It's Earth Day and let's celebrate by bragging on how much aliens love our planet. They do! They can't get enough of it, from War of the Worlds to Independence Day they want the whole thing. In Close Encounters of the Third Kind they love us so much they're willing to travel light years, lots of 'em, just to say "Hi." Awww. In This Island Earth, despite being much more advanced than us scientifically, they want our help with their own planet Metaluna, and a couple of our best and brightest oblige. Sometimes we're naughty, and since they love us so much they feel the need to show us the error of our ways, like in The Day the Earth Stood Still where they gently but firmly tell us to stop our warring ways or they'll kill us. Gee thanks Dad! And in 2001: A Space Odyssey those aliens... well, okay who knows what in the hell they're up to but whatever it is, we're the centerpiece of their master plan. Yes, Science Fiction, beloved here at Cinema Styles, has always operated under the conceit that you just can't find a better planet than good old Mother Earth.
The great thing about most science fiction is that outside the gobbledygook of the basic plot they don't try to explain too much. It's usually kept to a couple of sentences revolving around our natural resources or danger to the rest of the galaxy or something stupid like that. And it's a good thing too because when you think about Earth centered sci-fi plots they never actually make much sense. For instance, take the "destroy and conquer" plots.
War of the Worlds and Independence Day are all about alien races envying what we've got here and wanting to take it for themselves. In War of the Worlds, they apparently buried 
tripods a million years ago with the intent of taking over the planet. Why they didn't just do it then when they would have encountered NO technological resistance I have no idea. Why they didn't research the environment to realize that bacteria present here would kill them is another mystery for the ages. They have the technology to form an invasion plan from millions of miles away over a thousand centuries but didn't bother to research the environment and how it interacts with their own biology. Wow, that's monumentally bad planning!
And how about the Independence Day dullards? They too can construct fleets of ships and massive mother ships to invade a world for it's resources when the gathering of resources from planets and asteroids is something even we already understand but lack the technology and money to get enough ships to the asteroids and planets to collect the resources. The aliens of ID4 do realize don't they, with their advanced technology, that they can strip mine the galaxy for all the resources they need without once having to actually mount an invasion? They realize that right? Oh no wait, of course they don't because Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich are the guys that provided them with their motivation in the first place.
Or how about the "Earth is a danger to the rest of us" plot of The Day the Earth Stood Still? Ha! That's a laugh. People seemed to think in 1951 that nuclear weapons could destroy the universe. Your average humdrum star, going through the process of nuclear fusion constantly, produces more heat and radiation in a second than every nuclear weapon on Earth combined could ever hope to do. Which makes me think of The Day the Earth Caught Fire.
The Day the Earth Caught Fire has nothing to do with aliens, I know, but this ain't called Spread of Activation for nothing. See, in The Day the Earth Caught Fire, which is a great and underrated movie by the way, the Earth is thrown off of her axis by two hydrogen bomb tests by the United States and the Soviet Union done at the exact same time at the North and South Poles. Okay, first of all, even if a nuclear bomb could somehow move an object with a mass of 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms (6E+24 kilograms / 1.3E+25 pounds), and 
brother would that need to be one HUGE-ASS nuclear bomb, the fact that you have two at opposite ends would simply result in the two offsetting each other, further resulting in, well, nothing. For the plot to work it should just be one bomb, not two. Oh well, at least with a destroyed Earth no aliens are going to want to take it.
But what about destroying the Earth? Does Sci-Fi have anything to say about that? But of course it does! Everyone loves apocalyptic Sci-Fi. From asteroids to global warming to nuclear warfare Sci-Fi loves destroying the planet Earth. There's a new one coming out soon, 2012, and like the other ones it looks pretty stupid. My favorite in the field is probably the aforementioned The Day the Earth Caught Fire but for instant destruction I'll go with Deep Impact.
Deep Impact was released in 1998 in competition with another asteroid destruction movie, Armageddon. Deep Impact gets 5.9 on IMDB and Armageddon gets 6.0. This is important because it reminds me that most people who rate movies on IMDB are idiots and it's always good to remember that. Who knows, one day it may save your life. I don't know how, but I'm not ruling it out. Anyway, Deep Impact is a pretty good disaster flick as these things go. They do have their cake and eat it too of course by having the smaller non-planet killing asteroid hit so we can all enjoy the special effects and having the bigger planet killing one destroyed so we can all enjoy the happy ending. That was kind of chickenshit in my book but hey I understand the need for it. Besides in the instant destruction sub-genre you've got to show something to the audience. I mean, we paid money to see the planet killed, or at least injured. Which takes me to my final category, the slow death of the planet as exemplified by films such as Silent Running and Wall-E.
These don't work as well for me. Wall-E has an interesting nugget of a sci-fi idea but focuses on the robots instead of the people, which makes sense since it's mainly for kids. But for me it's like 
watching Star Wars where R2-D2 and C3PO are the main characters and everyone else is a bit player. Silent Running on the other hand has a very interesting main character played by Bruce Dern but a hard to swallow plot device: The Earth is now devoid of all plant life. Uh huh. As Carl Sagan said in Cosmos, "We need the trees much more than they need us." Without us the plants would be fine. Without the plants, and all apologies to Coruscant, we wouldn't be here. The idea of a functioning planet without plants is ludicrous but it's still a good movie with an interesting central character and a trio of droids (Huey, Dewey and Louie) that predate those previously mentioned Star Wars droids by five years. And it's one of the first major Sci-Fi movies with an environmental theme which makes it a good one to wrap up with on this Earth Day.
So Happy Earth Day everyone! Watch an Earth destruction Sci-Fi movie today. Sometimes the best way to appreciate what you've got is to see what it would be like if it were taken away.
30 comments:
And this is why Mars Attacks! is such a fine film. The Martians give no reason to come to Earth other than to randomly kill people, mess with their minds, and perform backup for Tom Jones.
Exactly! Bacteria you can research but Slim Whitman's yodle? No way. That actually, really, truly is more believable to me than the bacterial idea of Wells. I mean, who could ever account for Slim Whitman?
We know - from my cluelessness about The Omega Man - that Sci-Fi is one of my blind spots, but it's interesting to me that remakes in this genre offer up satisfying results. Example: Ferrara's Body Snacthers and Spielberg's War of the Worlds.
I wonder what the aliens would think about us having a day called Earth Day? Surely they wouldn't attack on that day, would they? It's kind of a respect thing... like not beating someone up on Christmas, or something.
Fox - Actually, over at Flickhead's there was a brief discussion of sci-fi and although I didn't mention it at the time I kind of like Spielberg's War of the Worlds. I think sci-fi and action is what he does best and thought he did a fine job with it. The plot is riddled with holes but only because Wells' original story is, as I mock in my post. Even then, it's still a good story. I'm not sure why the 2005 version was so easily dismissed.
As for Ferrara's (what a great last name) Body Snatchers I never saw it so I couldn't give you my opinion on it.
And I always save my beating up people for Arbor Day, cause then you can use a stick or a log and feel like you're somehow celebrating the day by beating this person up.
I'm not sure why the 2005 version was so easily dismissed...
Thank you! And this coming from you, who hates Spielberg more than anything else in the world!
It's a really solid movie, with some terrific, frightening imagery. Also, it's possibly, in my book, Tom Cruise's best performance. The film is not without its flaws, but people tear into that movie more than they do Independence Day, which is entirely wretched.
Sorry I've been off-line, but I had the stupidest work thing ever to do today.
They do have their cake and eat it too of course by having the smaller non-planet killing asteroid hit so we can all enjoy the special effects and having the bigger planet killing one destroyed so we can all enjoy the happy ending. That was kind of chickenshit in my book...I disagree. That ending is like the ending of Madigan or the HK crime movie Expect the Unexpected where the major, scary criminals are subdued without too much trouble and the idiot amateur criminal winds up causing terrible harm and the death(s) of major characters. The stakes were such in Deep Impact that I actually didn't want the asteroids to strike - I wanted the characters to live, even Tea Leoni, whom I normally loathe for being such an anonymous add-on.
I liked the Spielberg War of the Worlds up until the siege setpiece with Tim Robbins. The movie didn't really need a pedophile, did it?
Bill, I thought it did a really good job of conveying a sense of dread and unknown terror. You're being pursued and wiped out and you don't know why or where it's coming from. The stuff I make fun of in this post is the stuff Roger Ebert concentrates on in his review as if that's the whole movie. Sci-Fi always has enormous plotholes and devices that can easily be logically shot down so for me it usually comes down to character and technique and I thought both were terrific in this movie.
And yes, Tom Cruise, who I can't stand, is excellent, almost as good as he was in Magnolia.
The stakes were such in Deep Impact that I actually didn't want the asteroids to strike...
Well, yes but they still did have one strike anyway. The character catharsis that takes place at the end could have happened exactly the same way (as long as they believed they were going to be hit) while the asteroids take care of the asteroids in space and save the day. But they didn't, they had the thing hit so they could get in a big special effects sequence and have the happy ending. In my opinion at least. And I still like it very much, don't get me wrong.
it usually comes down to character and technique and I thought both were terrific in this movieYes. As far as technique is concerned, War of the Worlds and Munich are probably Spielberg's best latter-day films.
I also love AI (it's true, I do), probably more than either of those films, but there's some awfully clumsy stuff in there, from time to time. I think he makes up for it, but it's not exactly seamless.
I find it interesting that Ebert objects to their being no explanation for what is going on when so much of sci-fi, certainly one of his and everyone's favorite sci-fi, 2001, provides none whatsoever. It's almost like he just wanted to be mad at the movie. I didn't like that he glossed over Spielberg's technique which I found quite amazing in this film.
And Arbo, I thought the Tim Robbins part was fine. There was no concentration on pedophilia. I felt they were just making him out to be a survivalist weirdo.
And Bill I have to go to a quick meeting but when I return I hope to find out what stupid thing happened at your job.
Bill-
I'm with you on latter day Spielberg. I like War of the Worlds, Munich, and AI. I like The Terminal as well.
Minority Report, Catch Me if You Can, and Indy 4? Eh... not so much. But I would like to watch Catch Me if You Can again someday.
To be perfectly honest, the only recent Spielberg movie I really disliked was Kingdom of the etc., which was really kind of a depressing movie to sit through. But, as a Spielberg fan, I of course blame it all on Lucas.
I saw The Terminal in the theaters, and liked it find for what it was, though I haven't seen it since. I did catch about two minutes on cable a little while ago, and I cringed, so it's very possible my opinion of it will plummet if I ever see it again.
Fox and Bill, I never saw The Terminal. It was on cable and even then I didn't watch it. For whatever reason, just nothing about it appeals to me. I did like Catch Me if You Can but will probably never return to it and I loved most of A.I. as well. There's plenty Spielberg I like but plenty I don't like either and most of it is his dramas. But for action and sci-fi I think he does a great job.
I like most Spielberg (and I've been thinking a lot about EMPIRE OF THE SUN since Ballard died), but I find THE TERMINAL, well...interminable. Which is odd, because I like Spielberg, Hanks and Stanley Tucci, but I just found it slower and more tedious than anything. WAR OF THE WORLDS is excellent, though.
Also, just saw on Siren's site that Jack Cardiff died. Dammit.
I should put up something about Ballard. I meant to, but I don't know what yet. I'm not so much a fan as I am an admirer, if that makes any sense, which makes a post more difficult.
The main thing I remember liking about The Terminal is Tucci. I thought he was good, but I also remember he became a bit of a cartoon villain. And the film is often too damn cute. I remember that the ending was somewhat interesting, however.
Greg, have you seen Munich? If so, do you agree with me that, as far as technique, Spielberg was really on his game with that one?
Also, regarding my stupid job thing, I should put up a post today, so I may do a quick thing about work.
I agree that Tucci is the best part of the film-- he has an appealingly dry quality that balances out at least some of the hoke. But he's always so good. Has anyone seen MURDER ONE, the Boccho show from the mid-90s? I know it's on DVD, and I've always meant to see it-- Tucci plays the season-long defendant, and he's supposed to be very good.
I never saw Murder One, but I remember, back before I was a fan, or even really knew who Tucci was, seeing the commercials, and one featured Tucci really overacting: "Get. Me. OUT!!!" That kind of thing. Maybe he's great, but that's what I took away from that show.
Ahh, I don't want to wax poetic about Spielberg, because the post I've been working on is all about Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and I'm kind of Waxing-Poetic-About-Spielberg(ed) out. In a nutshell, I at the very least respect everything he's made and think his work this decade has been pretty much stand-out, IMO easily his richest phase. Like Bill, A.I. is my favorite of his films this decade. Not to mention, I tend to rave about him so much (I brought him up over in the Earthquake thread) that I'm sure you people will hear enough of it at some point or another.
Regarding The Terminal, I think it's very under-rated and a much more serious work than it's given credit for. On one hand, it's among the most scathing indictments of American policy I can think of (from foreign diplomacy to our drug laws), on the other it's a pretty accurate portrait of this country after 9/11, like War of the Worlds and Munich. There's also something Playtime-esque about it; with its large, endless corridors and its frames packed with detail. He's not quite as methodical (or patient) a fim maker as Tati, but The Terminal does feel like an observational work. I think the romance is underdeveloped, though, and hurts the movie.
And yes, he was in the zone with Munich, using a myriad of technique to tell the story as effectively as possible. His and Kaminski's handheld work in that movie work is pretty astounding.
Yeah, so much for that.
Bill, Brian, Ryan - Sorry to be away so long, something came up.
I never watched Murder One myself and didn't even know until just now that Tucci was in it.
As for Spielberg, like I said I like some of his stuff and Munich is one. I think his dramas have gotten better as he's gotten older but again I haven't seen The Terminal. I thought Munich had a lot to recommend it but it also lost me for about the last third. Spielberg did fine but the script became a bit aimless near the end which isn't his fault.
I think the best scene in the whole movie is the conversation between Eric Bana and the Palestinian in the stairwell where the Palestinian doesn't know he's talking to a Jewish assassin. That scene was brilliantly scripted and directed.
The worst scene is the little girl going to answer the phone while everyone hustles to defuse the bomb. That's the kind of manipulative stuff that is unnecessary that I don't like about Spielberg. That kind of pale Hitchcock impersonation where the only point is to impart how human the assassins really are. He doesn't trust that we're already getting that from their characterizations and dialogue so he throws in a scene that bluntly telegraphs it. That's what I don't like about Spielberg and a lot of other people don't like it either. It's a way of sentimentalizing an action set piece.
But I think Munich is damn good and only has that one Spielbergian touch of goo so he's getting better. E.T. has it practically from the opening shot to the last. After 1941 which I like for it's visuals, and Raiders I don't like much Spielberg until the latter part of the nineties when I think he started to become more confident of what the audience was getting and what they weren't. If he had done Munich a decade earlier there probably would have been less dialogue and more elaborate set pieces that hammer the point home. He's definitely grown as a director and I won't deny that.
I thought the Tim Robbins part was fine. There was no concentration on pedophilia. I felt they were just making him out to be a survivalist weirdo.Oh, I felt the pedophilia aspect was pretty in-your-face. (It could be that you lack my sensitivity and sophistication for seeing these things.) But my bigger complaint about the third act is that it was, to me, boring. Tendrils. Yawn.
Wow there have been a lot of Earth Destruction movies now that you point it out. Independence day is one of my favorite, I think we'll have to encounter Aliens before we can come together as a planet. Here are some suggestions on what you can do to help the Earth: http://www.toptentopten.com/topten/things+to+do+on+earth+day, you can add your own suggestions.
Oh, I felt the pedophilia aspect was pretty in-your-face. (It could be that you lack my sensitivity and sophistication for seeing these things.)...
Meaning you're a pedophile? The entirety of his dialogue contains one line to the daughter, "If anything happens to your Daddy, I'll take care of you."
Wow! You're right! It's all about the pedophilia! Jesus, come on, that line is intended to lead you down that possible path but as I said before, it isn't concentrated on. It means this guy is creepy and fucked up and Cruise has to protect his daughter both outside and in the basement. Nothing else Robbins does or says leads the character in the direction of pedophilia. To me, "in-your-face" is easily done using the language of film in which Robbins' looks and leers are caught by the camera, etc. That didn't happen here so I wouldn't call it in-your-face.
Now as to the third act it does taper off in this, the previous 53 version and the book. It didn't outright bore me but I see your point.
Thanks Vincetastic for the list. All of them.
I'm with Ryan Kelly. THE TERMINAL is Spielberg's best movie in recent years, and terribly underrated.
Larry, once I see it I will be the final judge of its worth. Depending on what I decide either you and Ryan or Brian and Bill will have to alter their opinions.
So let it be written, so let it be done.
I see your point.Why didn't you just write that and skip all the stuff before?!
I see your point.
Mars Attacks is a fine film, and don't you ACK! ACK! ACK!
But I want to ACK! agree with Bill r., who, as you know, I always agree ACK! with. I love A.I. INCLUDING all three -- or is it four? -- of it's endings.
And Arbo's right: Robbins is a pedophile. And so is his character.
There. I've solved everything. ACK!
Thanks Rick, you're a genius!
Post a Comment