Automatons

Title: Automatons
Director: James Felix McKenney
Cast: Christine Spencer, Angus Scrimm, Brenda Cooney
Year: 2006
MPAA: Not rated
Date of Review: February 22, 2008

The special effects in indie science fiction and horror films are often praised for the creative ways in which they use low-budget materials to make convincing scenes. The Evil Dead films were made on very low budgets, and the innovative techniques used to create the abundance of gore are still lauded over today. But it’s also the world of indie films that allows filmmakers to experiment with different art styles and ways of doing special effects, since they don’t always turn out effectively. In Automatons, the production team did have a shoestring budget, but they also purposely used very cheap looking effects for both artistic style and to contribute to the meaning of the film. It’s rare that a film is thought out as deeply as Automatons obviously was, and I can’t help thinking that even if they’d had $50 million to play around with, the finished product would have looked, sounded and felt exactly as it is now.

The story is both simple and complex. The main character is a girl - she is never named, and we never really know anything about her outside of the fact that she is the lone survivor of her race after a brutal war killed the rest off years ago. Her only companions are her robots, who are left over “war bots” from the war, which she has programmed to do everything from chopping vegetables to guarding her while she sleeps. But her last inkling of security is taken away from her when the enemy (who appears on television broadcasts in the girl’s dormitory) gains the ability to send out radio signals which turn the girl’s own robots against her.

The girl rarely speaks, only giving the occasional voice command to her robot workers. Most of the dialogue comes from the scientist - the girl’s grandfather, who has left her several recordings documenting his efforts in the war. Played by Angus Scrimm (of Phantasm fame), the scientist widens the scope of the film, revealing information which is often quite disturbing about the horrible acts committed during the war. This is also the area of the film where its socio-political commentary is at its most blatant. The scientist is quite obviously representative of the oft-scorned American sense of self-righteousness, and his description of the enemy and the events in the war mirror the media representation of the war in Iraq. He describes the enemy as “barbaric savages”, and says that the enemy hates his people “because of [their] freedom and liberty and democratic beliefs”. His dialogue is quite dense and all reveals how this futuristic war is an allegory for the world’s current political situation.

There are so many layers, ideas and messages in this film that it reminds me of the way Philip K. Dick structures his stories to overflow with incredible concepts. The idea that all of these machines (some simple, some very complex) which the girl uses as tools can be turned into mindless killing machines with one push of a button by the enemy, evokes memories of the nearly over-played “man vs. machine” story - but it does it in such a different, original way (as well as having so many other ideas loaded into the story). There is an environmental element, as the world has become a scorched and poisonous wasteland due to pollution from the creation of all of these machines - and this leads to one of the most memorable lines in the film, when the scientist (while referring to the destruction of the Earth’s atmosphere and environment) says “but it’s a small price to pay for being the greatest, most advanced nation on the planet”. We also have the film’s aforementioned political message, where this girl’s race ran themselves into the ground with their own blind pride and ignorance. And at its most basic, we have the simple story of a girl who is all alone.

But to get back to the effects, it must be said that not everyone is going to be very keen on them. When indoors, the robots are men wearing garbage cans, duct tape, and tin foil...all sorts of incredibly low budget materials which look very cheap, yet are somewhat eerie to see in motion. Then while outdoors and engaged in battle, we are treated to sequences which could best be described as “Lego men fights”. It literally looks as if the filmmakers decorated chess pieces to look like the robots, and added in some laser effects and firecrackers for explosions. It’s strange at first, yet becomes compulsively watchable. The set designs and brief looks at the outdoor landscapes are similarly ultra low budget in their design and execution, but I must reiterate that this surely wouldn’t have been any different regardless of the budget for the film. It’s just a different way of making a science fiction movie, and its effectiveness will lie in the eye of the viewer.

Produced by Larry Fessenden (who also has a brief cameo role in the blood-soaked finale), Automatons is high-concept science fiction at its finest. At once a loving tribute to the hoaky science fiction of the 1950s, and a great understanding of modern artistic filmmaking, it’s unlike anything you’re likely to ever see. It’s hard not to compare it to films like Eraserhead or Pi for the modern-day black-and-white photography alone, but like those films, it also tries to tackle established and worn-out genre conventions with originality and flare, and James Felix McKenney obviously made exactly the film he wanted to make. I find that, alone, to be very admirable. It’s just a matter of the film finding an audience who is interested in all the film has to offer.

9 / 10

Transformers

Title: Transformers
Director: Michael Bay
Cast: Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, Josh Duhamel
Year: 2007
MPAA: Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action violence, brief sexual humor, and language.
Date of Review: February 17, 2008

I always wondered if the whole childhood ritual of “Saturday Morning Cartoons” was something exclusive to America, because - having lived in Canada all my life - I don’t think I ever saw cartoons on Saturday morning television. This time was almost exclusively devoted to religious programming and soap operas, so more often than not I found myself playing video games. During the week, however, I watched four cartoons religiously - “Batman: The Animated Series”, “The Simpsons”, “Thundercats” and “Transformers”. (Well, I suppose if you count “Beast Wars” as a separate entity from “Transformers”, that makes it five). I had all the “Transformers” toys, from the fire truck Optimus Prime, to the Megatron toy that morphed into a desert eagle hand gun. I even had most of the knock-off toys, like “Morphing Machines” and “Robo-Men”. Hearing that Steven Spielberg not only loved “Transformers” but also wanted to make a movie, I was thrilled. Could this be his next directorial feature? No, unfortunately not. In the search for a director, Spielberg settled on Michael Bay - perhaps the only director alive who gets more hate on the web than Brett Ratner. And what was the final product? Well, let’s just say it’s more of a Michael Bay movie than a “Transformers” movie, and I suppose it’s up to the individual to decide whether that’s good or bad.

Yes, Transformers has all the trimmings associated with the director of such classics as Bad Boys and...Bad Boys II. It has bad dialogue, zero subtlety, a cheesy and overdone musical score, tons of light blooming, and slow motion camera work up the wazoo (even for mundane actions like stepping out of an airplane). And it’s way too long. Clocking in at nearly two and a half hours, it takes a premise and story more suited to a ninety minute animated feature and milks it for all it’s worth in an attempt to create the next enormously epic film franchise. The concept is inherently massive, with alien robotic beings bringing their war to Earth, but epic concepts do not always warrant epic lengths, and since both the characters and the story are no deeper than a puddle on the sidewalk (and I’m talking one really shallow puddle), it really feels like we could have easily seen all the movie had to offer in about an hour less time. Lord of the Rings this is not, but it so badly wants to be.

The dialogue sounds like it was written by a twelve year old boy with A.D.D., but I suppose the argument could be made that movie-goers looking for strong, witty dialogue should go see a John Sayles movie and leave the popcorn fluff alone. But just because a movie is made to be a blockbuster and nothing more doesn’t give it a free ticket to be mind-numbingly stupid. Lots of movies manage to be both blockbusters and smartly written - I’m thinking of the Bourne trilogy, which were great throwbacks to the gritty spy thrillers of the 1970s. So if someone tries to tell me that Transformers either didn’t need to be well written or couldn’t be due to its silly, over-the-top premise, I must retort by saying that, no, the writers were just lazy. Having a Spanish soldier character who is so stereotypical that he speaks Spanish unknowingly and talks about “being back home and eating alligators” seems like it was written using the “1980s’ Big Book of Clichés” And to add insult to injury, some of the most painful dialogue is uttered by some very respectable actors. John Turturro’s presence is especially puzzling, since he usually keeps a pretty low profile by appearing in indie flicks and films by the Coen brothers. I sure hope he didn’t turn down a role in No Country For Old Men for this.

But where the movie delivers (and expectedly so) is in the action. In typical Michael Bay fashion, the first half of the movie is devoted to the characters, while the entire second half is a giant continuous action sequence with several enormous set pieces. I’ve read complaints that the action in Transformers is hard to follow, but this is one complaint I can’t get on board with. Unless you are watching the movie on a cell phone in full screen with low resolution, I cannot understand how or why one would find it hard to discern what is taking place on the screen. There are plenty of slow motion shots of the Transformers blowing things up and swinging around buildings and bridges as if they weighed twenty pounds. It’s loud and fun, and when the action scenes are at their best there are definitely some cool (perhaps even memorable) moments.

It’s just not enough to justify sitting through more than an hour of painful exposition, though. Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox play a couple of high school students whose destinies are linked together by this intergalactic power struggle, and there are a couple of cute moments between them. One of these better moments takes place when the Autobots are introducing themselves to LaBeouf and Fox, and the “medic” bot says that LaBeouf’s “high pheromone levels suggest he wants to mate with the female [Fox]”. But for every funny moment, there are about ten attempts at humor which fall completely flat (such as the aforementioned Spanish soldier).

And while we’re on the top of racial stereotypes, what were they thinking when they wrote the character “Jazz”? This Autobat is like the “hip hop” bot - the Transformer with soul and attitude to spare. When he makes reference to both “bitches” and “kicking it” in the same sentence, I ended up having to bandage my chin because my jaw hit the floor so hard.

Michael Bay has been quoted saying that he admittedly makes “movies for thirteen year old boys”. But he really shot himself in the foot by targeting that audience with Transformers. Sure, kids still watch the shows and think they’re neat, but there was a much larger, built-in fan base already there and eagerly awaiting the big screen return of their favorite childhood heroes. And that audience is 20-30 somethings who grew up watching this franchise while it was at its biggest and freshest. It’s the equivalent of making an R-rated “Spongebob Squarepants” movie - it just doesn’t make any sense.

Then again, Transformers made an obscene amount of money - so much, in fact, that the budget is being nearly doubled for the sequel (due out next year). So maybe I’m just totally out of touch with what’s “cool” these days with the kids. And while everyone gears up and gets excited for Transformers 2, I’ll be eagerly awaiting the inevitable Thundercats movie, and hoping it isn’t given to Brett Ratner.

5 / 10

The Host

Title: The Host
Director: Joon-ho Bong
Cast: Kang-ho Song, Hie-bong Byeon, Hae-il Park
Year: 2006
MPAA: Rated R for creature violence and language
Date of Review: February 14, 2008

Korean cinema has been at the forefront of international cinema for several years now. The film that really caught my eye and put Korea on the map, for me, was Oldboy. I continued to watch the films of Chan-wook Park, and was consistently amazed at his incredible sense of style. I remember wondering why it was that so many American releases lacked this flare. Of course, not all stories are suited to surreal imagery and rousing electronic scores - but it seemed like other filmmakers could really learn a thing or two from Chan-wook Park about how to compose a great shot. Then I saw Memories of Murder - a similarly stylish crime thriller, which managed to infuse the beautiful cinematography I had come to expect from Korean cinema with a true-life story which oozed realism and heartbreak.

Sometime in the summer of 2007, I heard about The Host, the next film from Memories of Murder writer/director Joon-ho Bong, and I was incredibly excited to see it. The reviews coming out stating it was “one of the greatest monster movies ever made” whet my appetite even further, and led me to order the official Korean DVD of the film. I was disappointed to say the least. I couldn’t put my finger on it, but I just felt it lacked something. Perhaps it was because I was in the middle of a Godzilla-stint and I was in the mood for a little more building-crushing, but I doubt that’s the case. Let’s just say I wasn’t ready for what the film had to offer.

So after several months of deliberation, I decided to crack open the DVD case again in hopes that my $20 hadn’t gone to waste completely. What I got with this second viewing was the equivalent of going back to your old kindergarten class to find that your teacher was actually a sexy minx, and you simply hadn’t seen it due to your (at the time) undeveloped libido. The Host is an awe-inspiring film experience, and it does so much more with the monster movie conventions than any Godzilla film has done in many years.

Telling a story at once epic and microscopic, satirical and straight-forward, it is on one hand the story of an irresponsible father coming to realize that if he really loves his daughter and his family members, he needs to actually do something with his life and try to make something out of himself. He needs to fill that void where fatherly responsibility has been lacking for so long. On the other hand, it is a story of the sensational paranoia the media is capable of evoking in people, as it refers back to a real-life case in Korea in which an American doctor ordered a Korean intern to dump several bottles of formaldehyde down a sink which he knew drained into the Han River. In real life this case was blown hugely out of proportion - he did something irresponsible, yet it turned into an enormous incident between the two countries. This incident is the catalyst event for the creation of the monster - which, in itself, is the catalyst for the coming-of-age story of a grown man who has spent too much time living the life of a boy.

It would be deceiving to say that the monster is not the most important part of the film, since it is a monster movie, and at its most basic state that is what drives the plot. But there’s so much more to the story, involving human connection and some unexpected yet very effective humor. The first appearance of a Korean soldier wearing a HAZMAT suit is one of the funniest moments in the film, as he walks into a room full of civilians and is clearly trying to look as imposing and authoritative as possible, before suddenly tripping on his own feet and falling flat on his back. It’s a simple sight gag, but in the rather bleak context of the scene, it works very well.

Since the film has been out for nearly two years now, the monster is no surprise - simply type “The Host monster” into any image search engine and you’ll be bombarded with images of what could best be described as a mutant tadpole the size of a bus. But the monster was never really meant to be a secret or a surprise. Unlike another recent monster film, the trailers for The Host showed the monster in full right from the start. Again, this just reinforces the fact that the monster is not the biggest surprise to be found in the film. The plot twists and turns, characters change or meet unexpected demises, and the writing keeps everything engaging throughout.

But that’s not to say that the monster is insignificant. Its presence is strong and there are some surprisingly chilling scenes to be found involving the creature. Seeing it disappear under the water of the Han River and then only a dark figure swim to the shore before suddenly springing from the water to grab an unsuspecting victim is an unnerving sight. And the CGI used to create the monster is great. The textures look real and wet, and you can practically smell the fishy stink of its leathery, amphibious flesh.

It’s great to know that not only can monster films still be made well, but they can be taken seriously. The humor to be found in the film does not consist of self-deprecating winks at the audience, instead adding a great deal of emotional attachment to the characters. The Host is a solid film, and one that can be enjoyed by both monster-enthusiasts and movie-goers looking for a generally well made, well performed movie.

9 / 10