Preview: Dystopian Futures

---

dystopia |disˈtōpēə|
noun
an imagined place or state in which everything is unpleasant or bad, typically a totalitarian or environmentally degraded one. The opposite of Utopia.

---

When it comes to the future, cinema rarely has painted a rosy picture. Quick! Other than Back to the Future Part II, name a movie set in the future where things are bright and sunny? You see, not so easy, huh?

Even when movies show off the projected power of mankind and technology in a depicted future, it always accompanies a darker side of society grown as a result. The earliest example that comes to mind is Fritz Lang's Metropolis in 1927, but perhaps the most referenced imagery of a dystopian future in the past few decades is found in Ridley's Scott's techo-noir Blade Runner in 1982. Close your eyes for a minute. Do you have that imagery in your head right now? Not so pretty, is it? No rose-colored glasses when it comes to these visions of the future.

As Sci-Fi week comes to a close, The Paramount will screen two films with a similar icy view of humanity: Terry Gilliam's Brazil and Robert Altman's Quintet.

Released in 1985 after months of arm wrestling between Universal Studio bosses and Gilliam, Brazil has been hailed as a biting satire set in an Orwellian world. Filled with Terry's trademark cinematography and quirky inventiveness, it paints a view of society as bureaucratic hell. Imagine an agonizing unknown land furnished by a grim Office Depot with a hint of Chapin's Modern Times and you'll begin to get a faint idea.

An embodiment of one man's struggle in a time of paper and inefficiency, Brazil is referred to by Gilliam himself as an entry in his "imagination trilogy," along with similar themed films Time Bandits (1981) and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1989). Here, the man in this house of mirrors is all of us, because who among us hasn't dreamt of soaring free from the red tape that unfortunately binds and restricts our lives? To spread our wings and just... fly.

I know what you're about to ask. If this film takes place in an unknown land... why is named Brazil? Well, it's a reference to the musical piece Aquarela do Brasil, a familiar tune that acts as a theme song throughout the story.

Kinda trippy. Kind beautiful. That's the cinema of Terry Gilliam. All of his films have that signature look, and he dabbled again with dystopian futures with 1995's 12 Monkeys. And to think, he was J.K. Rowling's first choice to direct the Harry Potter movies. How odd and awesome would that have been? Someone get Hermione's time-turner and go back to make that happen.

By 1979, Robert Altman had already established himself as one of America's great directors with his ensemble films MASH and Nashville. But by this time he had also established that he was capable of more eccentric fare, like Brewster McCloud (1970), Images (1972) and 3 Women (1977).

Quintet is a rather literal departure from the warmth found in his other films. Set in a post-apocalyptic ice age, it is a story that unfolds with the rapidity of a glacier. Paul Newman is a man who wanders the desolate frozen landscape and finds a group of hardened survivors who whimsically partake of a deadly game, a kind of ultra-high stakes game of Yahtzee. Boasting an impressive international cast including Bibi Andersson, Fernando Rey and Vittorio Gassman, Quintet remains one of Altman's oddities: definitely overlooked, but perhaps misunderstood as well.

If you come away confused from this one, don't fret. There have been many that have been flummoxed by Quintet. Heck, in one of his recent tweets, even Roger Ebert professes a perplexed attitude.

What one must bear in mind is that sometimes the riddle is not to be cracked. Films of this genre aren't so much foretelling our future, but are a cautionary tale (if not indictment) of our present.

What will your opinion be? Come check the films out and see for yourself. After all, if we're to believe the future as depicted in these movies, we better enjoy our own thoughts while we are still allowed to have them. In dystopian futures, things are often bleakest because the society dictates the individual and "IMHO" is a four-letter word. Let us learn our lessons now. The future's never set in stone, but we can do something before our present sets and becomes an immovable part of our past.

Showtimes for the films:

Brazil
Sunday, Jul 10th
2:00 7:00

Quintet
Sunday, Jul 10th
4:35

Final Notes about the screening

Double Features:
"When two movies are grouped together under the same thematic heading, one ticket is good for both features when viewed back-to-back on the same day." (cha-ching!)

Parking:
"Hassle-free downtown parking available for $6 at the One American Center for all summer films! Since you’re also supporting the theatre when you buy parking, they're giving you a free small soda each time you park there for a film. Buy online with your film tix and print out your confirmation e-mail or buy directly from the garage attendant (cash only). Attendant will have your soda ticket as well."

Preview: Sci-Fi 25th Anniversaries

Is there anything that can make movie fans feel older than anniversaries of favorite films? I know that for the most part, observing a film's anniversary is merely a marketing ploy for a re-release in theaters or a new DVD/Blu Ray release, but it still has the ability to make one feel damn old.

Hey, I'm someone who's childhood is rooted in the 1980s, and I don't need the reminders that some of the movies from my youth are now around a quarter-century old. Wait. The Goonies was released 26 years ago? Gremlins was 27 years? E.T. will be 30 next year?!? Even '90s staples are approaching or have passed the 20 year mark. What's that you say? The Simpsons are 22? Aye carumba!

As my generation now gets to be indoctrinated in the marketing of nostalgia, it's time to accept that some of our beloved childhood memories are aging just like the rest of us. As part of Sci-Fi week, the theatre is screening two films that celebrate their 25th anniversary this year: Star Trek IV and Aliens. Can you believe it's been two and a half decades already?

For both, the history of both franchises actually extends farther back.

Despite several ups and downs, Star Trek is still going strong. This year marks the 45th anniversary of the original television series, and they're celebrating in a big way next month in Las Vegas. What happens there stays there, I suppose. But if you're going, be aware that others may have cameras. That's if... uh, you're going to do something foolish...

Convention or not, what's Klingon for "where's my dignity?"

Star Trek was originally a live-action television series broadcast from 1966-69 and an animated series from 1973-74, then re-launched as a film franchise at the end of the 1970s. Despite a lukewarm reception for Star Trek: The Motion Picture in 1979, the film franchise really hit its stride with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan in 1982 and the blockbuster smash Star Trek III: The Search for Spock in 1984. Since parts II and III were a connected narrative, it was natural for the story arc to continue into part IV. Released in 1986, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home is the completion of this "narrative trilogy" within the franchise.

Star Trek IV is easily the lightest, silliest and most accessible of the series. It remains a bold departure from a series that is always viewed as a bit stiff and self-important (until J.J. Abrams' reboot in 2009, that is). The plot here involves our 23rd century crew rescuing Earth from a mysterious space probe that's wrecking havoc on the atmosphere. Turns out the probe is looking to chat with some humpback whales (extinct in this story since the 21st century). So, the solution is simple. Go back in time to 1986 and bring whales back to sing their whale songs at the probe or something. Logical, right? Right. Wait, HUH?!? Eh, just go with it.

A little preachy in its environmentalism, Star Trek IV is, above all, a good time. Who doesn't want to see Spock ask what exact change is? For McCoy and Scottie to boggle over how to use a Mac? For Uhura and Chekov to look for nuclear wessels? To see Kirk confront someone with this catch phrase?

The movie was very '80s in its sensibilities, and not just because it involved time travel set in the period. The comedy is heavily dependent on that "fish out of water" theme that accompanied successful comedies by studios of the period: Crocodile Dundee, The Golden Child and Coming to America. But for such a serious sci-fi series, it's still remarkable that the studio suits gave director Leonard Nimoy carte blanche. Then again, after part III made beaucoup cash under Nimoy's direction, why not? It's not like the studio wanted them to put Eddie Murphy in it or anything (oh wait, they actually did).

Luckily for all of us, Murphy declined the role planned for him. It's good to know someone learned a lesson from Superman III. Nevertheless, Part IV played it loose and light, and flourished from its bizarre mixture of time travel, hijinks, and humpback whales.

To this day, I know several Trekkies that curse Star Trek IV for being "fun." Can you believe that? The nerve of those filmmakers. Making something lighter and more accessible. How dare they!? (mock gasp) Oh well. Vulcans are like that, I suppose.

Ah, but Star Trek IV isn't the only sci-fi gem celebrating an anniversary this year.

When Alien came out in 1979, it was such a high-end spin on a B-movie concept that no one thought it could ever be matched in its caliber. Few even thought of attempting to make a sequel to it, since Ridley Scott had crafted such a masterpiece of space-gothic horror.

Enter James Cameron...

Cameron, an ambitious young film maker who was creating The Terminator (itself a now iconic sci-fi franchise) at the time, pitched the idea of a sequel that emphasized "terror more than horror." After some years in development, Cameron finally got to craft his own take on the Alien universe. In 1986 his sequel, Aliens, was released.

A direct sequel to the 1979 film, Aliens is still a very different creature than Ridley Scott's masterpiece. It's just as capable as getting your pulse pounding, but this time the thrills come straight from your own adrenal glands. It's a rip-roaring roller coaster that comes out guns a blazin'.

Decades after the events of Alien, a hibernating Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) is found in her escape pod. Debriefed by the company regarding her claims of an encounter with such a strange creature, she's brushed off as a hysteric. However, when contact is lost with a colony on the planet where the alien was found, the Marines are sent in. All of a sudden, Ripley is taken seriously and tags along as an expert. Then all hell breaks loose. It's one of the most visceral thrill rides in motion picture history.

Heck, even the trailer does a great job of getting the blood pumping. So here it is, lean and mean:

25 years later, it's still the tightest movie that Cameron has ever made. Remember when James was capable of consistently making things like this? Now we get pedantic space epics like Avatar, and I'm more than a bit disappointed. I entreat you, Mr. Cameron, to engage more than my eyeballs. Up until the last 20 minutes of The Abyss in 1989, you used to know how. At this rate, I'll be able to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the end of Cameron's true creativity in three more years.

In retrospect, both of these films are remarkable gamechangers in shaping their franchises. Star Trek IV introduced a lighter side to the space epic, albeit one that backfired miserably in 1989 with Star Trek V. Still, the franchise has since proved most successful when balancing comedy, drama and an affable ensemble, as evidenced by The Next Generation cast in their series and subsequent films. For the foreseeable future, I can imagine Trekkies will still argue over who's the better captain, Kirk or Picard? Heck, in a few years there may even be a new argument over who was the definitive James Kirk: Shatner or Pine?

As for the Alien series, well... it was all downhill from here. While I concede that the arguments I hear about the best Alien movie are a matter of taste, they never include parts 3 or 4 in the discussion. David Fincher directed Alien³ in 1992, and it was a notoriously difficult production that yielded subpar results. And as for 1997's Alien: Resurrection? Well, it had Winona Ryder in it, and that's just about all one needs to know to judge that film.

The true seed that sprang from Aliens is, in my opinion, the modern action movie. Jaws may have spawned the modern summer blockbuster, but James Cameron brought guns to the battle and transformed Hollywood action hits into pure boy toy exercises. Alas, no one has reached the apex in mixing interesting characters, thrills and action like Cameron did. He's excelled at making loud and innovative action films, but his figurative children have only succeeded in recreating the sound and fury, signifying nothing. All of you Michael Bays of the world take note, make us care about the characters before blowing everything up.

It doesn't frighten me at all that 25 years can pass in the blink of an eye. In fact, I'm comforted by it. I've lived a heck of a lot since 1986, and look forward to whatever my future may bring. I enjoy that I can be content in occasionally revisiting the past, instead of living in it. Truth is, I still don't feel that old just because these two films are observing 25 years. I say, here's to 25 more. Another quarter century that can be written as we see fit, where we can all live long and prosper.

Showtimes for the films:

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Friday, Jul 8th
9:45

Aliens
Friday, Jul 8th
7:00

Final Notes about the screening

Double Features:
"When two movies are grouped together under the same thematic heading, one ticket is good for both features when viewed back-to-back on the same day." (cha-ching!)

Parking:
"Hassle-free downtown parking available for $6 at the One American Center for all summer films! Since you’re also supporting the theatre when you buy parking, they're giving you a free small soda each time you park there for a film. Buy online with your film tix and print out your confirmation e-mail or buy directly from the garage attendant (cash only). Attendant will have your soda ticket as well."

Preview: Monsters from Beyond

Embrace your inner geek, it's science fiction week!

For goodness sake, stop feeding money to Michael Bay and his silly Transformer exercises. If you simply must geek out at the movies, you have to do it in style at The Paramount Theatre. No crappy emerald CGI suited Ryan Reynolds or Shia LeWhat'sHisName standing next to a new open-mouthed bimbo while rock 'em sock 'em robots carry on. Here, we do things old school. There's plenty to choose from in the realm of sci-fi this week, and it starts with big, bad creatures.

Monsters make for great icons when it comes to sci-fi. There's so many to choose from when it comes to giant critters running rampant across the country or in the city. Most, if not all of them can fall into those "cautionary tales" subgenre of sci-fi. The message is usually "don't eff with mutha nature." And the undisputed heavyweight champs of all these "monsters from beyond" is Gojira. That's Godzilla to you Americans.

Wait. I'm not referring to horrendous incarnation from the 1998 remake by Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich, those Independence Day (ID4) guys. That was an awful piece of cinematic trash and a sully to the Godzilla name. Seriously, in all my years I've never met anyone who thought the '98 version was good in any shape or form. That's saying something in a day when trash like Transformers 3 can make $100+ million dollars in its opening weekend. Heck, even Jar Jar Binks must've had fans when he first appeared, right?

No, I'm talking about the real Godzilla. The one that everyone instantly identifies and loves, zippers warts and all.

Made in 1954, it was an impressive undertaking in spite of the limits faced by the film makers. The movie was made quickly to satisfy Toho Studios demand after a previous project fell through. As a result, most everything about the production of Gojira was a happy accident, from the chilling black & white photography (color film rejected by Toho) to the infamous rubber suit itself (stop motion proved too costly). And yet, the film makers carried on...

See the original Japanese trailer here:

http://youtu.be/hPAmGBdT_MY

The results were gangbusters in Japan, despite many feeling this tale of an atomic monster exploited the real-life horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Always eager to make a buck, American producers made a "remix" of the film and released it as Godzilla: King of Monsters! in 1956. Using footage from the 1954 Japanese version, the American release edited in scenes with Raymond Burr, effectively making a whole new film.

When unleashed on American audiences, Godzilla tore it up. The film was a phenomenal success, and helped stamp the monster as a global icon. To this day, Godzilla-mania is everywhere. He's a regular staple of pop culture, and has been featured in books, Saturday morning cartoons, video games, comic books, songs, and even a Nike ad campaign with Charles Barkley!

My personal favorite? This funny cartoon short I remember seeing in my youth:

Ahhh. Good times.

Japan may have the good on the king of the monsters, but they certainly don't have a monopoly on such films. Here in the good ol' U.S. of A., we had our own giant creature film to contend with, 1954's THEM! A movie manifested out of nuclear uncertainty in the early days of the Cold War, the movie is about giant mutated ants that grow from radioactive fallout in the aftermath of New Mexico atomic tests.

Although it may have a slightly silly premise, THEM! is a very well made sci-fi film with solid performances, distinctive special effects, and tight editing. Oh, and who can forget that creepy sound effect for the ants? Seeing this as a youth, nothing stuck with me more than that noise.

A solid money maker for Warner Brothers, THEM! spawned a line of similar "irradiated giant critter" movies: Tarantula (1955), Attack of the Crab Monsters (1957), Attack of the Giant Leeches (1959), The Giant Behemoth (1959), The Killer Shrews (1959), Night of the Lepus (1972), and scores more that were often lampooned on TV's "Mystery Science Theater 3000."

But for now, suspend you inclination to laugh at the somewhat cheesy 1950s sci-fi production values. Appreciate the film as a landmark of science fiction excellence on par with the original verisons of The Thing from Another World and Invasion of the Body Snatchers, two other films that preyed on the paranoia of the Cold War years. Stifle that giggle and allow yourself to get caught up in the terror of THEM!

Bigger than life, badder than bad, and ready to lay waste to the foolish humans who played with atomic power, these monsters have come from beyond to teach us a lesson. SCREAM in fear or ROAR in delight. Experience two of the best from either side of The Pacific this week, and enjoy these sci-fi creature features.

Showtimes for the films:

Gojira (Godzilla)
Tuesday, Jul 5th
7:00
Wednesday, Jul 6th
9:00

THEM!
Tuesday, Jul 5th
9:05
Wednesday, Jul 6th
7:00

Final Notes about the screening

$2 from each ticket for Godzilla will benefit the Japan Red Cross relief fund

Double Features:
"When two movies are grouped together under the same thematic heading, one ticket is good for both features when viewed back-to-back on the same day." (cha-ching!)

Parking:
"Hassle-free downtown parking available for $6 at the One American Center for all summer films! Since you’re also supporting the theatre when you buy parking, they're giving you a free small soda each time you park there for a film. Buy online with your film tix and print out your confirmation e-mail or buy directly from the garage attendant (cash only). Attendant will have your soda ticket as well."