| |
|
|
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 Main Menu |
|
|
|