Last weekend Brian put on a clinic on how to proof your DVD collection from criticism. To fill things out a bit, I took on the enviable task of providing advice on the titles you need to avoid – the ones that give guys like me cart blanche to mock the contents of your shelves. What I have here are my selections for each of the sci-fi subgenres Brian and I agreed upon. Let the trash talking begin!
Sci-Fi Comedy: The Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002) – I’d heard this was terrible, but it wasn’t until I sat down a week before the show to watch it (anything for our loyal listeners) that I realized how bad. Rosario Dawson’s presence in this film cannot outweigh the Randy Quaid android, Eddie Murphy space ranger, and the kitchy way they ripped off the already kitchy Total Recall.
Dystopian Sci-Fi: Babylon AD (2008) – Out of all 5 of these flicks, this was the one I was most disappointed in, as it was the one I actually expected something from. Science fiction really agrees with Vin Diesel, and when you add the incomparable Michelle Yeoh to the mix you’d think you’ve got something special happening. Unfortunately what I got was completely derivative (a common trait in bad sci-fi) and totally uninspired. That they spoiled one of the movie’s big twists in the trailer didn’t help either. You want authenticity in your collection, try any of the dozen movies this one rips off.
Artsy Sci-Fi: Mission to Mars (2000) – This movie’s most redeeming quality? That it finally laid bare that Brian DePalma is a total hack and always has been. People tend to confuse this one with Red Planet, so to make it clear, this is the one with the stupid space tornado and Don Cheadle in Martian dreadlocks. It tries to pay homage to 2001 and all it does is wind up making Gary Sinise look like a moron for 2 hours.
Sci-Fi Horror: Event Horizon (1997) – Just ’cause it’s used to describe films like Sunshine and Solaris (movies that should be in your collection) does not mean it’s worthy of any kind of respect. Paul Anderson (the lame one, not the Boogie Nights one) tried to come up with a crazy gore-fest in space, and all he wound up with was a series of half rendered thoughts laid out on an amateurish backdrop with some actors playing well below their ability. Nuff said.
Epic Sci-Fi: Armageddon (1998) – Hey, I’m not saying that it’s not in my collection, I’m just saying that you can’t think you’ve built a respectable DVD collection just because it’s there. In fact, you have to get a lot more decent DVDs just to balance out owning it. That it’s called Michael Bay’s greatest triumph should be the first indicator that it has no business among respectable epic sci-fi films. With Ben Affleck thinking he’s at his best, Bruce Willis trolling out the worst parts of every character he’s ever played, and Owen Wilson trying his hardest to make a name for himself this one film could undo the credibility of your entire science fiction shelf.
I actually really enjoyed Babylon AD, though I understand your disappointment.
On the other hand I applaud the poo outta you for having the kahunas to put Armageddon and Event Horizon on the list. I admit Event Horizon isn’t as awful as the first viewing I had of it and gave it a second chance a few years ago, and found it at it’s utmost best mediocre, but still mind numbing obnoxious at times.
Armageddon still remains on my short list of worst films of all time. The best part of that movie is the end, and not because of the Areosmith song, but because it’s actually over.
Part of the thing with Babylon AD is that I feel burned that it totally didn’t live up to its potential. The other part is that it was a jumbled mess with no structure.
I’m exactly on the same page with Event Horizon. I once owned it on VHS, then lent it to a “friend” who wound up selling it at a garage sale. I came to feel that despite having Prodigy for the end credits, and the cool as hell job of “rescue technician” it didn’t have any other redeeming qualities worthy of me ever buying it again.
As for Armageddon. It sits on my shelf because me wife put it there. Otherwise I would sooner rest a cold beer on this disc. A transparent attempt at pandering to working class America while making use of the not yet recognized as tired tricks from Bay’s toolchest.
I was disappointed in it because it could have been a lot more. You could feel it’s potential throughout and Vin Diesel had the opportunity to have a role like Riddick in “Pitch Black” (NOT the Chronicles) to give us a reminder that he is more than “The Pacifier” and that guy in the Fast and Furious flicks. Babylon had the meat, but not the follow-through.
Et tu, Heather? Am I the only one in the world that has any love for The Chronicles of Riddick? Nothing against Pitch Black in any way, but Chronicles had some real treats for those starved for a proper sweeping space opera – Starship Troopers so totally doesn’t count. Yeah, I agree that Diesel should step out a little more to give us a little range, aside from Find Me Guilty. I think I wanna see Knockaround Guys ever since we met Barry Pepper.
I have love for Chronicles actually! I thought it was a fine movie that was entertaining and certainly fun, but I don’t think it thoroughly depicts what Vin Diesel actually is capable of as an actor in this genre and certainly not as well thought out or executed as Pitch Black. And I believe a third addition with him staring is planned. I’m totally okay with that, and would probably show up to the theatre for it.
I hearted Knockaround Guys and I haven’t watched it since it was in the theatre. I think a revisit in necessary.
I know neither Mission To Mars or Red Planet are Sci-Fi gems, but the the storyline holes in Red Planet are just to fundamental to ignore. The main one is the premise that oxygen produced by algae would allow a person to walk unsuited on Mars. Wrong. The atmospheric pressure would have to increase by a factor of at least 70% or else a person would literally explode . . . oxygen or not. And, how would the algae grow in the first place? And where did the nematodes come from? This is never adequately explained in the script. On an artistic note, having a renegade robot as the “villain” and Carrie-Anne Moss relegated to space scenery isn’t much more than “cameo candy”. At least with Mission To Mars, there’s a deeper Sci-Fi plot going on. Despite it’s secondary status in the realm of great Sci-Fi flicks, the basic premise is excellent. It’s more than thriller that could have been just as well set on Earth . . . there’s a reason for including Mars in the plot. There’s a tie-in to our place in the universe, the genesis of life on Earth, and a fascinating exploration of what Mars’s history could have been. It would stand up well as a book. Then again . . . Sci-Fi buffs are often too much of picky bunch . . . anything less than 12 Monkeys, 2001 or perhaps The Matrix falls short (IMHO, of course
. BTW–great show guys!! I listen to you each Sunday!
Thanks a lot Scott! We get local listener comments so rarely, it’s nice to know you’re out there checking the site.
I hearing where you’re coming from on the science gaps in Red Planet’s science fiction, they asked a lot from their audience as far as suspension of disbelief. I at least appreciated that they did a few things, like being able to pee really far because of the air pressure and stuff like that. They must have figured if they had some science in there in easy ways for people to digest, we’d overlook some of the more egregious stuff. Honestly though, I’ve seen way worse in way better films. As far as rushing to the defence of Mission to Mars, you’re never going to convince me, other than how it might have worked better as a book. DePalma’s hackneyed direction, the lazy way they borrowed from greater films, and that the final alien revelations did little to enlighten the audience or teach us something new, make this a “Coaster” of galactic proportions. I think Mission to Mars, along with Artificial Intelligence and Contact, led me to realise that a film whose climax involves contact with an alien species will ultimately be unfulfilling because Hollywood writers will never be able to craft a scene that is adequately otherworldly or revelatory… Close Encounters of the Third Kind being the exception, I suppose.
Yeah . . . love the radio show. You guys have a great dynamic between you, and it’s about the most entertaining hour on CFAX. Hope you get some more stations on board. Could be a very bright future!
And, you’re right . . . it’s virtually impossible to do justice to a “galactic epic” on film. The Battlestar Galatica series did about as good a job as one can expect IMHO. There’s so many classic books that would be so hard to do on film . . . The Mote In God’s Eye, Rama, Foundation, Ringworld. Cripes, even Nightfall was a total dog as a movie.
Ooop . . . my bad. I meant to say the atmospheric pressure on Mars would have to increase 70 fold, not by 70%. The air pressure on Mars is about 1% of Earth’s, so even a 70 fold increase is being generous as to whether people could walk in the open. I didn’t look it up, but I’ll bet it would have to be approximately 90% of Earth’s (or something akin to higher altitudes here).
On the mark again. Even in one of my all-time favourite Sci-Fi flicks (12 Monkeys), the question of “how the heck did they create a time machine” has to be parked in the “total suspension of disbelief” realm
. And of course, in virtually every Sci-Fi film or story, the two questions of interstellar travel and human-friendly alien biospheres would poo-poo just about everything for the picky types 
I’ve always felt that the most important thing to do in a movie that uses some seriously fictional science fiction is to weave a story so good that you don’t have a chance to ask “But, wouldn’t that mean…?” “Hold on a second, that doesn’t…” I think that crosses the picky and non-picky lines too. For example, as much as people would prefer not to admit it, Abrams’ Star Trek was entertaining enough that simply the mention of “red matter” was enough to appease audiences about the insanely crazy idea that someone could stop a star from going supernova… or that it would be something that people wouldn’t see coming to begin with.
I totally agree. People definitely embraced the The Red Matter component as part of conflict/challenge/plot the characters had to deal with. Same with my fave – 12 Monkeys. The story and character development were so damn good, and Gilliam did such an incredible job of scripting. For ages after watching that movie, I thought of the actors as their roles as opposed to their names (to me the mark of any great movie). Bruce *was* James Cole, Stowe *was* Railly, etc. Same as Sixth Sense . . . Willis *was* Malcolm. OT for the Sci-Fi thread, but also who didn’t think of Travolta as Vincent Vega for months after watching that flick
. Which of course, brings everyone to the other main component of a truly great movie . . scripting. A knowing smirk or askew glance can be far more effective than reams of dialogue. I don’t wanna take up too much of your time in the blogosphere, but I’ve never understood why more effort isn’t spent in character development and scripting. There are SO many movies that end up being average, when a tad more tending to the script would make them good/great. 10s of million on special effects wasted because the characters are stolid or underdeveloped.
My understanding is that David Twohy is going for something more like Pitch Black and less like Chronicles for the new Riddick film. Fair enough, but it seems like an awful lot of world to develop an entire universe and then wind up snubbing it for the next film. Apparently Karl Urban will be back for more too.
You might as well ask why nobody ever closes doors in movies or TV, or why Nicolas Cage keeps getting work. When dealing with movies with budgets the size they are, they are business enterprises first and works of art second. If it’s more expedient to move into special effects and away from a script that’s been worked on by like 5 people, then that’s what’s gonna happen. You can see that things are really out of control when a director like Michael Bay spends the writer’s strike developing the special effects for Transformers 2, deciding that he can just get writers to write around what he’s made. It’s totally backasswards.
I think it’s this usual lack of quality that makes the great films seem even greater by comparison. And if they were all great, Brian and I would have nothing to complain about.
Don’t ever worry about “taking up blogging time”. That’s exactly what this site is built for: lengthy discussion on all these topics.