Ahira's Hangar

I'll consider it, but no promises about Harry Potter...

I just came back from Moon. It's a thought-provoking sci-fi film starring Sam Rockwell as a homesick company worker who is nearing the end of his 3-year stint on the Moon, and looking forward to a return to Earth and to his wife and child. But complications arise, and things get really weird for the hapless Rockwell.

A review in the local paper made comparisons to 2001: A Space Odyssey, due mainly to the presence of Moon's own seemingly omnipresent computer "Gerty" voiced by Kevin Spacey (yes, Kevin Spacey). But Moon is a far less ambitious production than that Kubrick epic, has a very different tone, and tells a very different story. To me, Moon is much more reminiscent of Solaris - not the original Russian film (which I never saw) but the remake with George Clooney. Anyway, like both 2001 and Solaris, Moon attempts to engage on a deeper level than most action-oriented sci-fi flicks today (not that I'm against them). No evil aliens or ray guns in Moon, just an affecting story about loneliness and human identity, with a wonderful performance by Sam Rockwell. Highly recommended.

Btw, I wasn't kidding about Moon being a not very ambitious production: I read that the budget was only $5 million. (I bet that would barely cover 5 minutes of the new Harry Potter film! ) But in no way does Moon look cheap - it's $5 million spent wisely. You might be surprised by some of the things they achieved on such a meager budget. Oh, and it's directed by Duncan Jones, who is the son of David Bowie.

That sounds like a good one. I will have to keep an eye out for it.

Last night I watched George Lucas's dystopian debut film THX 1138 for the first time in its entirety. I had only seen bits of it a long time ago (and it might as well have been in another galaxy far, far away) when I was a kid gripped in Star Wars fever. At the time I remember thinking: a) there's naked people in this movie! and b) this movie makes no sense! It was as different from Star Wars as one could imagine, save that both could be lumped together as sci fi. My kid brain back then was totally confused by THX 1138.

But having watched it now as an adult (or at least as a bigger kid), I think this movie is brilliant. It has a subversive quality that is effective even today. Show it in theatres now and I bet it'll still thwart audience expectations of what "normal" movie storytelling is supposed to be. But for those of us (I include myself) jaded by the mediocrity of the Star Wars prequels, THX 1138 serves to remind us what virtuoso skill as a filmmaker Lucas once possessed. In the SW prequels, Lucas felt compelled to saddle the story with needless exposition, but here in THX he throws exposition out the window, allowing only visuals and sound to tell the story, along with a bare minimum of what seems random dialog thrown in. I think that is what could still turn people off about this movie today: the seemingly arbitrary nature of its goings-on.

However, THX is such a visually kinetic movie that you can't help but watch it to see what startling image Lucas will throw at you next. That amazing visual energy is the link to Star Wars (the original). Consider THX 1138's concluding chase scene, in which Robert Duvall's titular character makes his final bid for freedom in a stolen car while being pursued by robotic police on their motorbikes: this sequence is as exciting as anything in Star Wars, and better than chases in most movies even today. I only wish it were a longer chase, because it seriously got my adrenalin pumping. So while THX is an "experimental" movie, it still has room for a good old fashioned car chase, but done with flair the Lucas way. In a sense, Lucas got his chance to do a more elaborate and longer chase scene with the Death Star trench run in Star Wars. THX in his car becomes Luke Skywalker in his X-Wing, and the menacing robot police pursuers become the stormtroopers in their TIE fighters.

Question now is: What happened to the George Lucas who made THX 1138? Why doesn't he drop Star Wars for a change and really do something experimental and edgy like he once did?

That's something I'd like to watch.

--A

I think you'll get a kick out of it. The film should generate some good dinner conversation, at any rate. A lot of the film's images stuck with me. Man, this was one seriously depressing future society Lucas dreamed up...

Hahahaha, in some senses, it's a depressing future society we're living in.

I'll definitely keep an eye out for it.

--A

--A

Happy you enjoyed it, duchess!

Edit: Caught a late night TV airing of the 1997 sci-fi horror flick Event Horizon. It stars Laurence Fishburne as the captain of an expedition sent to investigate an advanced spaceship that has reappeared seven years after it had apparently fallen into a black hole. The good? It's got some decent scares, lots of slick special effects eye candy, and the presence of Fishburne. The bad? Just about everything else, I'm sorry to say.

The movie throws in a lot of blood-and-guts to make up for its weaknesses. I'll grant that some might consider the gruesome imagery a strength of the film. For me, the gore would have been more tolerable if there had been a stronger story and stronger characters to follow. The movie's premise is actually very interesting - which is why I watched it - but the script lets it way down.

I've since learned that Event Horizon is one of danlo's all-time favorite films. Oops. Please don't ban me...but I stand (or fall) by my opinion.

My wife and I went to see Julie & Julia on the weekend, it was quite enjoyable - great food! I really want to try a beef bourguignon now! Meryl Streep was excellent as Julia Childs, and Stanley Tucci equally good as her husband. We had a special deal, where they gave us a meal with the movies (good thing, because I was getting hungry looking at all the delicious food they were cooking).

For a brief review, see

My take home message (shallow as it is) is that you just cannot replace butter with anything (which my wife, being a professional cake decorator, totally agrees with).

While we were there, we noticed an advert for The Time Traveller's Wife, which doesn't come out here in Australia until November. I am quite interested because Audrey Niffenegger's book was quite an interesting read. Has anyone seen this? The critics didn't like it much, but I'd be interested in anyone's opinion.

I like Meryl Streep, but haven't gone to any film of hers since The Hours (2002).

I had thought about seeing Julie & Julia, but, er, went instead to Inglourious Basterds, which I totally forgot to mention here.

Inglourious Basterds is a Quentin Tarantino movie. Do I really need to say more? In this WWII slaughterfest, Brad Pitt leads a company of misfit American Jews into the heart of Germany to kill, kill, and then kill some more Nazis. Brutal violence? Check! Snappy dialogue? Check! Gleefully sadistic characters? Check! The best things about this film are its genuinely surprising plot turns, its alternative history of the war, and the performance of Christoph Waltz as Nazi Colonel Landa. He steals the show. The worst thing about the film? The heroes - the people I'm supposed to root for - fell flat for me. I didn't feel a strong sympathetic connection to these people. That really diminished the impact the story should have had on me. I still give this film a thumbs up, but it doesn't approach Tarantino's best work, Kill Bill.

I'm keen to see Inglourious Basterds - I just need to go myself sometime, because a WWII Tarantino film doesn't exactly appeal to my wife (don't know why ).

Sounds like I should go see Julie and Julia.

Just came back from Avatar 3D. It was big, bombastic entertainment - in other words, I had a fun time. Avatar did have its share of clumsy and cliched moments, as well as dubious stereotypes, but overall Cameron has delivered an amazing cinematic experience. On an emotional level, however, his previous film Titanic is more satisfying to me. I realize I may be one of the few who'll admit to liking Titanic, but I liked it then and I still do now. Just like Titanic, though, Avatar gives you bang for your buck in terms of its running time - 162 minutes - and its production values.

The "3D" part was effective, too. It's been years and years since I last sat through a movie with goofy 3D glasses on, but Avatar made it worthwhile. It's just too bad they haven't made the glasses any more comfortable.