|
|
|
Bill Shatner Reviews “Spaceballs”
|
Although many considered it too little, too late from Brooks
upon its 1987 theatrical release (Brooks’ prior home run dated back to
1974), home video erases such pretensions of topicality. (Besides, did
anyone complain that Young Frankenstien took dead aim at a series of
movies from 30 years prior?) Actually, Spaceballs is weirdly effective as
a distillation of the entire Star Wars trilogy plot: Luke Skywalker and
Han Solo become one character, Lone Starr (Bill Pullman, a more game actor
than he’s often given credit for); he is accompanied by Barf (John Candy),
a talking variation on a wookie, and they rescue Princess Vespa (Daphne
Zuniga) from Dark Helmet (Rick Moranis). Ewok and Jawa DNA is combined to
form the chattering, helpful “dinks,” and Brooks himself provides some
Yoda with a smattering of Obi-Wan as the sage Yogurt.
If some of the jokes are a little cornball and eighties-bound —
would any other decade allow a cameo from funny noises guru Michael
Winslow? — others are gloriously meta, with extended riffs on a variety
of Spaceballs merchandise including, ominously, Spaceballs: The Video,
which the bad guys actually plop into their high-tech video monitors to
keep the story straight. Star Wars is the easy-target framework, but some
of the best bits are throwaway riffs on other sci-fi classics like Alien
and Planet of the Apes. Brooks displays a canny feel for the
Zucker-Abrams-Zucker style of movie parodies, never going in for the
overkill like overly referential offshoots like Jane Austen’s Mafia! (or
Shrek, for that matter).
The cast isn’t full of Brooks regulars like Gene Wilder, Zero
Mostel, or Madeline Kahn, but Pullman, Candy, and Moranis slip into the
shticky rhythms nicely, all doing some of their best comic work. It may
sound like faint praise to say that the film’s mock-swashbuckling plays
well to kids, offering the twin pleasures of (a) sci-fi adventure and (b)
goofy jokes on sci-fi adventure. But the comedy in Spaceballs, at its
best, plays like the action in Star Wars, awakening a sense of pure
enjoyment of movies — the kinds of movies you once enjoyed and are
secretly hoping to enjoy again.
So what’s present here, and not in much of Brooks’s work that
followed, is a real sense of joy: It may have been released four years after
Return of the Jedi, but no one had mounted a full-length Star Wars parody
before, and everyone involved seems jazzed for the task. It’s not the best or
most original Brooks film, then, but it may be the most fun.
Ball geeks can love up the new Special Edition DVD, with two discs
of absurdity, Brooks style, to love. Among the copious extras are commentary
from Brooks, outtakes, a trivia game, storyboards, and a tribute to the late
John Candy.
|
|
Bill Shatner Reviews “Brazil”
|
Sam Lowry (Jonathan Pryce) is a civil servant Dilbert at the
Ministry of Information. He’s a low-level office grunt typing his way
through a lifetime of meaningless papers in a retro-future totalitarian
state. His one escape from his dreary life is his dreams. Bursting with
vivid colors, Sam’s visions see him with armored wings rising into the
bright sky above the cold city. There, in the firmament, Sam battles with
Darkness to free a blonde beauty (Kim Greist) imprisoned in a floating
cage.
Unfortunately, there are no happy endings for dreamers in this alternate world.
Sam always awakens to his mind-numbing existence, only plugging away in a
system that rewards only blandness, appeasing his socialite mother (addicted to
face lifts) whose only wish is to see her meek son move his way up a corporate
ladder to nowhere.
When Sam’s AC starts acting up he calls Central Services and
instead of receiving the regular plodding service, is surprised to find a
renegade handyman Harry Tuttle (Robert De Niro) at his door. Not only does
Tuttle repair things without forms, he’s a full-blooded anarchist and he
leads Sam into a paranoid world quivering behind the state’s facade of
normality. This is a world where dreams can come true, if only you’re
willing to question reality.
Terry Gilliam’s career has always been marked by a delightful sense
of absurdity as well as an eye – most likely honed as an animator – for the
weird. Sometimes he plays it up big — Time Bandits, The Adventures of Baron
Munchausen, The Fisher King — and other times… well, actually Gilliam always
plays it up big. And Brazil is his surrealist manifesto: Art deco swirls in
concrete, fetishistic military gear and top hats, it’s a pop culture cartoon
explosion wrapped over an epic tale of the everyman. Thankfully, Gilliam and
co-screenwriters Charles McKeown (Time Bandits) and Tom Stoppard (himself no
stranger to weirdness) don’t let this Theatre of the Absurd run rampant over
the plot – it’s surprisingly consistent and emotionally charged. Funny,
scary, sublime.
And, as many critics have noted, it’s frighteningly prophetic. In
1985 audiences scoffed at the idea of terrorists infiltrating the government
and waging war on corporate interests. A police state literally “sacking?
people and holding them indefinitely in a secret prison where they are
tortured? Not possible. A world where technology has overwhelmed us? Where
privacy is only a word? You must be kidding.
Visionary? Timeless? Indulgent? Call it what you will, Brazil had
its fingers firmly on the pulse of world culture and the erratic beat
telegraphed The End long before the War on Terror. Easy to say, Brazil isn’t
so much a movie as it is a movement. Harry Tuttles of the world rise up!
The three-disc DVD Criterion Edition of the film is one for the
vaults. At its center is a documentary by film critic Jack Mathews, which
goes into all the painful and gory details Terry Gilliam undertook to get
Brazil through a studio system that just didn’t understand it. Gilliam wanted
his 142-minute version, the studio wanted its 94 minute version. The two
films are as different as two from Corman and Disney, with radically
different themes, structures, and of course, quality. And you can watch them
both, Gilliam’s original cut with his own commentary, the so-called “Love
Conquers All” version with “Gilliam expert’ David Morgan lending an academic
tone to the proceedings. Fascinating–even though you’re likely to watch that
third disc once and once only.
Criterion has also just released a new single-disc DVD, which
includes just the “final cut” version of the film and a commentary track, if
the big boxed set is too rich for your blood.
|
|
Bill Shatner Takes a Look at “The Lathe of
Heaven”
|
The wait is over: Ursula K. Le Guin’s eponymous Sci-Fi novel,
The Lathe of Heaven, is finally available on DVD! Lathe of Heaven features
a truly original plot, about a man whose dreams can reshape reality and
how man tries to harness this power - with good intentions and disastrous
results. The Lathe of Heaven has been praised as “rare and powerful” by
the New York Times and is one of the most outstanding science fiction
films that hasn’t yet become a household name. (By the way, there was a
re-make with James Caan in 2002, but the original Lathe of Heaven is far
superior and is the film being reviewed here and offered by the Shatner
DVD Club.)
For those unfamiliar with the book, The Lathe of Heaven takes place
in Portland, Oregon in the year 2002. Its main character, a simple, middle
class man named George Orr (Bruce Davison, who’s been in X-Men, Six Degrees
of Separation, Crimes of Passion), is haunted by ‘effective dreaming,’ where
his dreams literally come true.
In the beginning of the movie, a 30-year old George has been handed
a court order to attend psychiatric therapy following an accidental overdose
on prescription drugs. He comes into contact with oneirologist Dr. Bill Haber
(Kevin Conway, who also played Kahless the Unforgettable in “Star Trek: The
Next Generation”), a specialist in sleep disorders and dreams.
In a blighted world where the polar ice caps have been destroyed by
pollution and plagues rampantly rage unchecked, Dr. Haber comes to understand
Orr’s power as a way for humanity to find an escape from what is an
increasingly grim fate. As each attempt to control Orr’s dreams ends in
failure, the psychiatrist’s obsession with playing God grows more
powerful.
At first, Haber’s experimentation with George’s unique ability is
limited in scope, such as changing a picture hanging on the wall. With each
session though, Haber becomes more ambitious as he directs George to dream of
a Portland where the sun is always shining, which results in the new
post-dream reality. George comes to realize that he is being used instead of
being cured, and tries to switch therapists. He is stymied at every turn when
dealing with the state bureaucracy of the future, and even the lawyer he
hires, Heather LeLache, seems incapable of stopping Haber’s ‘treatments.’
George is directed to dream away monumental human problems, such as
overpopulation, war, and racism, as Haber becomes even more daring in the use
of George’s abilities. Unfortunately, Haber’s attempts to fix the world do
not go as planned, necessitating further sessions of ‘effective dreaming’ to
solve the quandaries brought on by the previous dream sessions.
Haber becomes intoxicated by the potential for George’s ability to
serve as a quick cure for the myriad problems that plague the world. Despite
his good intentions, he quickly learns that there are severe, unforeseen
consequences for each great leap forward. When he cures Portland of its rain
problem, it creates a drought and the need for strict water rationing for
surrounding population. When he uses George’s dreams to resolve
overpopulation, he unleashes a plague that inadvertently pushes the nations
of the world closer to war. Haber, of course, refuses to believe that the
unintended effects are his own doing, and deflects the blame onto George’s
shoulders; his rationale being that the choice to cure the world’s suffering
is sound, it is just the manner in which the cure is executed that is
creating the problem.
The Lathe of Heaven is a mere reflection of the human condition,
allowing us to see ourselves from a different perspective. Like all good
science fiction, this film shows us how the cycle of human history continues
to be littered with individuals and societies whose good intentions and
desire for easy solutions have unleashed unexpected ’side effects’, often
with dire consequences. Nuclear weapons, strip mining, chemical fertilizers,
and in our recent past, the institution of slavery, are examples of ‘quick
fixes’ that have had unintended social, political, economic, and ecological
impacts.
Le Guin has exaggerated the ability of man to reshape his
environment in her eponymous book, yet the underlying principle still remains
the same–we must temper our desire to play God.
It is one of the few great works of Science Fiction that stands the
test of time; this alarming tale of power uncontrolled and uncontrollable
holds as true for our past as it does for our future.
|
|
Bill Shatner Looks At “Lady in the Water”
|
“Lady in the Water” is prefaced by a caption that reads: “To my
daughters, I will tell you this story one last time, then go to sleep.” M.
Night Shyamalan originally conceived the premise of his new film as a bedtime
tale for his own children, creating a story that dances between worlds.
This film transports us between an everyday apartment complex, the Cove,
and the underwater, tunneled lair, where our mystery “Story” comes
from.
A modest building manager named Cleveland Heep (Paul Giamatti)
rescues a mysterious young woman (Bryce Dallas Howard) named Story from
danger, who has been living in the passageways beneath the building’s
swimming pool. Cleveland discovers Story is actually a narf, a nymph-like
character from an epic bedtime story who is being stalked by vicious
creatures, determined to block her from making the treacherous journey from
our world back to hers.
Story’s special powers of perception uncover the fates of
Cleveland’s fellow tenants, whose fortunes are tied directly to her own, and
they must work with one another to divine the meaning of a series of codes
that will open the pathway to Story’s freedom. The window of opportunity for
Story to get back home is closing quickly, and the tenants of the Cove are
putting their own lives at great risk to help her.
Cleveland and his fellow tenants start to realize that they are also
characters in this world-twisting bedtime story, and have been imbued with
special powers by Story. As Cleveland falls deeper and deeper for Story, he
works together with the tenants to protect his new fragile friend from the
ferocious creatures that reside in this tale and are determined to stop her
from returning to her home.
“Lady in the Water" has a unique premise; it’s as much a movie about
reconnecting with our childhood as it is about otherworldly creatures. The
performances are top-notch, with another score for Giamatti, and impressive
turns by Howard, Sarita Choudhury and Jeffrey Wright, among others. I’ve
liked many of M.Night Shyamalan’s movies in the past, (especially 6th Sense),
and think that this film will be an interesting addition to his body of work,
injecting it with a twist: that this movie doesn’t rely on the last minute
plot twist! Since the power of this story relies on mystery I don’t want to
give too much away because Sci-Fi and Fantasy fans will want to see this
film.
|
|
Bill Shatner Reviews: “A Clockwork
Orange”
|
Kubrick was a beatnik poet. His work was plagued with
metaphors, and the disease of hidden meaning was always turned to his
advantage. In 2001: A Space Odyssey, he had almost a precognisance
about the worry of the future that the millennium has exhibited so
well for us. In The Shining, he taught us that, to a degree, all fear
came from oneself. In Full Metal Jacket, he said that war was the
ultimate destructor of the psyche. In Eyes Wide Shut, his final opus,
he told us that love, handled like revenge, can only have destructive
consequences. The message, for those of you people who were not able
to discern it past the violence in A Clockwork Orange, was the same of
the Hindu construct known as Karma: what goes around, comes
around.
A Clockwork Orange tells the bittersweetly ironic tale of sociopath Alex
DeLarge (MacDowell) who lives for two things: Beethoven’s 9th and what he
calls “the old ultraviolence.” The film opens with one of the strangest
sequences ever captured: the beating of an infirm to the tune of “Singing
in the Rain.” From there on in, it only gets both odder and more
schizophrenic.
When Alex is caught for murdering a phallus-obsessed rich
eccentric with a large porcelain penis (take that, Freud!), he is shipped
off to a British penitentiary where be becomes the subject of an
experimental program of conditioning designed to make him “a clockwork
orange”… someone who is incapable of doing harm unto anyone.
As he is released from the prison, karma begins to take effect. The infirm from
the beginning attacks him. He is rescued by two police officers who were former
cohorts that he double-crossed, and, in turn, they beat him and leave him by
the side of the road. Beaten and nearly blinded, he wanders along the road…
only to find himself at the house of a woman that he raped. The woman has died,
but the husband is incredibly bitter and locks him in a room… to listen to
Beethoven’s 9th (which he cannot stand as a side effect of the
conditioning).
|
|
Bill Shatner Reviews “The Manchurian Candidate”
DVD
|
I’m a huge fan of the original Manchurian Candidate, so naturally I
approached Jonathan Demme’s redo with some amount of trepidation.
With a heavy sigh of relief I’m happy to report that Demme’s done
right by the original. Demme takes the best of the 1962 movie, updates it
appropriately for the corporate power-trip of the 2000s, and puts some
spin into the plot, so even if you watched the original on DVD last week,
you still won’t be able to guess how this one will end.
For those unfortunates unfamiliar with the original, here’s the
story: Years after the Korean War, Bennett Marco (Frank Sinatra) finds
himself haunted by strange nightmares about one of his army buddies,
Raymond Shaw (Laurence Harvey). Meanwhile, Shaw’s mother (Angela Lansbury)
is masterminding his stepfather’s vice-presidency bid, a simple homage to
McCarthy’s communist witch hunt. As the film develops, we learn that Shaw
has been reprogrammed somehow – show him the queen of diamonds in a card
deck and he’ll do anything you say, even murder the presidential candidate
so stepdad can take his spot.
Heavy stuff. The new Manchurian does it just as well. Here’s the
new spin: In 2008, Gulf War veteran Ben Marco (Denzel Washington) is a
nervous wreck, plagued by nightmares about his army buddy Raymond Shaw
(Liev Schreiber). Shaw is an up-and-coming politician, just like his
mother (Meryl Streep), who’s pushing her son for the VP slot in the
upcoming election. (So this time around Shaw actually is the titular
“Manchurian? candidate, not his father – a common misunderstanding about
the first film.
|
|
William Shatner Reviews - THX1138
|
George Lucas’s most grown-up piece of work is, oddly enough,
his first feature from 1971, the instant classic of dystopic angst, THX
1138, inaugurating a steady reversal of artistic maturity that would
culminate in the cartoonish Star Wars sequels; which is maybe where he
wanted to end up all along.
An angry, idealistic film that draws more from the Huxley/Orwell side of
science-fiction than the Buck Rogers-style space operas that Lucas would later
be associated with, THX 1138 is an impassioned howl against the dehumanization
of modern society. The film presents a futuristic scenario in which all humans
are tagged, numbered and drugged, shuffling along down corridors in a
labyrinthine underground city, shaven-headed automatons who exist only to work
and consume. Robert Duvall plays the eponymous hero, a worker who, like all
protagonists in such tales, is starting to feel as though something is wrong in
this putatively perfect world. He can’t concentrate at his job and is starting
to feel a strange attraction to his roommate, LUH 3417 (Maggie McOmie), even
though all nonregulated sexual activity appears to be illegal. The pressure of
the state is brought to bear after THX stops his mandatory pill-popping
(resulting in “prosecution for criminal drug evasion”?) and another worker, SEN
5241 (Donald Pleasence) tries to come between THX and LUH, he has to make a
break for freedom.
Lucas based this film on his student short Electronic Labyrinth THX 1138 4EB,
basically the same story, only at 17 minutes long and dialogue-free.
Fortunately, though, instead of blowing up an abstracted concept into a
standard A-B-C sort of script – in the way that 12 Monkeys did with La Jetée –
Lucas essentially made a longer version of that short. The resulting film is a
fractured tone poem of white-on-white sets, intercut with the omnipresent
surveillance footage, and a patchwork drone of overlapping radio communications
(spliced together by master editor Walter Murch) in which what little dialogue
exists is practically beside the point. As these are people who have been
drugged into somnolescence since childhood it makes sense that they are less
than eloquent, leaving Lucas to concentrate on the machinery that enslaves
them.
|
|
Bill Shatner Reviews “Ghost in the Shell 2:
Innocence”
|
Mamoru Oshii’s amine sequel is more a philosophical meditation
than the noirish detective story that provides the action. Illusion and
creative vision pervade the animator’s world of 2032 as Investigator
Batou, a mountainous cyborg with a brain that’s part Plato, part
Terminator, goes from gunning down a warren of criminal Yakuza to
repeating cloudy quotations: “No matter how far a jackass travels, it
won’t come back as a horse.”
Batou is assigned by the government’s covert anti-terrorist unit, Public
Security Section 9, to investigate the “death” of a gynoid, a hyper-realistic
female robot designed as a very cute sexual companion to a willing male. But
the machines are becoming erratic, and the gynoids have begun to slaughter
their owners. Do we have your attention, yet?
Batou, a solitary, intense type, is partnered with Togusa, an
all-too-human compadre with a wife and daughter to consider when the bullets
and bombs start flying. Atsuko Tanaka is reprised from the original Ghost in
the Shell to give our heroes a heads up on what might actually be going on with
the erratic machines.
The investigation is constantly hampered–not so much with the
obstructions of bad guys and the like–but by a constant theoretical dispute
over comparative worth of humans and machines. This creates a plodding pace
while our heroes traverse a 3D universe with a visual design that is
eye-boggling. Using subtle highlighting, distinct focal planes, an inventive
color palette, moody lighting effects, and forced perspective, Oshii blends
what he sees in the real world into a hyper-realistic style of
animation.
Dog lovers will swoon over Oshii’s method of humanizing his creation
by having Batou express deep love and understanding for his pet basset hound.
His detailed and devoted care of Ruby — to the extent of removing one of her
big floppy ears from the dinner bowl — after a weary day at work, is rewarded
with the kind of warm appreciation only a close animal companion can provide.
The big guy needs love.
|
|
Bill Shatner Reviews “The Jacket”
|
“To know virtue, the Marquis de Sade once said, “we must first
acquaint ourselves with vice." While the controversial writer was not referring to
The Jacket when he said that many years ago, it fits well with my
assessment of the film, nonetheless. The Jacket’s hostility will make
stomachs churn and faces cringe, but a noble cause justifies the means in
the end; because of the film’s hostility, when tenderness ultimately
appears, it’s all the more poignant. But will thin-skinned viewers be able
to endure the disturbing imagery until the affectionate, optimistic
persona reveals itself?
Macabre, intense, and daring, The Jacket is like a surrealistic
nightmare interlaced with an unambiguous daydream fantasy; it totters between
asylum and insanity, pain and pleasure, and heaven and hell. Part romantic
drama, time travel odyssey, murder mystery, and gothic thriller, the film
never decides on a definite genre, and is similar in some ways to
experimental films like Donnie Darko and Blue Velvet. Due to its unique
design, the less viewers know about the plot before they see it, the more
absorbing and revealing the film will be.
|
|
Bill Shatner Reviews “28-Days Later”
|
Although its title might lead you to believe that they actually
made a sequel to the Sandra Bullock movie about alcoholism, 28 Days Later
is anything but a journey through rehab. In fact, the disturbing,
grotesque nature of the film makes rehab look like a peaceful picnic at
the zoo, well, just as long as there aren't monkeys at that zoo.
The recipe for 28 Days Later is quite simple: half Outbreak, half Night of the
Living Dead, and maybe a dash or two of Planet of the Apes. While the
ingredients are familiar, thankfully, director Danny Boyle, who also helmed the
bizarre Trainspotting, contributes his own unique seasonings, turning this
acidic dish into a journey through hell-on-earth.
Now, back to those primates. They're being used for morbid experiments at a
Cambridge research facility. As the movie opens, several animal rights
activists break into the facility to rescue their furry friends, but a
scientist catches them and tells them to stay away from the apes because they
are infected with rage. The activists disregard his warning, however, and
release an ape from captivity anyway. It doesn't jump into their arms and thank
them, though. Instead, it creates a violent and bloody uproar, killing one of
the activists and attacking the others. A man named Jim (Cillian Murphy)
awakens naked from a quiet hospital room. Bewildered, he detaches the cords and
wires from his body, stumbles out of bed, and dresses himself. He then leaves
his room to look for a nurse, but he doesn?t find a single person in the
building. Jim leaves the hospital and searches the London streets for any sign
of life, but he doesn't find any there either. The streets are deserted. Cars
are flipped. Trash is scattered everywhere. The town looks as if it was struck
by a humongous tornado. No such luck.
Jim inadvertently discovers a priest in a nearby church. But the
priest does not offer prayer. Instead, he hisses and snarls as his eyes glow
red. He attacks Jim, but Mark (Noah Huntley) and Selena (Naomi Harris), come
to his rescue. After slaughtering the priest, they explain to Jim that an
infection has wiped out the entire country except for a few survivors. The
infection is transferred through blood, and if someone does become infected,
he must be killed within 20 seconds, or else he will become an enraged zombie
like the priest. At this point, Jim would have preferred the
tornado.
Jim and the remaining survivors eventually stumble upon two others,
Frank (Brendan Gleeson) and his daughter Hannah (Megan Burns). When a radio
broadcast informs them about an active military base a considerable distance
away, they team up to make the dangerous journey across town. Little do they
know, however, the infection is not the only thing that will pose a threat to
their lives.
28 Days Later will leave you gasping for breath for days to come.
It's disturbing not because we don't know what's going to happen, but because
we do know what's going to happen: gruesome bloodshed to several key
characters who we really care about. Although similarly fast and focused,
this is not like the stylized violence of Blade or The Matrix Reloaded; it's
gruesome, unpleasant violence. We want no part of it, and we certainly don't
want it to happen to these characters, for whom it’s all they can do to keep
hope alive. However, the movie never makes us immune to the blood and gore by
using it excessively, it's used in moderation, making it all the more
effective.
28 Days Later is also much more than a conventional zombie movie.
Boyle takes full advantage of the genre, but still calls his own shots; it's
not just about zombies, but also about survival of the fittest and the
endurance of hope. This movie is also rich with symbolism. The nudity in the
opening is symbolic of Jim's rebirth into the new world and his vulnerability
at the beginning as opposed to his state at the end. Boyle also includes some
emotionally charged human moments, such as the discovery of Jim's dead
parents and when Frank finally surrenders hope.
Yet I left the movie a little disappointed. The most intriguing
things about this movie are left undeveloped. The 28 days in which the
infection overwhelms the country are only briefly developed in a few lines of
dialogue, and that is nowhere near enough. If an infection wipes out an
entire population, we'd like to know how it accomplished that in more detail.
Clearly, Boyle's intent was not to investigate the outbreak, but to ponder on
human survival. Still, he bears a responsibility to further develop the most
fascinating aspect of the movie? the 28 days themselves.
Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland offer an interesting commentary
track on the new DVD, but most buyers and renters are going to want to check
out the three heralded alternate endings on display. The first, which was
tacked on to the theatrical print, is on the tired side, and the second
alternate ending is just an extension of that one. Finally, there’s a
“radical” alternative ending, which lives up to its name. Alas, that ending
is actually more like a radical second half of the film, and it exists only
in storyboards. Quite intriguing, though.
Return To Top
|
|
|