Movieguide and Source Code

Jake Gylenhaal and Michelle Monaghan. I'll let you guess
 who's who... But that set is so hokey...

If you have not seen Source Code yet and don't want the end of it ruined for you, then I'd suggest skipping this particular post. Its pretty spoilerific from the start. Sorry, but don't blame me, it's all movieguide's fault.

Still here? Then you have been warned and proceed at your own risk... The film is directed by Moon's Duncan Jones and stars Jake Gylenhaal as Captain Colter Stephens who is trying to stop a terrorist in Chicago, with Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga and Jeffrey Wright also appearing. Here is our favourite movie website's review for the aforementioned film. Also, notice the lack of spoiler warnings from them:

SOURCE CODE is an entertaining science fiction thriller (It is entertaining, yes. Well done!), where the viewer is taken into alternate universes (Already you're going into details about the end. You're only in the first fucking sentence for God's sake! And besides, it might not take you into alternate universes. It all rather depends on the individuals particular reading of the end). However, the terrorist villain turns out to be a white Southerner, so the movie is too politically correct. (What? Are you fucking kidding me? That's the only possible reason he could be white? Because its politically correct? I suppose you're right. White guys never do anything bad...)

Then it just goes off describing the story, let's cut back as they turn their attention to assessing the craft involved in the film itself:

As a typical mind bender, this science fiction thriller SOURCE CODE is both entertaining, and stimulating, especially, perhaps for sci-fi aficionados (That sentence had way too many commas...). As lovers of this genre would probably attest, one can go in a couple of directions to have fun with this genre. The choice for viewers here is to: 1) not look too deeply behind the curtain and enjoy the ride; or, 2) try to analyze every scientific premise and become bothered by the inevitable, obvious discrepancies that crop up. (To be honest though, the same choice appears with almost every film. They're never exactly like real life are they. Even documentaries are often 'sexed up' so to speak.)

The cast in SOURCE CODE does a good job. Michelle Monaghan as the innocent Christina is endearing and full of life. Vera Farmiga, who gave a very credible performance against George Clooney in the recent movie UP IN THE AIR, does a good job here as well portraying the mission driven, yet compassionate mission specialist, Goodwin. (See? You can make sensible points sometimes. Why do you have to ruin everything sensible you say by following it up with something stupid? Something stupid is, after all, almost certainly going to follow...)

The direction itself is not quite able to create the tension this type of script potentially could have provided (And there we are. I told you. For the record, every other critic I've seen review this film has said that Duncan Jones has done an excellent job and has real talent. A view with which I would concur). Also, the set design is hokey, at times resembling the set in a stage play rather than a design that seems realistic. (What? Which sets, precisely, are 'hokey'? There are only 3 major sets in the whole film. And one of them is a very train-looking train. Another just looks like an office, it being an office after all. The room where Gylenhaal is kept was perfectly acceptable, especially considering where he actually was.)

Most welcome, however, is that the filmmakers keep the obscene language down to almost negligible levels (You see, people don't write in swearing just to hurt you. Its generally because the characters in the movie need to swear to be believable. Here, it is not necessary, so it just doesn't appear. It wasn't a conscious effort I suspect.). In addition, although SOURCE CODE has a humanist worldview (Oh no! See us bloody humanists, eh? We are so craftily evil.), it clearly defines good from evil (Well, there's a bad guy and a good guy. But, then, there is the grey on the ethics of what is being/going to be done to Stephens which has seemingly slipped past you). On the other hand, it may be hard for viewers to avoid suspecting the movie tries to capitalize on a host of other recent productions, such as AVATAR and INCEPTION, not to mention GROUNDHOG DAY. So, writer Ben Ripley does not quite get an A for innovation here. (It takes absolutely fuck all from Avatar. For a start Source Code is good. And comparisons to Inception and Groundhog Day, whilst inevitable, are unfair and very lazy.)

Worse than that, however, the movie has a strong politically correct element (Not that politically correct. I, for example, didn't notice). [SPOILER ALERT] (Oh! Now you put up a spoiler warning! After you've already spoilt the ending. Well done. Fucktard), The terrorist villains turns out to be an All American white Southerner (Yes. You've said that. And then I got very angry. And am barely containing myself once more.). Also, some subtle political correctness infects the movie in some areas (Like what? Where?). Besides being obnoxious (So obnoxious I didn't notice it...), this also has the unintended effect of reducing SOURCE CODE’s credibility (Yeah. Because terrorists are always Muslims. I thought everyone knew that. Still, its nice to know that racism is still alive and well... Wait, no. It's horribly depressing.), while creating the perception that the story’s implausible moments may have been even greater than its questionable humanist science. (Questionable humanist science? Humanism and science are the future my friend. Not your outdated, unnecessary and just plain wrong Christianity.)

Finally, the movie’s underlying theme is the swapping from universe to universe. In the end, it gives the perception that, through science, humans can defeat death. (... In a way... ish... I suppose... maybe... But I really think you're reading too much into it now. And the characters will eventually die. So they haven't so much 'defeated' death as delay it. Which is something science allows humans to do everyday, through medicine. That's more than religion has ever done.)

All in all, therefore, despite some heroic moments where the protagonist is defending innocent people, MOVIEGUIDE® cannot recommend SOURCE CODE. (And I wouldn't recommend you to anybody.)

Well there we are. If a bunch of racists can't raise a smile, I don't know what can...

Blade Runner Pt.2

Oh God it's so dark. The real world isn't dark...
Image via seenax

Long-time readers may have noticed that I really rather like Sir Ridley Scott's sci-fi-noir masterpiece, Blade Runner. I know I've already done  a post on bad reviews for it, but I had left America's wells of stupidity untapped. But I shall rectify this oversight now!:

I've seen all the versions of this film and, for some reason, really want to like it (If you didn't like it the fist time, then why the fuck did you think any of the other editions would float your boat?). Unfortunately, most of the movie takes place in dark rooms, intended to symbolize, perhaps, a dark future but serves only to underscore the unreality of the film. Any real person going into any of the rooms in this film would open the drapes or turn on a light (Excuse me? All the rooms are dark because it is recall the black & white film of the 1940s/50s noir movies. It doesn't make it any less real. Surely if you're okay with the idea of replicants, you can suspend belief enough to cope with people leaving the lights off? And it's a post apocalyptic-y dystopia, so there might well be little electricity to use on excessive lighting. And it's almost always dark outside, so opening curtains really wouldn't do an awful lot...). It is like the technical director is about 14 years old. (Ironically, I was thinking the same about this review...)

And it is slow, possibly so that we don't miss the product placement. (There isn't that much product placement. And the film travels just as quickly as it needs to. I recommend you stick to Transformers and other Michael Bay movies in future)

I know this is supposed to be noirish, but noir films always clip right along (Actually, quite a few them take as much time to move along as this one. And it's not slow anyway, it merely takes its time). This drones along with a David Lynch obscurity (again, think 14 year old (You realise that David Lynch was not 14 when Eraserhead [his debut] was made don't you? Or are you trying to suggest that Lynch is juvenile? In which case I have four words for you: Elephant Man, and Blue Velvet.)). I think if I were stoned as I watched it I might think it was deep (It's actually pretty deep as it is. What could possibly be more deep than the questioning of humanity, and what makes a human, a human?). But, unfortunately, I wasn't, so I just wish they'd turn the lights on. (Leave the fucking lights alone!)

Here we have another stellar review:

I read that this was the greatest sci-fi movie ever made (It's probably not the greatest sci-fi movie ever, but that's primarily because of 2001: A Space Odyssey). I love sci-fi but this movie sucked (I hate to deal in absolutes, but if you don't appreciate this film in any way, then you clearly don't like sci-fi)! People say it has "intensely packed action" (Well there are  number of action scenes, and the movie is pretty intense, but I would question the overall phrase). It almost put me to sleep (Then more fool you). The themes could have made a good movie (They could have. And did.) but this is a disjointed mess (You're a disjointed fucking mess! Also, this film isn't). It takes place where the sun doesn't shine, literally, and it rains all the time (It's called film noir. It's quite a famous genre/movement. Look it up sometime). Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer do OK with the script they're given (They do very well with the very good script). The writing and directing are the problem (No they aren't. The direction in particular is an utter joy and comes very close to perfection). It's VERY SLOW! (It isn't bloody slow! It's well paced) Wanna buy my copy? (Nah, I've got my own thanks.) Total Recall and iRobot draw the good points from this movie. Get those instead! (Now, I really like both of those movies. But to put both of them ahead of Blade Runner is pure, grade A bullshit.)

Here's a little bonus, a review from back home in Britain that I missed last time around!:

Utter, utter, utter dross. (Yes. One of the greatest sci-fi films of all time is 'dross'.) One of the worst films I have ever seen (What have you seen? Just Citizen Kane, Casablanca and Seven Samurai? Cause among that company it would be the worst.), clearly only rated so highly by sci-fi nerds and people who want to appear retro cool. (Yes, only nerds and phoneys can like this film. That must be how it gets so praised by almost every professional critic...) The only interesting thing about this film was how you can see the influence it has clearly had on other sci-fi films such as Terminator and Minority Report. (Surely the fact that great filmmakers like James Cameron [well, he was great back then, anyway] and Steven Spielberg were influenced by it would suggest that perhaps you just don't get it. Possibly because you're a witless oaf.)

Well, I shall be back soon with more anger and hate towards the idiots of the world...

The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy

Now there's some sound advice. And in such friendly letters too...

A radio show broadcast in 1978 on BBC Radio 4, The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy was transferred to the written form by its original creator and writer, Douglas Adams. This book found even more fans than the radio show. Spawning 5 sequels, a TV series in the 80s and a film released in 2005, HHGTTG has become a cornerstone in both sci-fi and comedy writing. Sadly, not all people agree. Even more sadly, some people disagree badly...:

I guess I'm just old fashioned: But I prefer a good old SF classic based on a beleivable storyline: Like The Triffids (How is that 'believable'?) or The Trouble with Litchen or The Cephae (I understand that the author of The Trouble With Cephae shares the same surname and initial as the author of this review. Coincidence...?) or even Oryx and Crake. I had been recommended the Hitchhikers by several 'intelligent' friends (Are the inverted commas suggesting that, because they liked this book, they are no longer to be considered intelligent?) but after reading a couple of chapters I found that the story, like other fantasy (Sci-fi and fantasy are different. For example: Ringworld is SF, Lord of the Rings is fantasy), just did not hold my attention, so I dropped it into our local charity shop. Sorry Douglas, I tried, but this one's not for me. (You do realise that this book is a comedy right? A believable story is somewhat unnecessary for this book. Besides, it's not impossible that it could happen. Unlikely, sure, but not impossible. Please learn that humourous books need not be completely sensible. In fact, their lack of sensibleness is often why they are funny to start with...)

Here we have some American's views on this incredibly British book. This was never going to go well was it?:

I think that this book was one of the oddest I have ever read (Well, it's not a by-the-numbers thriller certainly). I really found no joy in reading it (God you're a depressing old cretin aren't you? No joy? You have issues mate) and didn1t see the point of the story line (What the fuck? If you're going to be like that, then what's the point in any storyline?). If I had known that this book was so absurd I wouldn1t have read it (Do you not have book reviews in America? Surely you could have checked this out before buying it?). While reading it I had to struggle to comprehend the characters1 bizarre surroundings and conflicts (It's not a tricky book to follow. It gets a bit more complicated in the sequels but this one is pretty straight forward). If I had to give this book a rating I1d give it one out of five stars (Well, you did have to because you decided to write this review didn't you.). I give it one star because there were some rare funny parts in the book (The pot plant had better be included in those 'rare funny parts' or I'm going to castrate you.). These parts really didn1t pertain to the book at all though. (Well they kind of did. And even the ones that seem unlinked are often referenced in the later novels in the series)

And here's another:

Not the kind of book to read if you are into thoughtful S.F like Frank Herbert or Asimov (I've never read Herbert, but I do very much like Asimov, so that's your argument derailed already...). The only good thing I can say the author is totally original (Well we agree here I suppose) and there is now way someone can figure the story line (Actually, I understood it fine when I first read it as a 13 year old...)(there isn't one (Actually there is a storyline. You may not feel it is a good one, but it definitely exists...)), every page is a surprise. (What does this mean? Is it bad that you couldn't tell what was going to happen next? Because that sounds good to me...)

And one more:

I do not understand why people love this book (Because it's funny and well written?). Or why they think it's funny (People have different ideas of funny you know. You don't have ultimate power over what is and is not funny...). It's just so boring (HHGTTG may be many things, but boring is not one of them). There's no plot, there's no character development, and the characters are one-dimensional anyway (Actually, while admittedly limited, there is character development, especially of Arthur. And the other charges are even more ridiculous.).

The entire story can be summed up in one sentence: The Earth is destroyed, and Arthur is saved by Ford Prefect, who is an alien researching Earth. (That's not the entire story. And anyway, almost anything is that simplistic when you boil it down to one sentence)

Woo, what an exciting plot. Honestly, I'd rather be on the Earth when it was destroyed than go on this boring adventure. (I can arrange for the bit of the Earth you're standing on to explode if you'd like...)

However, it's obviously a cult classic (Cult classic would suggest that its enjoyed by a small number of people, when in actual fact its enjoyed by most), and I guess it's just one of those books that everyone must read at least once in their lifetime. And finally I've been able to understand a lot of sayings and jokes that I've been hearing for all these years and not knowing where they came from. :) (As you're an Aussie, and I've just been listening to your team being hammered in the cricket, I can't resist but say - you got owned!)

Sorry, but I don't know any Aussies to mock, so I had to find someone...

Star Trek The Next Generation

 Data. An android. One of the coolest characters in TNG.
Image via Gunaxin

Being the rebel that I am, I'm doing things a little bit differently today. Yes, instead of choosing several reviews from one item, this post will have 4 reviews by the same reviewer, with all reviews for different seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Not only are this man's opinions ill-thought, but his facts are downright wrong. We shall start, predictably enough, with his review for season 1. It starts quite well, the end is a little shaky though:

I tried to like it I really did, but there are just too many dud episodes per season to be anything like consistant. (I'm sorry, but earlier in your review you said how much you loved The Original Series. If you think that they were consistent, and had fewer dud episodes then you obviously haven't seen them since you hit puberty. They're patchier than a badly mended Teddy Bear)

I am only buying it because they are such a good reduced price.

Nothing too bad you're no doubt thinking. And I'd agree. If it weren't for his next reviews, he would never have graced this blog with his presence. Here's season 2:

Well, after a totally lack-lustre first season (The why did you give it 3 stars? That suggests you felt it was average, not lack-lustre), I would really like to say that the second season is a fantastic improvement.

I would really like to, but unfortunately I just cannot. (Oh I bet you could)

In truth, season two is no better than the first, in at least one aspect it is actually worse. (Ooh! I am on tenterhooks at the edge of my seat!)

I just cannot get emotionally engaged by the shallow cyphers that pass as main characters on this series (They're not entirely shallow, they all get developed as the series goes on. Maybe you just have that thing where you can't form emotional attachments, like Dexter from Dexter...). There is the London girl doing that monumentally awful east European accent asking everyone how they feel about things (She's a councillor, that's pretty much her job. And her accent isn't that awful), a Klingon that is about as amped up (judging by the movie Klingons) as a flat battery (He was raised by humans, give poor Worf a chance to develop you prick!), a blind bridge officer that steers the ship (yes folks, a blind man has his hands on the steering wheel :0 ! (Xenophobic much? And he has a VISOR so he can 'see'. Meaning he's just as qualified as anyone else)), then there's the gay robot (Homophobic much? And he's not gay. Where the fuck did you get that from? You must have looked pretty hard), humour that is so forced it is cringe inducing (Nope, never really noticed that either. But then, maybe I'm wrong. But, then, I'm never worng...) and an Executive Officer that does not know what to do with his hands and walks like John Wayne! (What? Seriously, where the fuck are you getting all of this?) And who can forget the, by now, infuriating and brain cruchingly stupid..."We have a major - and in all likelyhood potentially FATAL - situation, so what shall we do about it? I know, let's all leave the bridge and have a good long chat about things in our special 'Sit Down And Talk About Things Alot' room at the back of the ship" (Yes. Because running round like a headless chicken is really going to help.)

Please! 

And, good grief, even by this second season...they were already having money problems??! How could that have happened, at $1 million per episode? But it surely did because the final episode of this season, the one that is normally the cliff-hanger, and is designed to make you want to watch the next season..? 

A 42 minute cut-together of flash-backs, taken from previous episodes. When a show does this it is usually a sign that all is not well and that corners have been cut cost-wise. (Now, here is where the quality of his research really pays off... Actually, there was a writer's strike that cut the season short. They desperately needed another episode, so the producers quickly made this because it required very little fresh writing. All makes perfect sense)

I really expected this to be the final season. (Well, then you're a fool.)

The stupidity continues:

Well, season three of Next Gen is the series where it really began to reach some of the potential that it supposedly had. (Still given 3 stars though...)

Hang on a minute...it took how long to actually get to the good episodes? (Encounter at Farpoint was good. And that was the pilot...) Three seasons? If this had been any other TV SF series it would have been canned after 1 season, never mind three (Except others felt it was good. It had its share of poor episodes, yes, but far fewer than TOS ever did. And it was drawing in more than enough viewers). $1 million per episode and it didn't hit its stride until its third season in? (Quite a few series take a while to really get good. It's not unusual)

Scandalous. Paramount were clearly under huge pressure to a) prove that 'new' TREK was superior to classic TREK (Mission accomplished already then) b) keep a flagship SF show on the air to compete with the fact that BABYLON 5 was gaining year-for-year in the ratings. (Compete with Babylon 5? Babylon 5 didn't have its pilot till 1993, 3 years after season 3 of TNG finished! The actual series didn't begin until 1994. Could the producers of Trek see into the future or something? Fucktard.)

In a climate that dictates that some shows do not even get passed 6 episodes before they have the plugged pulled and a mid-season replacement is brought into production...three seasons is a crime that should never have happened. (Are you a writer/producer whose SF show didn't last a season by any chance?)

That said, Patrick Stewart and Jonathan Frakes continue to be the best thing about NEXT GEN (Well, there's a back-handed compliment if ever there was one). It sure as hell is not the effeminate 'droid (Leave Data alone! He's far cooler than you ever will be. And he is widely regarded to be an excellent character. His desire to be human was one of the series' greatest arcs), the wobbley accented counsellor, the pointless night club (sorry, staff canteen) generally poor stories, horrendous acting and tortuously contrived humour. 

It does, however, have one of the best season finales ever made (At last, we agree about something!). Sadly the fantastic "Best Of Both Worlds" Part One is not just great enough to carry a whole season. (It's a good thing it didn't have to then...)

And finally, season 4:

Well they certainly took long enough to get here but there are a fair number of pretty good episodes in this season (This season also gets 3 stars. Do you think he knows that there are more ratings?). I think they seriously stopped trying to compete with BABYLON 5 by going for more than 3 seasons, BABYLON 5 being the first space-based US TV show to do so. (Seriously now. What the fuck? Where are you getting this information? The Idiot's Guide To Being An Idiot? All of that is wrong. I mean ALL of it.) 

Picture quality did improve too in this season, I am not entirely sure why as this is as they were still using the "shoot it on film and then edit it on video" technique adopted by many TV shows of the time. (Maybe the video got better)

Audio also switched to Dolby Pro-Logic (which has stereo left+Right Centre and Surrounds), rather than just bog standard surround (Stereo Left+Right and Surrounds) to give clearer sound and the FX were taken over by FOUNDATION IMAGING - the company that had done the revolutionary BABYLON 5 FX for the first three years of that show - and done in CG rather than actual models. (Nope. IF did do Babylon 5 seasons 1-3, but they would never do TNG. They did DS9 from the season 5 finale onwards, and Voyager from season 3)

A slight improvement over the first three years, but still certainly not brilliant and certainly not as good as many people claim, nor as good as it should have been. (Oh piss off will you. You're reviews have almost as many holes in them as the Bible)

Sorry to have made such a long post, but I was determined to mock this man as much as possible... Till next time gentle readers!

Blade Runner

Where are the blades? Image: Videopia

Here is a review of the legendary and highly influential Blade Runner. Be warned, there spoilers are up ahead:

This film I thought was slow and unintresting uninteresting (At least you realise this is just your opinion), the premise of the story is (Oh dear, well it was good while it lasted) non-engaging and unintresting uninteresting (No, in your opinion it is non-engaging and uninteresting, that doesn't make it fact). I found no empathy with felt no empathy for Deckard(Ford)or the other replicant (The point is that you're not sure if Deckard is a replicant. If you cared enough to notice/research that he might be a replicant, surely you must like the film at least a little bit), which I've forgotten her name cos it's not important(Young) (Her name's Rachael. And it is quite important. She's a central character after all. Her fabricated memories are crucial to the Deckard's a replicant argument, but his love for her could mean he his human. Obviously, all of this went sailing over your head though) or any of the replicants (Well the replicants are murderers, so that's not unusual) I fell asleep twice watching it (And yet you wonder why you felt no empathy for the characters? Maybe you missed much of their development. Besides that, though, why the fuck are you reviewing a film you missed much of? Fool). The cinematography and special effects are good but I don't want to watch a film called Blade Runner for the Cinematography (Why not? Where you expecting Harrison Ford to be literally running on blades? Or are you a snob who feels that anything sci-fi is immediately trash?). The story is the important thing (It's a good thing that the story is strong with more layers than an onion, then). I understand it's supposed to be similar to a science fiction, film noir/detective story (It isn't 'similar' to these, it is science fiction, film noir and a detective story), but there is no mystery to solve (Not all noir's and detective stories are whodunnits you know. And besides, there is. The mystery is wether Deckard is, or is not, a replicant) and it doesn't move it is too slow. (This, I feel duty-bound to point out, is your opinion. Not fact)

And here we go again:

As the other reviews are all in awe of this film and would marry it if it were a woman (There's no need to be offensive to your betters), for non-cult following types it is not a must see or buy film (It is a must-see film for anyone who is interested in films in general. Most sci-fi films that have come after owe much to Blade Runner. As do many other films), it is a film for science fiction geeks not for people who want to be entertained for 2 hours (Maybe it's just not for you? You can't presume that someone who is not a 'geek' will not like this film. In fact I know people who ate sci-fi who love this film). The film is too contrived (How? And where did you explain this in the main body of the review. You can't just mention it in passing and expect people to just take your word for it) and the package is too much (Then why, for God's sake, did you buy the 5-disc set with all of the versions in?). For a fan yes buy it (Well that's who the 5-disc box was aimed at, not people who hate the thing) but do not buy this version if you just want to see the film, buy or rent the "director's cut". (Or the superior Final Cut)

I hate people...