfway into the movie, where the architecture is very different, adorned with curved controls, lights and circular doors and hallways.
The designs and props are somewhat humourously cheap to look at today. The floor of the space ship looks like it’s made of concrete, so someone could not be bothered to conceal the studio floor no doubt. Also the guns are more like glorified lighters, with added sound effects when they are sparked to turn the flames that come out into lasers which never make any contact with anyone…
The twist at the end I saw coming. Throughout the film, the word “Earth” is never mentioned: Always “Home” or “our planet”, hinted subtly that the humans who crash land on the planet Aura aren’t actually from Earth, though at the end of the film, the aliens of Aura steal the humans bodies and cannot reach their unnamed home planet, instead having to stop at a “primitive” planet who still “build buildings out of stone and iron” (aka Earth)
The whole design screams 1960’s. The cheap sets, painted backdrops instead of on-location shots, the wooden acting and script (The voices were dubbed into English since it was originally made in Italian)…
As a final note, why is it called Planet of the Vampires anyway? THERE ARE NO VAMPIRES IN THE MOVIE. AT ALL. The antagonists are beings who steal the human’s bodies so they’re more like parasites. Planet of the Parasites would be more appropriate. I supposed it was originally made in Italian under the name Terrore Nello Spazio, Which I’m pretty sure does not have Vampires anywhere in the title…
