Projeto Brainstorm

The first and last time I saw this movie was back in 1983 and I've wanted to watch it again many times since then. I just couldnt remember the title , until someone here on IMDB reminded me.

I used to explain the plot to the guys at video rental places, and they would just stare at me as though I had gone nuts......

I then recently saw Flatliners and felt the urge to watch Brainstorm again.....so I did..... and I found it just as good as when I first saw it.

Of course there are a few bad points, but it is the idea behind the movie and the way it is projected that leaves you .......feeling......and thats rare for a movie these days.

If you're tired of the usual stuff being churned out by Hollywood, watch Brainstorm.........you wont see anything like it.

Anybody notice certain similarities 'twixt this film and the movie "Strange Days"? In that movie they have perfected a memory-recording device that can be played back on small tapes. Is "Brainstorm" so forgotten that nobody else has made the connection?

"Strange Days" was heralded for its originality, but some of us know better. People who are addicted to the tapes in "Strange Days" are called "tapeheads". I'd like to ask John Cusack and Tim Robbins if they think *that's* original.

I really love these old fashioned, deliberately slower, type of sci-fi movies, that puts its emphasis on the science and takes a realistic approach with its story, no matter how ridicules it all often can get. These type of movies mostly got done successfully in the '70's and this movie actually also has '70's style written all over it. Yet it is as if this movie is holding back, which really prevents this movie from being a classic within its genre, even though all of the right ingredients and potential seemed to be there.

So you could call "Brainstorm" a bit of a disappointment but by doing so you are not doing the movie enough justice and you are not giving it the credit it still deserves. I really still liked it, despite all of its flaws, though some of those flaws can also be brought back to the difficulties of production at the time.

Biggest 'inconvinience' for this movie of course was the sudden and tragic death of key actress Natalie Wood. It almost caused this movie to be stopped down completely but with some changes and rewrites the movie still got finished and released, just not in the way it originally got intended. It must be the reason why the movie ends so abruptly and the story leaves far more questions than answers.

The movie does really have a great concept of the invention of a device that can recored people's experiences and feelings and that can be played back by a different person that will feel the exact same feelings, smells and tastes. A sort of virtual reality, with the exception of that there is actually nothing virtual about the reality. The possibilities with this device are endless and sort of a shame that now almost 30 years later we don't have anything remotely close yet. I said that the possibilities are endless, yet the movie is doing far too little with it. It deliberately restrains itself it seems.

The movie just never reaches full potential, though it is obvious that somewhere deep down everything there is still a great movie to be found. But it remains a fact that the movie never reaches its full potential with its story. The story fails to intrigue and also fails with other things, such as its tension. Quite frankly I had no idea what was all happening toward the end and what the big 'conflict' that needed to be resolved was and how it got done exactly. There is a 'villainoush' plot in the movie that just never seemed that evil- or got explained good enough.

The movie got directed by special effect expert Douglas Trumbull. So visually this movie really doesn't disappoint and to be frank I think that it are still mostly the visuals and its effects that safe this movie and still make it a more than good watch.

But you also have to give credit to Christopher Walken of course, who basically never fails to put down a great performance and character. I really liked most of the acting in this movie and it seemed to be a very well cast one, with some truly great characters in it, that all interact really great and convincingly together.

The movie also features an early James Horner musical score. Funny thing about Horner musical scores is that basically it doesn't matter if it's anything from the '80's, 90's, 2000's or this decade, the all have the same sound and feature the same motifs. It's not big secret Horner often recycles his most early scores and the score of this movie also got heavily recycled by himself in many later movies. Still I'm sure his fans can appreciate his score for this movie and I'm also really not hateful toward it.

Really not as great as this movie potentially could and perhaps also should had been but nevertheless it remains still a good 'realistic' science-fiction movie to watch.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Brainstorm had a rocky road to completion. After Natalie Wood died before completion of shooting, the studio wanted to shut it down and cash in the completion bond. Trumbull had fought tooth and nail to get the film made to begin with, and when it looked like it would be snatched from the jaws of victory, he hunkered down and dramatically altered sequences to prove it could indeed be finished without Wood's unshot scenes.

The "recorded memory" sequences were even more vivid for us in Indianapolis who saw it at the Eastwood theatre. The Eastwood had one of the few curved Cinerama roadshow screens outside of New York and Hollywood's Cinerama Dome. Think of it as a smaller version of an Omnimax screen. Sitting in the front row, you were completely enveloped by the film, and the visual and audio effect when the "memory" sequences lit up were quite attention grabbing. Trumbull was at this time working on his ill-fated Showscan process for amusement park rides, and was very interested in audience perceptions of diffrent lenses and frame rates. Some of this is used in Brainstorm. It's just not the same on a TV set of any size.

The central core of the story - the recording of the death of Lillian and Michael's obsession to experience it - is a disturbing one, because it explores the very nature of life and death. It can satisfy or dissappoint, because Trumbull has put his vision of memory, experience, death and afterlife on film for everyone to take pot shots at. And they did. It's a shame, because the film is beautiful, thought provoking, and ingenious. Yeah, I know, it has all of that evil government plot boilerplate. Look past it.

(It even revels in the quirks of the researchers, showing the second thing everybody does with new technology is use it for porn.)

Douglas Trumbull's early attempt at depicting Virtual Reality in a film is a mixed affair, but remains fascinating. Its solid cast and good production values are somewhat let down by the muddled script and inexperienced direction (this was to be Trumbull's second - and final, Directing gig).

The film is caught in odd Catch 22 - much of its technology has been both long since been surpassed (the Mylar tape & laser show!), and, in other areas, not reached yet - true emotions and sensations transmitted via VR. As expected from Trumbull, the special effects are solid if not as spectacular as his work on 2001, BLADE RUNNER and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS. Originally conceived as a feature film test for his high frame rate Showscan process, Trumbull had to settle for 70mm and a wider aspect ratio for it's VR scenes. There is no question that true Showscan would have made for a more impressive visual experience, even if only in limited locations.

Douglas Trumbull is one of cinema's true visionaries, but a smooth accomplished Director he wasn't. As in SILENT RUNNING, the ideas and visuals outstrip his ability to do them full justice. Still, BRAINSTORM has more solid ideas than 99% of SF films even attempt. The film's love for Science, from the gadgets to the photos of Einstein, to the self-sacrifice of the wonderful Louise Fletcher, this is a movie that celebrates the world of knowledge. And, damn, Christopher Walken that off-the-wall even then!!?? Sadly, poor Natalie Wood looked very tired (her death during filming cast a pall over its release). Cliff Robertson is decent as the head of the experimental lab. Still, it is Fletcher who becomes the heart and literal soul of the production. Her Lillian Reynolds is an exceptional depiction of the dedicated scientist who lets no obstacle get in the way of her pursuits. It is because of Fletcher and the film's concepts that makes the film endure, whatever its flaws.