Missed this one due to the usual suspects: high list traffic and low time to
look it all over.:/
On Wednesday, March 22, 2000 5:06 AM john grigg starman125@hotmail.com
wrote:
> Daniel Ust wrote:
> Comparing it to "2001: A Space Odyssey" is like comparing Jewel's poems to
> those of Blake. :)
> (end)
>
> Wow, that is really saying something! Jewel is not too well liked in
Alaska
> after she denied being an Alaskan in a California interview. The local
> radiostations mock her and there was a "I used to know Jewel before she
was
> famous" article in a paper that wasn't too flattering. She cancelled her
> last concert here which put the final nail in her coffin.
Whatever.
> you continue:
> But even if the film were good, it would not be like "2001" simply because
> Kubrick was going down a different path. (If you wanta film that's similar
> to "2001," see Takovsky's "Solaris.")
> (end)
>
> I have seen _Solaris_ and own a copy of the video. I had a hard time
> initially getting into it but then got hooked into the story. It was very
> eerie realizing what was going on. Some friends of mine called it boring
> but never gave it a chance.
It is boring if you're looking for the typical science fiction film --
action, aliens, and a love interest thrown in. Both the movie and the novel
are toward the cerebral end of science fiction. (I'm not trying to say you
can have action, good special effects, etc. and an interesting theme, but
the industry tends to segregate the two.)
I do admit, however, that the movie was even on this end a bit slow moving
and some of the scenes seemed suprfluous, especially, for those who have
seen it, the one of the guy driving in the car with his son. To me, that
scene added nothing to the story. That's why I don't think mentioning it
here is a spoiler for those who might see it.
Anyway, I would not expect any given science fiction film to hold up to the
standards of "2001: A Space Odyssey." My problem with "Mission to Mars" and
most science fiction films is the stories suck. They do not even try to be
great stories and fail. They try to be mediocre stories and go for cool
special effects.
And there's a lot of science fiction literature out there that could be
adapted to film. Look at how the movie industry sticks, sadly, to pretty
much the same grove all the time -- in a lot of areas. How many remakes of
"Dracula" and "Frankenstein" do we need? (It kind of reminds me of the
classical music scene, where you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a
Bach concert, but look for Rebel or Tartini and you'll have to swing a whole
animal shelter full of them before coming up pay dirt. And I love Bach!)
Maybe what science fiction film needs is a spat of low budget directors --
independents and experimentalists -- who can pull off a full blockbusters so
as to shift the market... But then most science fiction film fans I've met
are all for special effects and stupid stories. (Present company
excluded.:) Heck, I know a few people who even liked last year's "Star
Wars" film.:@
> Another great Russian film is _Stalker_ and tells the story of some sort
of
> meteorite that somehow 'warped' the reality around the crashsite in an
> everchanging way. A 'tourguide' takes a small group into the forbidden
> area. This film is excellent and very philosophical.
I haven't "Stalker" or any of his other films yet.
Daniel Ust
http://mars.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:26 MDT