djkent

Yes, Yes, I know...this movie could be viewed as simply a ripoff of Godzilla. But really, the Brits took the concept and did a "Good show, old chap." Unlike most of the 'Zilla movies, it actually has an interesting plot. It's theme has a decidedly "pro environment" message...and the guy in the monster suit doesn't camp it up, but makes the monster seem remarkably real. Now there are some weaknesses...despite a journeyman cast of capable folks, many still turn in one-note performances, as if they're a little embarrassed about being in a monster movie. Also, some of the plot mechanisms are a little creaky. For all that, though, this is a monster movie that's at least a small cut above most. It held my attention as an adult (I'd first seen it as a child and didn't see it again for twenty years), the special effects are mostly quite good, and the ending, despite being hokey, still works! It rarely shows up on tv for some reason...so if you get a chance, rent it (there are copies available in independent shops that specialize in rare movies.)

Here is that rare combination; Sandra Bullock turns in a wonderful performance, but without overshadowing the ensemble cast supporting her! I've always liked Sandra Bullock. I've not always liked her vehicles. I didn't care for "Hope Floats" or "Forces of Nature," but I kept hoping she'd get back on track. She certainly did, here! 28 Days manages to tread fairly well along a difficult line. It has a serious subject (addiction) and it doesn't short-shrift or trivialize the subject. At the same time, it "brings out" the humor, by letting the humor derive from the characters themselves. That's how you make a serious movie with a deep vein of humor. You don't add pratfalls or clever lines. You let the humor evolve from the characters themselves, as they react to the situations they're in. The use of flashbacks can be awfully dreary, but in this movie, they are used properly and to great effect. The ensemble cast works side-by-side with Bullock's complicated yet compelling character. Things are explained, but you aren't beaten over the head. The ending is perhaps just a tad sugary for my tastes, but Sandra's fine acting manages to make it work,any way. Sandra Bullock has the potential of being a truely great actress. She's pretty, but not so pretty that it "gets in the way" (This CAN happen, believe me. Would you believe that Cameron Diaz could have played this role?) Moreover, Bullock will allow herself to look a bit ugly, as she does early on in the movie. It's amazing how many truely beautful actresses, won't! (Personal note: Sandra, you've gotten just a little too skinny and muscular. I'm happy that you're obviously fit...but there's not a thing wrong with just a little more body fat to give you a more normal appearance...just a thought, dear lady). Any way, Bullock's abilities aside, this movie will provoke you to think about addiction differently. It shows you its compelling side, and displays clearly why some people "wallow" in their addictions. It also honestly shows that coming back from serious addiction is truely not easy. Yet, at the same time, you will fall in like, if not in love, with many of the characters, and come to hope with them that they will succeed. This is the CORE of the movie, that makes it work. In a character-driven scenario, you must come to empathy...and I believe you will. Sandra, it's good to have you back. Make more like this one!!!

So much can be pointed out, concerning "Forbidden Planet." Yes, it's a rip-off of Shakespeare (you don't think HE didn't rip off plot lines?)...yeah, it may indeed have been Roddenberry's inspiration for "Star Trek." Yeah, it was MGM's only major-effort Sci-Fi film. Those things may or may not be true...but it tells you something when so much legend is generated around a film, doesn't it? Let's observe three things that make this film one of the few Si Fi films that have a permanent home in my private movie collection (which Star Wars, alas, does NOT).... First, it's true Science Fiction (again, which Star Wars, in my opinion, isn't). That's because the Scientific development is homogeneous with the plotline (an absolute necessity to be true Sci Fi, instead of just fantasy with Scientific trappings). Secondly, the acting is archetypal. By it's very nature, good Sci-Fi is arechtypal, meaning the characters represent major forces or universal types. Leslie Nielson's starship captain represents the wit and humanity of us all, a kind of "everyman"; Pigeon's Morbius represents intellect gone awry; Anne Francis represents the hope of love, and the saving grace of innocence...and so on, and so on. Now this can create a problem if you're not a Sci Fi fan. The movie can come across as uni-dimensional. But for its day, Forbidden Planet was amazingly tantalizing, with special effects that the rest of Hollywood didn't catch up with for twenty years! There were the "electronic tonalities" as they are billed (the first synthesized music)...there were matte screen effects that were not only first-rate, but awe-inspiring: the backgrounds of the planet were both other-worldly and beautful. (Remember, this movie was shot entirely on a studio sound stage!!!) There were the other special effects, from the space ship itself, to futuristic home of Morbius, to...well, to say more would be to giving away too much. See them for yourself, and remember that the movie is almost a half-century old!!! I guess my main point, is that this is "classic" Science Fiction, borne from an era of writers where the view of the future was different than today. If you see the movie in that vein, you'll consider it a masterpiece. If you can't obtain that mindset, you'll probably be left feeling disappointed. DON'T compare it to Star Wars, or even its derivative, Star Trek. This movie's heritage is that of the "Golden Age" of written Science Fiction: Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke. Compare it to them, and you'll "get it."