Greatness Out Of Order: Pulp Fiction Holds Up!

The Good: Good acting, Decent characters, Engaging direction
The Bad: Non-sequitor plot/lines do not add up to anything.
The Basics: Pulp Fiction is a delightful mix of funny and violent in a way that remains entertaining even today!


When it comes to modern classics, there are several films that I will grant have real greatness to them. Pulp Fiction is one that I – like many – have accepted as great without having watched it many, many times in order to justify that opinion. So, now that my wife has the deluxe Blu-Ray edition of Pulp Fiction, I’ve been granted the chance to really delve into the film to evaluate it from a well-rounded perspective. And, after rewatching the film three times in as many days (without and with the commentary track on), I’ve come to the place where I can appreciate all of the elements of the film, but I don’t think it adds up to a perfect film.

Pulp Fiction is funny, original, violent, and generally engaging, but so much of the originality of the dialogue does not add up to anything exceptional. In other words, while Samuel L. Jackson’s character, Jules, has a genuine epiphany and character growth, most of the other characters, like John Travolta’s Vincent Vega, might be distinctive or quirky in their dialogue, but they do not develop beyond that. Vincent Vega’s ramblings about Europe are, ultimately, nothing more than musings of a dope fiend and he never evolves beyond that. The point is, while Quentin Tarantino’s mainstream masterpiece has quotable lines, great stars, and an engaging presentation, objectively viewed, the story the film tells, with the characters involved, is hardly as original or as compelling as those in truly perfect films. So, while Pulp Fiction is incredible, it does not have the timeless greatness of, for example, Casablanca (reviewed here!).

Told in three parts, out of order, Pulp Fiction follows the people working for gangster Marsellus Wallace in Los Angeles. Marsellus employs two hitmen, Jules and Vincent, who are sent to recover a briefcase. The briefcase contains a mysterious artifact that belongs to Marsellus and in recovering the briefcase, Jules and Vincent end up in a bind when Vincent’s gun goes off and kills Marvin. Following a pretty terrible day, Vincent Vega is charged with taking Marsellus Wallace’s wife, Mia, out for the evening. When he does, she gets into Vincent’s heroin and has an overdose, so Vincent is in a race to save her life lest his life become forfeit by the gangster, who seems ruthless (as characterized by the rumor that Marsellus Wallace through a man off a building for giving his wife a foot massage).

Also working for Marsellus is the washed-up boxer, Butch Coolidge, who is paid by Marsellus to take a dive in the fifth round of his prize fight. When Butch resists, he flees with his girlfriend, Fabienne, who accidentally left his father’s watch behind. When recovering his father’s watch, Butch gets into a conflict with Wallace that results in them imprisoned by two male rapists who want to have their way with them. Given all they see and experience, Jules is put to the test when he and Vincent are out at a diner and the restaurant is taken hostage by two petty criminals.

The thrust of the character growth in Pulp Fiction comes in the form of Jules and to a lesser extent Butch. Jules is a trained killer who has had no trouble working for Marsellus until this particular day. After musing on how ruthless Marsellus is, Jules sees how fragile life is, has an epiphany and pledges to go in a different direction with his life. Writer and director Quentin Tarantino puts the story out of order, at least in part, to illustrate character development in Jules’s storyline.

It is somewhat ambiguous if Butch actually develops – certainly in a positive way – in Pulp Fiction. Butch is characterized as a generally decent guy who simply is blooming late and may have missed his chance to be a contender. When asked, he admits he has never killed another person, but when he refuses to take a dive, he accidentally kills his opponent. In the hours that follow, Butch consciously kills at least three people (one only over a watch!). While fans of the film might argue that Butch develops as a character because he goes back into his captive’s lair, but that fits with his initial characterization of being a good guy who is just trying to make his way through the world.

Unlike many of Tarantino’s works, Pulp Fiction is laugh-out-loud funny in many places. Instead of just being gory or disturbing (though the rape scene in Pulp Fiction is quite disturbing, though it leads to a very Tarantino catharsis), Pulp Fiction is actually funny. A lot of the humor comes from straightlaced tough guys talking about ridiculous and mundane topics and the odd nonsequitors they experience enforcing the will of the gangster.

Tarantino stacks the deck by populating Pulp Fiction with pretty incredible actors. While John Travolta is delightfully goofy as Vincent Vega, Samuel L. Jackson and Ving Rhames are completely badass as Jules and Marsellus. Jackson is a credible killer going through an enlightenment, just as Bruce Willis is entirely believable as a prize fighter who might have peaked too late in his career to be taken seriously. Willis and Maria De Medeiros play off one another to be a credible couple who might run off with each other after all other hope is gone.

Ultimately, Pulp Fiction is enjoyable and different and it showcases some impressive acting talent. Even as the lines amuse and the situation intrigues and the actors perform, it becomes difficult to become invested in how the characters will resolve their various problems. That makes Pulp Fiction more entertaining than substantive.

For other works by Quentin Tarantino, please visit my reviews of:
Kill Bill, Volume 2
Kill Bill, Volume 1
Jackie Brown
Reservoir Dogs

9/10

Check out how this film stacks up against others I have reviewed by visiting my Movie Review Index Page for a listing of movies from best to worst!

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Two Men Boxed In: The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3 In Real Time.

The Good: General idea is interesting enough, Principles act well enough
The Bad: Some bad acting, Pacing, Annoying direction, Overbearing soundtrack, Title blocks
The Basics: Obvious and average, Tony Scott's remake of The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3 is visually confused and boring.


Last night was a pretty disappointing night for me at the cinema. In addition to taking in one of the worst romantic comedies I have ever seen, I made it to an advanced screening of the new John Travolta/Denzel Washington vehicle (pun intended) The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3. This is a suspense/thriller which is based upon a novel and a 1974 film by the same name. I believe that the last time I came out of a thriller or conspiracy film this underwhelmed was for Pride And Glory (reviewed here!), though this film did not have the technical issues that that one did, it was still annoying, obvious and ultimately an unpleasant waste of my time.

As is my usual disclaimer for such things, this is an evaluation of the 2009 film The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3, not the novel upon which it is based or on its quality as a remake. I have neither read the John Godey novel nor seen the 1974 film. As such, this is a rather pure viewing of the film as it was presented. And it was presented poorly by director Tony Scott.

It is an ordinary day in New York City where Walter Garber is working at his Transit Authority desk in Rail Control Center (Midtown). At 1:59 P.M., men board the Pelham 123 train and by 2 P.M., the conductor and the motorman (driver) are hostages and the train is heading into a secure section where it stops. Garber notices the change almost immediately and when the train stops and separates, he tries desperately to raise the motorman. The train is separated and when a transit police officer makes a move on one of the hostage takers, he is killed. The obvious leader, though, makes an unexpected move, which is to have the conductor release everyone on the longer half of the train and walk them all to safety. In the engine car of the subway, then, the leader takes nineteen people hostage and he opens a line of communication with Garber in Rail Control.

Garber and the man, Ryder, then begin a series of negotiations where Ryder demands $10,000,000.01 for the release of the hostages and Garber realizes almost immediately that the hostage taker means business and that he knows his way around the system. A passenger aboard the subway loses his internet access on his laptop while communicating with his terrified girlfriend, setting up future scenes when Ryder and his team set up their own wireless network. Through that, Ryder learns more about Garber and the two begin an intellectual chess match wherein the lives of innocents are placed in the balance for ten million dollars.

The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3 is supposed to be tense, but unfortunately, it is packed with cliches that utterly gut the suspension of disbelief, not because they are unreal, but because anyone who has seen this type of movie before has seen exactly what Tony Scott and Brian Helgeland (the screenwriter) do in it. So, for example, when the hostage negotiator, Lieutenant Camonetti, arrives and takes over, Ryder becomes furious and demands to speak with Garber, who was sent home moments before. The viewer knows - not just because Garber is played by Denzel Washington and he has top billing - that Garber is Ryder's foil and he will be back the moment he rises from his desk. That Scott and Helgeland expect the audience to believe even for a second that Garber is being replaced is insulting to the viewer and that they played that card sets the viewer up for future disappointments in the film.

The most notable disappointment here is in the character of Garber. Garber is working in the Midtown Rail Control Center because he is under investigation for bribery; he is actually a big shot. When Ryder has a gun to a kid's head aboard the subway car, the viewer is given the full story about that investigation and it seems again like the film is mired in the conceits of the genre rather than telling a story that is truly original. The result here is that there are two minutes of exposition that are less revelatory and more boring. Like the fact that the laptop's feed would somehow be used to gain information on those in the subway car, this conceit is more or less built in to the idea and the concept that Garber is not a perfect angel is more underwhelming than in any way shocking.

Throughout the film, director Tony Scott adds annoying reminders of what time it is (the clock is counting down to 3:13 P.M., when Ryder will start killing hostages for every minute the money is late) which is utterly unnecessary because time is continually being referenced by the characters. Thirty-seven minutes from the deadline, the Mayor agrees to pay the the ten million and that sum becomes a clue into Ryder's mind and history. Scott's annoying notations on-screen about time and location are hardly enough for non-New York City dwellers to truly appreciate the effort. So, for example, as the police transit for the cash is labeled en route from a marker "Midtown Manhattan" viewers who are not fluent in The City are left in the dark because this has no relation to us with the film's other notation "42 and Vanderbilt." The notations are only worthwhile if one has a sense of scale or geography to match them and Scott does not build that into the film.

The only element that is truly clever is Ryder's real plan, which is revealed surprisingly early in the film to anyone who can read and intuit. As well, The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3 does have some social commentary. Unlike a film like 15 Minutes (reviewed here!), the commentary here is far more subtle and seems to be more general about the state of economics in the world. Capitalism kills in The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3 and those who play the game and try to fly right will be corrupted in order to save their families.

Ryder is given surprisingly little motivation and the viewer is left wondering what he needs the vast sums of money he sets out to get for. Characters like his assistant from the inside, Phil Ramos, are actually fleshed out more but also leave the viewer wondering why they do what they do. In other words, Ramos could easily be a man bent on revenge from the way he was dismissed from the transit authority. But he is the brains of the operation and there is not a single scene where actor Luis Guzman acts like his character is motivated by revenge.

The acting in the film is average, though John Travolta makes for a convincing bad guy here. The cute 8-year-old boy outshines the acting of the teenage George (the kid with the laptop) though. Denzel Washington is also convincing as Garber, but this is hardly one of his indispensable roles. Instead, this is pretty much the product of great casting, much like Spacey and Jackson in The Negotiator. Like that film, Washington and Travolta play off one another as the viewer awaits the inevitable scene where they meet in the real world and have a chance to play face-to-face. Their acting is good.

But it is not enough to go see this film. The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3 is one long stretch of boredom punctuated by pointless car chases and witless characters who ask the questions engaged viewers ask about ten minutes after the viewer does. This is an easy film to pass by during Summer Blockbuster Season and only suitable for wasting a rainy day on DVD.

For other works written by Brien Helgeland, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Mystic River
Payback
L.A. Confidential

4.5/10

For other movie reviews, check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Bolt Is A Fun Action Adventure Animated Film That Has Some Real Moments!

The Good: Decent premise, Moments of clever dialogue, Good sense of emotion
The Bad: Very predictable plot format, Disney sidekick conceit
The Basics: Bolt is enjoyable, but not as substantial as some other, more unpredictably character-driven Disney animated films.


Part of the fun of the holidays for me is in giving my wife gifts I know she will like. Because so many of the movies she loves are from Disney, I picked up many Disney movies for her in the last year. The thing is, when I had money to do that, I bulked up on the gifts for her. So, when I planned out her gifts, I wrapped up many of them and put on each one the holiday or event it was intended for. Today when my wife was unwrapping gifts, one of them was a Disney film I had forgotten all about. It was Bolt and it became the first DVD or Blu-Ray I bought my wife for the holiday that she wanted to see. So, we spent some time this afternoon watching Bolt and I have to say I enjoyed it!

Bolt begins as an engaging-enough animated film that becomes less distinctive as the movie goes on. While it bursts right into the plotline in a way that is uncharacteristic of Disney movies, it promises something uncommon. Unfortunately, at the moments that Bolt could truly, fully commit to being a powerful, adult film disguised as an animated movie, it cops out and reverts to being a very predictable, surprisingly obvious Disney kid's movie. That made the movie less satisfying for me as one who loves adult films.

Bolt is a puppy when he comes to live with Penny. Five years later, he is a super-powered dog that helps Penny in her unending quest to find her father again. Bolt is fast, strong and smart and with Penny, he takes on an entire international criminal syndicate. At least, that is what Bolt believes. Actually, Bolt works on a television show, unbeknownst to him. When the network comes in and demands the show retain its important demographic by becoming more depressing and real, the producers of the series feature a cliffhanger episode where Penny is abducted. Penny tries to reassure Bolt, but because the producers need Bolt to believe in the reality of the show, she is forbidden from seeing him after the episode wraps and reassuring him.

Bolt, desperate to find Penny, breaks out of his trailer and begins his search for her. Bolt gets mailed off to New York City where he encounters Mittens, a cat running a protection racket. Out in the real world, Bolt begins to fear what it means that he has lost his powers. Together with Mittens and a bubble-ball ensnared hamster, Rhino, Bolt learns to beg and works to get back to Hollywood and his beloved friend Penny!

The road trip movie is hardly a new thing for a Disney animated film. They do that type of character journey on about half of their films and Bolt offers nothing truly new. Bolt is an uncharacteristic action-adventure film with minimal comedy at the outset. What comedy there is in Bolt is slapstick, usually Bolt running into doors, windows and the like. That humor gets repetitive and seems specifically designed to get back the children that are mortgaged by the direct, action, drama aspects that lead the film.

The other big Disney conceit comes in the form of Muffin and Rhino. Disney movies seldom have the character developing on their own. Instead, they need sounding boards and that dependence upon these stock characters is troubling. In Bolt, while Muffin is interesting, Rhino quickly comes across as a very basic, generic sidekick. His lines are not terribly funny, though he is performed as a manic, over-the-top, sidekick who is responsible more for catchphrases than character growth.

Bolt is performed by a surprisingly limited cast for a Disney film. John Travolta takes the voicing of Bolt like a champ, though the musical number during the closing credits did not exactly help to sustain his post-Pulp Fiction comeback. Miley Cyrus voices Penny without real distinction, so it is hard to see why Disney tapped her for the project other than the fact she was probably already on the lot when the movie was being produced. Malcolm McDowell and Diedrich Bader provide distinctive vocals as Dr. Calico and one of the cats, but other major roles, like Mittens and Rhino are voiced by the comparative unknowns, Susie Essman and Mark Walton, respectively.

On DVD, Bolt comes with behind-the-scenes featurettes and some decent additional cartoons, like the one where Rhino is added to the television show that Bolt is a part of! The bonus features are cute and informative, making the DVD a worthwhile buy. Despite the Disney conceits and the sacrifice of the more adult moments that open the film, Bolt is very entertaining and worth picking up.

For other Disney animated films, please visit my reviews of:
Tangled
Toy Story 3
A Christmas Carol
Up
WALL-E
The Incredibles
Monsters, Inc.
The Lion King
The Little Mermaid
Lady And The Tramp
The Sword In The Stone
Sleeping Beauty
Fantasia

7/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

A Primarily Bad Movie: Primary Colors Fails

The Good: Adrian Lester's acting, Kathy Bates' character, Occasional line of dialogue
The Bad: John Travolta, Plot, Characters, Most everything
The Basics: A huge disappointment in the crappy impression of Bill Clinton that John Travolta does, Primary Colors left me wanting the two hours, twenty-four minutes of my life back!


When I was much much younger, I got an aquarium for my birthday and I had fish for many years. At that point in my life, I wanted to be a marine biologist and my parents liked that idea. When I was twelve, I went away to a sleepaway summer camp and my parents got rid of my fish because I, in their esteemed view, hadn't been taking adequate care of them. That was their right, I suppose. Earlier this year, I was visiting my father and I got my aquarium back from him. I've put together one model in my life and my idea with all of this was, I didn't want to have to dust the model because it has fragile parts. My thought was, I would get the aquarium, clean it up, get some glass for the top and enclose the model after making a little diorama base for it. It's a good idea, but my old aquarium still has scum from that time well over a decade and a half ago when it was put in the basement.

The point to this whole story? Since I returned the aquarium to my possession and my new house, I've not gotten around to cleaning it. Removing old calcium deposits from glass is an annoying, painstaking chore. It involves using a sharp razorblade as delicate tool to scrape off the deposits and streaks and grime.

What does this have to do with the film Primary Colors? After the first forty-five minutes of this awful, awful film, I looked around my room, saw the aquarium and got out a razorblade to clean it while watching the rest of the movie. You know what? The second half of the film was no better and my aquarium finally got cleaned; I have hopes the model will soon be enshrined.

So, what's so bad about Primary Colors? First, it has John Travolta. It has John Travolta upstaging everyone else who appears in the film whom I know to be competent in other works. A perfect example would be one of my favorites, Maura Tierney. She's always upstaged by Travolta, the camera always goes from her to him and it's sad.

Second, John Travolta's character and his acting. If you were an adult during the first Bush administration back in the late 1980s, early 1990s, you might recall Dana Carvey's wonderful impersonations of George Bush. If you were even halfway astute, you might have realized that soon after Carvey's impersonation became popularized, the VAST majority of Bush impersonations became impersonations of Carvey impersonating Bush rather than actually impersonating Bush. John Travolta's character is an impression of Bill Clinton. The problem is, while he has most of the mannerisms down, he has nowhere near the charisma. Both the character and the actor fail to portray anything nearly as genuine as Bill Clinton did. Worse still is the acting; during a crucial scene near the very end, Travolta loses his Clinton-esque accent and mannerisms and delivers a speech as John Travolta. The only thing worse than his Clinton style character impersonation is Travolta being himself.

Primary Colors is an example of a turn of the old phrase "What if we threw a party and nobody showed?"; What if you had a party filled with great guests and then tied and gagged them all? The film is filled with great actors and actresses: Maura Tierney, Kathy Bates, Billy Bob Thorton, Emma Thompson, and Adrian Lester (more on him later), but they are given horrid lines, usually bland characters (most of whom are caricatures of decent people from the Clinton administration), and stuck in a tired, predictable, plodding, depressingly simple plot.

The film, quite simply, is about Jack Stanton and his rise from Southern governor and political obscurity to Democratic presidential candidate. The film focuses quite a bit on the political machinations behind his campaign as well as his relationship with his wife. The real crux of the film is the character Henry, who is enlisted to run the grassroots campaign as the movie opens. The problem is, too often the story shifts away from him and the camera focuses on Jack.

Henry is the bright spot of the movie. The shining glimmer of hope in an otherwise murky film that feels like an un-funny Saturday Night Live sketch dragged out too long. So long it doesn't even know it's dead. Henry is played by Adrian Lester and his acting makes the character. His acting allows us to overlook the oversimplified idealism shattered story that is the essence of Henry's character arc. The closest hope the film has outside Lester's exceptional work interpreting an otherwise standard character, is in the character of Libby played by Kathy Bates. She's one of those people that was a hippie back in the day, filled with idealism and still has a glimmer in her eye about the political process and the goals of her politician. It's from her character that the film's few decent lines are delivered.

The problem is her character is also corrupted beyond believability. As one of the most important events in the film nears, she declares that Stanton's choice will be a test that will either make or break her faith in him. She declares this, he fails the test and she doesn't just leave. One might argue that the action she takes is more extreme and meaningful, but I would argue that the philosophy with which she speaks about the test before the verdict comes indicates her move would simply have been to throw her allegiance to another candidate. That is to say, she speaks of such principles and the focus and diction is on a desire to have an ideal that it's too hard to suspend the disbelief for what she ends up doing. It reads wrong. Whatever the "historical truth" beyond her character might have been, the specific lines she used indicate a different action that made sense for her character to take.

The simple truth about Primary Colors is is that it is a formulaic political film and it's populated by bad everything. It's poorly written, unimaginatively directed, filled with good actors delivering bland performances; it's not funny, it's not dramatic, it's not much of anything. The only plus side I can find in the film in the final analysis is that perhaps you'll get to that project you've been putting off while watching it. I know I'm happy my aquarium is ready to have its diorama built inside it.

For other political works, please check out my reviews of:
The West Wing
Charlie Wilson's War
The Hurt Locker

2.5/10

For other film reviews, please be sure to visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2010, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.




| | |

If Star Wars Were Rewritten By Klingons: Battlefield Earth Still Stinks.

The Good: Umm . . . Special effects?
The Bad: Characters, ACTING!!!! Plot. Direction.
The Basics: In about 117 minutes, three were actually engaging. The rest was predictable, obvious and ESPECIALLY poorly acted.


[Like many films I reviewed a long time ago and did not like, I did not go back and rewatch "Battlefield Earth" before revising and moving this review. The only thing that truly caught me was my assertion that Barry Pepper couldn't act. I guess this wasn't his best performance. There are other movies that prove he can act, so I let the comment stand with this note! Enjoy!]

I went into Battlefield Earth expecting the film to be a complete lemon. I've never been much of a fan of John Travolta (Primary Colors still ranks near the bottom of my film barrel) and a lot of people I respected told me this was the worst movie of all time. The truth is, it isn't. I've seen worse films. I've reviewed plenty of films that - given the opportunity - I would rate worse than this film. At the moment, the only one to come to mind is the awful National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. Okay, there may not be a LOT of worse films than Battlefield Earth, but there are some.

Battlefield Earth is the story of the year 3000. In that year, humans have been enslaved and driven toward extinction by the evil forces of the planet . . . ::shudder:: Psychlo. Okay, the film had me surprisingly engaged until the first mention of the villains as "Psychlos." For one reason or another, the Psychlos have been killing off people for a thousand years while they strip mine Earth. It has never occurred to them in that entire time to enslave people. So, why do they bother to keep humans in cages?

That question is the first of many unsatisfactorily answered in the film. And it's a pretty huge question. Another one is, if the Psychlo people value metal so much and they're so intelligent, when they arrived, why didn't they: #1. Notice coins are made of metal and assume they came from somewhere and look for where all the coins were produced as a source of gold (i.e. that Fort Knox lasts 1,000 years after an alien invasion whose purpose is gold is somewhat absurd) and #2 Disassemble every skyscraper in the world? I mean, let's face it, if metal is your thing, there are tons and tons of it in skyscrapers.

Perhaps the writer (the founder of scientology L. Ron Hubbard) never considered these obvious points that struck me rather instantly when the film began. I suppose the simple answer is that the Psychlo only want our gold. Why didn't they just ask? The film references the Psychlo invasion and how it took nine minutes for the Psychlo to destroy the military powers of Earth. That being the case, how is it that the supposed protagonists in the film find a perfectly usable air force? Okay, but getting back to this allusion of the nine minute collapse of the Earth military, it occurs to me that the writer has no clear understanding of how humans work. Faced with a clearly superior foe, humans are resourceful. Who wouldn't believe that 21st Century humans, faced with extinction or ponying up some dough wouldn't sell ourselves for freedom. That is, the purpose of this film is instantly overlooked; were aliens to invade today and say "Your money or your life" the Earth governments would say "What money?" and the Psychlos would say "Arg, matey, we come for your gold!" and who wouldn't believe that the human government wouldn't laugh and say, "You want our gold, well, okay!" The truth is, the world no longer runs on a gold standard. There's not enough gold on the planet to equal the unified world currencies. We'd say, "here are all our major sources of gold, go away and don't come back."

Okay, so from the beginning, we know that the film is absolutely pointless and unrealistic.

Given that, the film opens by insulting our intelligence by presenting Jonnie Goodboy Tyler (no, it's not "Greenboy" as it sounds throughout the film!). Jonnie is a human who rides a horse, dresses in rags and has an annoyingly pretty-boy face for a time when humans are nearing extinction. Jonnie is promptly captured by the Psychlo after setting up a pathetic romantic subplot.

I'm irked at films where things are post-apocalyptic and everyone is a de-evolved numbnut dressed in furs. If we're to believe that air force planes put together by the lowest bidder will last for a thousand years, why wouldn't we believe that malls are occasionally looted for ancient clothes that are still intact?

The Psychlo security chief, Terl, upset about being stuck on Earth indefinitely, strikes upon an unbrilliant plan: let's take the malcontent human who has been killing Psychlo and use him and his friends for an experiment. Terl decides it's time to try using humans as slaves. Unsupervised. So, Terl and Goodboy educate each other on the ways of their people as Goodboy and friends plan to destroy the Psychlo city.

Okay, I'll get off the plot shortcomings. There are way too many. It's an obvious attempt to be Star Wars and instead of the Empire, it's the humans fighting the Klingons from Star Trek. Whoever designed the costumes clearly stole them from the Klingon uniforms established in Star Trek The Motion Picture."

John Travolta is horrible in his acting. He plays a huge, burly villain with the most annoyingly high pitched voice. Poor Forest Whitaker, relegated to the assistant to Terl! It's a sad thing when fine actors take bad parts. Whitaker makes due with it as best he can. Sabine Karsenti is obvious as the romantic interest in the film's weakest, most obvious subplot. The real loser of the film on the acting front is Barry Pepper. Maybe he's a scientologist friend of Travolta's, I honestly don't know. He can't act his way out of a paper bag, though. Both the acting and the character are truly pathetic, uninspired and utterly unrealistic.

None of the characters come alive. Terl has moments of being villainous and in control, but his critical underestimating of the humans - especially after he sees what they are capable of when Goodboy (I shudder every time I write that name) kills a Psychlo lieutenant of his - undoes any of that.

This film doesn't even entertain as it is something too obvious. Every frame screams "Hero story you've seen before!" And while the best such films use villains that are wonderful and the equal of the hero (Vader and Fett in The Empire Strikes Back, Gul Dukat in Star Trek Deep Space Nine, Society in Brazil) the villains here are too little villain, too little sense. And how ethnocentric! If I were an invading force here to take over the Earth for its gold, why would I chose the United States (especially if I didn't know about Ft. Knox and/or the Federal Reserve in NYC?)? My answer: I wouldn't. And if I did, I would only do it if I were making many many cities.

I guess I ought to go off and become a supervillain. Or perhaps films this obvious and daft ought not to be made.

For other science fiction films, please check out my reviews of:
Land Of The Lost
Inception
Doomsday

2/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2010, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.



| | |