Sci-Fi HoF...Hall of Fame

It is indeed. Maybe not "all about", but it's a huge part of it. People can nominate what they want though, so you shouldn't bash someone who nominate stuff like Starship Troopers... We all have different tastes and opinions, that is also something we need to respect. I don't mind watching movies like Gunbuster, actually I was looking forward to it, but the way Guap handles his own nomination, the way he talks about it and how he comments on other people's nominations really annoy me. But whatever all that is past now. Let's hope it stays that way.

Currently watching Snowpiercer. Didn't like it back when I first watched it, let's see if a rewatch changes that!

I think the general Hall of Fames are more about getting out of our comfort zone than the specific genre ones. I like getting out of my comfort zone sometimes, which is why I continue to join the general Hall of Fames, even though I know that there will probably be more than a few movies nominated that aren't my kinds of movies.

But for the Sci-Fi HoF, I expected to stay in my comfort zone with sci-fi movies, which is why I wasn't too happy when I saw several horror and/or foreign language movies were nominated. I don't regret watching any of the movies in this (or any other) HoF, but I was kind of disappointed by some of the movies that were nominated because this didn't really feel much like a "Sci-Fi" HoF to me.

In hindsight, I wish I'd nominated something different to Escape From New York because I think the dystopia sub-genre was pretty well-represented with Snowpiercer, Brazil, Blade Runner, etc. Starting to think my nomination should have been either Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan or Star Trek: First Contact (probably the former) because I don't think any of the nominees fit the space-opera sub-genre to a significant extent.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I'm back!...My apologies for my impromptu absence. But when you get a chance to go on vacation and at a great price...you pack your suit case and go! Oh, I know, some of you are saying, "CR was gone?...I didn't even notice!"
But yup, I was gone in Alaska for two weeks on a cruise. Very fun.

Now that I'm back I find I have only 10 days to watch: Gunbuster, Planet of the Apes, Paprika and The Thing. The deadline for getting the nominations watched and sent to me in a voting list is midnight PST June 12th. If I can make the deadline so can all of you guys.

I noticed Citizen, but remembered you saying something about a vacation. Welcome back. If you want in on the 7th HOF I am sure Raul would make an exception for you.

Thanks Sean, it's good to be back home and back posting too! Raul was nice enough to send me a PM invitation to the 7th HoF, which I appreciated. Unfortunately, summer is my busy time so I can't join....but I looked at the movie nominations and wow!...some great choices there. I'll try to watch a few and chime in with my thoughts.

My apologies again guys I was extremely stupid when I said those stupid words before. I was depressed and not thinking straight. And yes, I am a bit of a manchild. That's why I like stuff with childish characters like Gunbuster.

By the way, I liked every single movie here and I hope others enjoy the movies nominated as much as I did in fact.

OVAs are movies? Well, at least to the jury of the Seul International and Cartoon & Animation Festival though considering they voted it for best feature film category (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Marble_Chocolate). Another six episode OVA, FLCL, won third place in Fantasia film festival for best animated film.

Film critics regard OVAs as movie, Miyazaki regards OVA's as movies as well. Well, I doubt that LOGH 110 episodes would be regarded as a movie though.

The Thing...I watched this last night. I've seen it before too, last time was 15 years ago. The first time was in 1982 at the theater. On the big screen, The Thing blew me away. The story was creepy and suspenseful and the setting in a remote Antarctic research station made the movie foreboding. Kurt Russel is just plain cool in this one. Without him I'm not sure if the movie would have worked as well as it did. I always considered this one of the greatest sci fi films made.

But times change and last night when I revisited The Thing, I seen a different movie. Perhaps the 32 year old special horror effects just didn't stand up. Yes, I know it's not fair to judge an old movie by today's CG standards. But the close up horror/creature scenes were a distraction and got in the way of the real story, which is one of suspect, paranoia and suspense. The scenes in the Norwegian camp and in the dog kennel was good but some of the other scenes were over the top and should have been edited out.

I would have loved to see Hitchcock direct this one or Ridley Scott. I don't think John Carpenter is the most detailed orientated director. With scenes like the crawling crab head or the chest that opens up biting off the doctors hands, the film took on a B movie creature feature feel.

The other aspect of the film that bugged me was the poor dialogue and characterizations. Some of the dialogue sounded like first draft stuff. Especially after they find a space ship, and find a dead mutant alien, and see a dog transform into a hellish looking creature...then we get the scene where Childs is playing the antagonist by calling BS on the idea that the Thing is from another world. Hell! he just seen a dog mutate into a monster, how much more convincing does he need?

On the plus side, I wasn't bored...The Thing held my attention and I enjoyed it. Is it a master piece no, a fun flick, yes!

Everyone has a right to their opinion, even if it upsets me, and this review is testament to that.

I did give it a 4 out of 5, that's pretty high in my book. I'm holding The Thing to a high standard.

I'm reviewing your nomination next. Blade Runner

I think I'll keep the suspense up and wait on reviewing Blade Runner

Over a month ago at the start of this Sci-Fi Hof I watched some movies that I never reviewed. So without further adieu:

Brazil...This is another film that I've seen several times and loved in the past. But I hadn't seen it for over 15 years. On my last watch I found my interest in this film had waned. I felt like I never was introduced to the lead character, sure I knew he was a clerk stuck in a dead end job who dreamed...a lot! But I have no idea who or what he is about. If I don't have a connection to the lead charter then it's hard to emotional connect to the film.

I loved the sets! This film's unique view of the future with mundane items like old TVs and typewriters being modified to have new 'futuristic' functions was neat. The dark cavern like sets that seemed to go on forever added atmosphere. The whole idea of the new juxtaposed with the old worked great. The idea of a over burdened, red tape driven society never looked better!...But I didn't care for the story and was bored. I found myself checking how much longer the film had to go...and it was a long film! Too long. The dream scenes needed to be edited away.

I thought Brazil was just bizarre. The time could have easily been cut down by just removing the romance part of it. I thought that part was completely unnecessary.

The romance part didn't really work but without that, the male character doesn't have anything to do or any reason to do it. I would settle for the dream sequences being cut. I'm writing a review for my review thread right now and was looking for photos....I must say the art direction for the set is amazing! That's the best part of the film to me.

Did you know there were multiple different endings? Some happy, some not. I only watched the one that was on the DVD.

I knew that there were different versions, but I don't know what's different about them. I watched the Director's Cut version of Brazil (142 minutes).

Good write-up, Citizen, and I'm glad you still like it. I do have some responses, of course.

I first saw The Thing in 2006 at the age of 16 and, honestly, even though I was used to judging special effects by CGI standards I found that the film more than held up - if anything, judging it by CGI standards just made it look even better. This much is true when you take into account the 2011 prequel that recreated the Thing using CGI to far less impressive effect. I thought their sporadic deployment was balanced rather well against the developing story and their appearances functioned as cinematic punctuation marks. Also, if the IMDb trivia page is any indication there were plenty of effects that did get edited out - the ones that stayed were pretty essential to the story. There were a few instances of characters dying off-screen, but having it so that everyone died either gory deaths or off-screen without any variation one way or the other would have been a mistake.

Yeah, it's an unapologetic B-movie, but then again so was Alien. For Scott to have repeated the same tactic of hiding the monster in shadow the whole time would have made him come across as a director repeating himself. Hitchcock was an old-school director and it's hard to imagine him making a film that was any different to the Hawks original (even considered his apparent disinterest in straight sci-fi - The Birds is the closest he came and even then it comes across more as supernatural horror).

That says more about Childs' character than script problems. His personality is that of a stubborn tough-guy who has a tendency to challenge authority; this is a trait that comes into play a lot more as the film progresses. The existence of the Thing challenges his worldview to the point where he resorts to extremely skeptical denial. The scene where he keeps calling the Thing "voodoo bulls***" shows him trying to challenge Mac and the scientists' assertions the only way he knows how - by being a belligerent contrarian, which also allows him to question the Thing's existence without dropping his tough-guy image. Also, it allows him to become an audience surrogate for the others to deliver exposition to so it works in the context of the film.

Children of Men

I had high expectations for this film as it's highly rated......I don't know what people see in this film. To me it was just another cookie cutter, modern sci fi action flick. After setting through the film, bored, I asked my wife what she thought of it, her reply "it's a chase movie". Indeed it was one long chase with guns blazing and some lofty ideas about the 'Human Project'.

I wanted to see a thought provoking film not another shoot em up action film. Any higher meaning about birth and life was lost in the explosions and endless running battles. I didn't care for it.

Well, maybe it's because it's a really, really well-done chase film? To call it cookie-cutter does it quite the disservice - that's the kind of criticism I'd reserve to something like Oblivion with Tom Cruise, which is generic to a fault. There are also enough differences in the action - the protagonist isn't a hero, he never uses a gun or is any good at fighting people, any and all action is spaced out considerably far apart (explosion at the start, the single-take car sequence, that one escape, the finale...stop me if I missed any) so to act like it's endless seems to be a bit of an exaggeration. It's a familiar base narrative, but to boil it down to a "chase movie" is like saying Blade Runner is a "detective movie" or The Thing is a "monster movie". It misses out on the nuances that distinguish it. There are plenty of lengthy, quiet, action-free sequences that are dedicated to exploring and developing the world of the film (which is full of extraneous detail that is so well-realised that it invites favourable comparisons to Ridley Scott). The religious subtext may not be all that subtle, but it does result in some nice bits of dialogue (such as Michael Caine talking about the conflict of chance and faith in a long take with Clive Owen eavesdropping - that was a well-done scene). Also, I guess we have to acknowledge the action, so what did you make of the cinematography?

It's been over a month since I seen it so I don't remember what the score or cinematography was like in detail. But ya, it looked good. It just made no impact on me. The first of the nominations I watched was Snowpiercer which I didn't care for. But I did like Snowpiercer better than Children of Men.