vostf

One could do a side by side comparison of Looker and Coma. Coma is maybe less visionary - we hope - but very well executed and all that Michael Crichton achieved in his storytelling for Coma fells flat here.

Anyway to think that Michael Crichton was already anticipating this in 1975 - when he mentions first having the idea for Looker - that is almost half a century before it became a major issue for actors, makes it worth a watch by itself.

Worth watching indeed for the first scene - which maybe inspired Shane Black when he wrote Lethal Weapon? - who is a powerful hook, and later the scene when the female lead goes to visit her parents only to see them hardly interested in her and totally glued to the TV set.

Michael Crichton thought it was too disturbing a theme to treat as a dark thriller, unfortunately. The second half moves erratically and somewhat comically till the conclusion. Nobody thought about a remake because, well, this is no longer anticipation and it is very doubtful that deepfakes could be an effective plot element.

This is one of those movies I had maybe already watched many years ago but could not be absolutely sure. Memory did its work of weeding out the unsignificant stuff maybe.

Silent Running feels like a Twilight Zone episode blown out to feature length (bad) and wide-screen expectations (good). The premise is really flimsy, nothing much happens because it is just a very naive idea that is not developed into something bigger. So Bruce Dern is here to help make it look more intense and intelligent than it really is, and the sets and cinematography are also very impressive for a low budget. Sorry to be blunt but in the end it just looks like someone with half the IQ of Kubrick was impressed by (and inspired by his work on) 2001. Those cute droids don't hold a candle to HAL and all this sentimentalism feels quite misplaced beyond the stargate.

I could not remember if I had already seen the movie. Maybe I tried some years back, or maybe I just read about it, anyway there is nothing much to remember. As a Sci-Fi endeavour it is quintessential, no doubt. Some reviewers here described it as a Sci-Fi procedural... that's precisely the point, or lack thereof. A procedural is interesting because it is anchored in our boring present. Conversely Sci-Fi has an obligation to tickle our imagination.

The Andromeda Stain might well be an interesting book but it certainly had zero potential as a feature length. There is basically no action, everything happens in the mind of scientists, so action relies on dialogue to blandly expose thoughts 95% of the time. Actors are just asked to play dead-serious scientists and further contextualizing editing just messes up with whatever tension could build up in the isolated base.

All in all it looks as if the Hollywood executives involved here had watched 2001 and thought movie goers could enjoy whatever Sci-Fi story with only clean-cut contemplative imagery and some scientifical grand scheme as a story.