Things Happening Now: World War Z, Shoot the WISB, and Women Authors
What’s going on over at the Skiffy and Fanty compound? Quite a lot, actually! First up, authors Emma Newman and Susan Bigelow joined the S&F crew to talk about science fiction and fantasy by women. I quite enjoyed the direction we went after listing some of our favorite female authors, especially since we covered things like how reading influences writing and so on. Lastly, the most recent episode of Shoot the WISB has hit the web. This time, I’m joined by David Annandale and Jen Bosier for a discussion of World War Z. The episode contains a lot of spoilers, so save it for later if you intend to see the movie. And that’s what’s going on over at the S&F compound. Go DL the episodes and enjoy!
Shoot the WISB #02: Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) Reviewed w/ Paul Weimer and Jay Garmon
Spoiler Alert: the following podcast contains spoilers for the film being reviewed; if you wish to see the film without having it ruined for you, download this podcast and save it for later. Paul Weimer (website / twitter) and Jay Garmon (website / twitter) join me to discuss the good, the bad, and the ugly of J.J. Abrams’ second installment in the Star Trek film reboot. Feel free to offer your thoughts in the comments below. You can download or stream the mp3 from this link.
Movie Review: Iron Man 3 (2013)
If this is the end of Robert Downey, Jr.’s Iron Man films, then he’s certainly left with a bang. While far from perfect, Iron Man 3 (2013) continues Stark’s emotional development with the same humor and action we have come to expect. But it is also an unexpectedly deep look at Stark as a man amidst increasingly dangerous villains, tying together not only the previous two Iron Man movies (2008 and 2010), but also Joss Whedon’s The Avengers (2012). Flawed though it may be, Iron Man 3 is an excellent conclusion to a superb series. Iron Man 3‘s basic premise is this: Tony Stark has returned home from the events in New York City, only to find himself overwhelmed by panic attacks and nightmares; to distract himself, he has begun tinkering endlessly in his lab, building suit after suit after suit. Meanwhile, the United States has become the target of a mysterious “super” terrorist who calls himself the Mandarin. Soon, the President re-brands War Machine as the Iron Patriot and sends Colonel Rhodes out to hunt down the infamous terrorist. Back home, Tony challenges the Mandarin, meets some old faces (sorry, I won’t ruin this for you), and finds himself face-to-face with a wall (of mysteries and mysterious men with unique abilities). Honestly, that is about as close as I can get to describing this film without ruining some of the major twists and discoveries. There are a remarkable number of things going on in this film. I am still astonished that they could work so much into a 130 minute time slot without producing a film that feels unnecessarily rushed; instead, Iron Man 3 is just a tad bit long, with parts of the latter half of the film moving a little too slowly for my taste. Part of that dragging feel stems from the fact that the movie is divided across three interests: Tony’s war with himself (his apparent PTSD), Tony’s attempts to find and uncover the Mandarin, and the U.S./Rhodes’ attempts to do the same (subplots aside, of course). While Shane Black (writer/director) handles these elements well enough, I think the attempt to focus on so many elements (particularly via the framing device — Tony’s voice over that connects a past event to the events of the film), with twists and all, is a tad much for one film. Still, I cannot help but appreciate the fact that, much like the previous two Iron Man films, this third installment actually addresses some of the real-world ramifications of Stark’s life as man and machine. The previous films explored Stark’s conflict with the morality of the military industrial complex (Iron Man) and the fear of impending death (Iron Man 2). Here, the conflict is two-fold: as in the second film, the past has come to haunt Stark, but in a far more personal way than before (the frame narrative explores this). More importantly, however, is the connection back to The Avengers, which has affected our hero in the way you’d expect: a psychological disorder (PTSD). I can appreciate the desire to show this on film, but what makes this work for me is the fact that our hero actually has psychological issues. Iron Man 3 explores the psychology of Stark in more depth than previous editions, giving the character a uniquely “human” feel. Unlike other superheroes in the Marvel film canon, Stark/Iron Man is fully realized as a complex individual. Far from the eccentric, prick-y man we saw at the start of the first film, this concluding volume has shown us that he is, in every way possible, just as susceptible to the pressures of daily life (and war) as the rest of us, even if, at the end of the day, he is still eccentric and prick-y. What makes him super is not some superhuman ability to “cope,” but rather his intense desire and dedication to a “cause.” This is the underlying narrative of Iron Man 3, and one that we can hope will continue in The Avengers 2, however briefly. Related to this is one of the strongest aspects of the film: the cast and their interactions with one another. Downey, I think it is fair to say, is probably the only person who will ever truly fit into Stark’s shoes, and here he has to pull out more than simple sarcasm and jackassery. Stark’s panic attacks and nightmares require a careful balance between epiphany and masking; nobody would expect Stark to accept what is happening to him, and Downey does a fine job portraying that conflict. While the PTSD symptoms could have been handled with more care, I think Downey (and Shane Black as director) remained true to the character. The other cast members are also on top form: Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts remains as charming as ever (she also gets a little action time, which is awesome to see) and Guy Pearce proves that he needs to play a Die Hard villain at some point in the near future, pulling out an excellent Jekyll & Hyde performance as Aldrich Killian. It’s hard to believe that Guy Pearce once played this Queen: The standout supporting actor performances, however, must be given to Ben Kingsley (the Mandarin) and Ty Simpkins (Harley Keener). Kingsley’s Mandarin is cold, calculated, and preacher-like — even creepy. I believed him as a terrorist, as a fully-realized villain with complicated motivations. They’ve updated his character, too, and in a way that I think makes the Mandarin more relevant. In the film universe, the Mandarin is more akin to the mythic face of terrorism today; that myth becomes important to the narrative, and forms one of the various critiques of U.S. foreign policy in Iron Man 3. Much like Pearce, Kingsley demonstrates a chameleon-like ability to become other people. While I still have some reservations about the way this narrative played out, the concept of the Mandarin offers food for thought (particularly to us scholarly type people). Child actor Simpkins, however, gives the film its heart-filled center. As Keener, he has a
Movie Review: Oblivion (2013)
(This review is as spoiler free as I can make it. In doing so, there are a lot of things that I’ll say without context, as the particularities of certain characters or plot elements have not been revealed in the trailers and are rather important to the viewing experience — mystery!) Tom Cruise’s new science fiction action adventure has been in theaters for a week-ish, and it has already opened the taste debate. A great deal of “average viewers” have come out of Oblivion with positive feelings, remarking that, while far from a perfect film, it succeeds as entertainment with a sliver of substance. Critics have not been so kind. They’ve called the film self-serious, absent of self-awareness, a ponderous mess, and so on and so forth. I couldn’t disagree more. While far from perfect, Oblivion is what Prometheus promised to be last year: a high concept, thrilling exploration of the human condition through the lens of science fiction. Where Prometheus failed to deliver (see here and here for my take), Oblivion has filled in the blank, offering the same visual awe of 2012’s “big film” with a far more coherent and cohesive plot, consistent (though incomplete) characters, and a few decent twists and turns. Most of all, Oblivion gives us a few answers, even if it never quite explains everything in the end. All this combine to make a film that, in my mind, deserves a little more credit. After all, it’s not often that we are given action-oriented science fiction that also has a little something to contemplate, right? For that reason, I see Oblivion as an attempt to revitalize action-oriented SF with just a smidge of actual substance — a film that, despite its flaws, is entertaining and a tiny bit cerebral. If you don’t know already, Oblivion follows Jack Harper (Tom Cruise), haunted by strange dreams, and Victoria (or Vika; Andrea Riseborough), his companion and communications overseer, as they monitor the “strip-mining” of Earth’s resources for use by humanity off world. From the opening moments, we learn that Earth was invaded decades ago by an alien species called the Scavs; humanity responded by nuking the Earth, forcing the surviving humans to move off world to Saturn’s moon, Titan. Jack and Victoria have been tasked with maintaining a fleet of defensive drones as remnants of the Scav forces attempt to sabotage the operation. But Jack’s dreams are not what they seem: they are memories. And as everything Jack knows about the world is uprooted by his discoveries, he will reveal an even more terrifying truth than the destruction of Earth. Sure, the film’s central conceit is certainly not original. Post-apocalyptic SF is almost always cliche before you get into the particulars, and inserting an alien invasion doesn’t help with originality points. Even the somewhat hokey voice over is so painfully common in genre films that it’s difficult to take it seriously (in the case of Oblivion, the voice over is actually important, but it does feel out of place, even by the end). However, what I found most compelling about Oblivion was its method for exploring familiar territory: fusion. Cross-genre narratives are not unheard of in SF, but they are less common (at least in explicit form). Here, Joseph Kosinski (the director behind TRON: Legacy — my review here) fuses post-apocalypse with alien invasions and cyberpunk (an element I won’t discuss here for fear of spoiling the narrative). Part of telling good stories with old material is finding a different way to approach that material. Oblivion does just that, pitting the “man on his own” trope on the same stage as a cyberpunk-ian identity crisis. It’s perhaps for this reason that I didn’t find myself bored while watching Oblivion. Kosinski’s writing and direction, while flawed in places, provides a deliberately measured approach to these familiar concepts, refusing to resort, as a standard, to visual or action antics for the sake of furthering the plot — though you’ll find some of that here too. Rather than become trapped in a long, drawn-out action sequence, Oblivion takes a slower approach, unfolding the layers of mystery piece by piece. While there are certainly plenty of pretty (if not sexy) action sequences in Oblivion, they are, if anything, necessary components to the narrative, rather than mere eye-candy (in my mind). Equally arresting is the dramatic contrast between the natural and the artificial — a visual aesthetic as much as a thematic one, which is made apparent from the start, with extensive scenes involving Cruise, well, cruising around an “empty” Earth in advanced aircraft. It shouldn’t surprise, then, that so much of the film is concentrated on the visual aesthetics of both the post-apocalypse and cyberpunk, blending the relative order of technology into a world of natural chaos. From a purely visual perspective, Oblivion is absolutely gorgeous — even more so, in places, than last year’s Prometheus. Several minutes are spent presenting vast natural wildernesses, rocky “deserts,” the natural encroaching upon the remains of human civilization, buried buildings, forgotten ships resting on dried seabed, and so on. Even the action sequences — high-energy and, at times, emotional — are well-rendered, and themselves as visually arresting as the natural and artificial environments that dominate the set pieces. It is unmistakably a gorgeous film. Cruise performs well in this environment, bringing a sense of heartwarming nostalgia in one moment and deliberate confusion in the next. Contrary to what other critics have said, I see Cruise’s performance as nuanced, reflecting a character torn between two realities: the one in which he is living and the one that lingers in the background like a ghostly echo (the one to be uncovered). The film is undeniably about Jack’s journey to find himself and his place in the new world awaiting him, and Cruise plays well to this theme. Truthfully, this is not exactly outside of his artistic territory, as some of his previous films have pitted one man (and his secondary character set pieces) against a new reality
Mid-Year Movie Roundup: My Brief Thoughts On What I’ve Seen So Far This Year
Thus far this year, I have seen the following movies: Chronicle The Hunger Games The Avengers Prometheus John Carter Snow White and the Huntsman American Reunion The Cabin in the Woods Not many, I know. Most of them are genre fiction, minus American Reunion. There are two proper science fiction movies (The Hunger Games and Prometheus), one that could very well be science fiction, but treats its universe like a fantasy one (The Avengers), and some that are technically science fiction, but really fantasy with some technological wonders (John Carter and The Cabin in the Woods). The last is a pure fantasy (Snow White and the Huntsman). The movie I liked enough to see it twice falls to one film: The Avengers. The movies I thought were quite good: Chronicle (one of the few good uses of shaky cam I’ve seen), The Hunger Games (solid acting with a cool, slightly used-up idea), The Avengers (so far the best movie of the year — Joss Whedon at his best), John Carter (beautiful film with a decent little story), The Cabin in the Woods (Joss Whedon at his best again, ripping apart the tropes of the horror genre). The movie that were better than I expected: Snow White and the Huntsman (some really nice twists on the classic story). The movies that were so-so overall: Snow White and the Huntsman, American Reunion (they tried to take us to a new level, but didn’t quite get there; still, it was a fun movie). The greatest disappointment: Prometheus (in fact, the more I think about this movie, the more I really hate it) Have you seen any of these movies? If so, place them in the categories I’ve given above and let me know what you think!
Shoot the WISB #01: Prometheus (2012) Reviewed w/ Paul Weimer
Spoiler Alert: the following podcast contains spoilers for the film being reviewed; enjoy at your own risk (or something like that). Paul Weimer was kind enough to spend a little time with me talking about the release of Ridley Scott’s long-anticipated Alien prequel, Prometheus. If you’ve seen the film and want to offer your two cents, feel free to do so in the comments. You can download or stream the mp3 from this link.