Unsung Heroes: The Think Tank of 'Minority Report'

Michael C here from Serious Film. With Spielberg poised to dominate the end of the year discussion with the one-two punch of Tin Tin and War Horse, I felt now was a perfect time to look back at his last film I enjoyed without reservation.

On screen, every historical era comes packaged with its own handy kit of movie clichés, most likely because a lot of lazy screenwriters did no more research than to watch other movies. The Old West has the bartender drying the glass with a rag and the draw down over someone a-cheatin’ at cards. Medieval periods come standard with a foppish lute player and a crowd of filth encrusted peasants. You know the drill.

This gets particularly egregious with movies set in the future. The majority of stories opt for either the Blade Runner urban hellscape treatment or the slick, sterile 2001 route. Each approach has its appeal but seldom do either have a real ring of truth. To my mind the most plausible vision of the future was done in Steven Spielberg’s 2002 film Minority Report. More than any film I’ve seen the 2054 of Report is recognizably a believable extension of the time we live in.

This was the result of a lot more than clever art direction. Spielberg was determined to have the most believable future world ever put to film. So where most directors would lock a bunch screenwriters in a room to brainstorm variations on the flying car, the man who directed E.T. convened a three-day think tank of the world’s brightest minds, including computer scientists, biomedical researchers, the architectural dean of MIT and various other luminaries, to brainstorm a bible of predictions for his production team to work from.

Let me quickly add that Mr. Spielberg should get points here for not letting all this technical info stymie his movie’s artistic mojo. It seems to have had the opposite effect, providing the film with a springboard for some unforgettably imaginative riffs, from the Fantastia-evoking conducting of the computer screen to the creepy metallic spiders that skitter about scanning retinas.

And now that it’s 2011 and the future world Minority Report envisioned is nine years away from fantasy and toward being a provable or disprovable collection of educated guesses, what do we find? Turns out so far Minority Report was scary accurate in ways too numerous to list here.

It may not be surprising to learn that the identity recognition advertisements are in the works or that the use of retina scan equipment is become increasingly prevalent, but would you be surprised to learn that that the US Military is developing work along the lines of Report’s insect robots? Or how about the fact that crime prediction software is being developed at the University of Pennsylvania attempting to predict future crimes based on past ones? True, it’s not exactly Samantha Morton floating in a tank of milky water, but it’s way too close for my taste.

Most future-set movies eventually inspire chuckles at its creators for assuming we would all be zipping around in jetpacks by the late 70’s or some similar naïveté. So far, Minority Report appears to be experiencing the opposite fate. One where we look back and admit we can’t say we weren’t warned.

Yes, No, Maybe So: "John Carter"

With Hollywood searching madly for the next franchise and the next one after that -- which can mean billions upon billions of dollars even when you stop trying (Deathly Hallows Pt 1, Pirates part whichever, Etcetera) -- so why not John Carter of Mars. He's the other oft-naked hero from Tarzan creator Edgar Rice Burroughs. If Tarzan could generate millions upon millions for decades upon decades, why not this other guy?

Taylor Kitsch is THE PRINCE OF PERSIA JOHN CARTER.

So on March 9th, 2012 John Carter arrives on Mars... albeit without Mars in his franchise title. Weirdness. After a decade of ever-lenghtening film titles, Hollywood has decided to go short again. The Invention of Hugo Cabret becomes the boring "Hugo" and John Carter of Mars becomes the boring "John Carter". Hopefully the movies bearing these names aren't similarly reductive.

Let's break down the trailer with our patented Yes No Maybe So system. How badly do we want this one?

Writers never tire of naming their messiahs JC  - SUBTLE! -- but we're curious about this "John Carter" fellow and his director, too. After five years of heavy glowering and heavy drinking and sensitive soulfulness on Friday Night Lights will Taylor Kitsch's charisma transfer to the big screen. That cameo in X-Men Origins: Wolverine (let us never speak of that fi---oh, damnit!!!) was eyegrabbing but will he be able to carry an entire movie? The other huge question mark here in terms of transferring is Finding Nemo / WALL•E director Andrew Stanton. How well will his gift transfer to live action (a similar challenge awaits Brad Bird in Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol) . We're ready to find out.

Like many fans of Pixar, we hoped for a huge genre leap for Pixar when this was first announced; why shouldn't the great animated studio do a dramatic sci-fi action flick with their insane technological wizardy? Alas the only thing that appears to be animated here are the super tall multi-limbed martians. And if this trailer is any indication they stick out like... well... animated characters in live-action filmmaking often do. That last line reading is curiously disheartening too.

When I saw you I believed it was a sign that something new could come into this world.

...because, you see, this movie doesn't look "new" at all. It doesn't look like some great new hope coming to our movie world. It looks like every other movie! You've got costumes that give you Prince of Persia or Zardoz flashbacks, you've got animated superhero leaps in the desert that recall Hulk's big jumping bean moment or maybe something from that Immortals trailer. Mars doesn't look otherworldly really unless by other worlds you mean Tattooine. And why are John Carter and his love interest (Lynn Collins) wearing so many clothes? We knew they couldn't be starkers like they often are in the book, but why so much material even covering their midriffs? On the other hand this trailer is very short and perhaps they're saving the provocative or eye-candy imagery for the movie itself and maybe it'll all be magic in context.

We're a maybe so for the source material, the director/star double risk, and the off chance that the movie is a helluva lot weirder than this generic peak. But we're starting to worry about leaning full on "no".

You?

True Blood 4.3 "If You Love Me..."

Another Monday, another day spent thinking about last night's True Blood eppy. My favorite B story thread this season is definitely Arlene's devil baby so we must begin with my single favorite shot in the episode. The little monster slobbering all over Jessica's Capital C Creepy family heirloom doll.

He's so cute. Don't you just want to procure victims for him and grind them up into mushy baby food?

"If You Love Me, Why Am I Dyin'?" is a solid episode but can't help but feel like a smidgeon of a comedown after last week's instant classic in which Eric was robbed of his memories by the new witch coven led by Marnie (Fiona Shaw). This week's episode provided several fun moments and some promising future-implications but the plot mostly was little beats in which characters were trying to decide how to deal with the major events of the previous episode: where should Sooki hide Eric? is Tara getting sucked back in for good? will Lafayette's fear of Eric continue to get everyone in trouble? who is Pam going to eat if she gets too angry? exactly what is Marnie channeling?

Cheers: True Blood is giving both Lafayette and Tara more subtle emotions to play this season.

The major B story his season appears to be Jason's stud captivity in that redneck nightmare village (they mean to use him to sire new werepups). Someone rescue him!

Click to read more ...

I Am Number Four's Power Apps

Have any of you seen I Am Number Four? In a brain dead mood -- it's summer, it happens -- it was watched right here. At first I thought I might write up a whole review. Its jumbled five or six films in one chaos might be worth savaging as it continually reveals itself as a member of the  "we're making this shit up as we go along!" school of storytelling. Pettyfer is number four of a race of escapee aliens who are being hunted on Earth by their old nemesis and they're being killed in numerical order. I'll give you one guess as to how many of them are already dead.

Number three is dead.

Good guess!

I knew nothing about I Am Number Four's origins but immediately assumed it was based on a comic or graphic novel due to its continual expository mythology. All this for one stand alone feature? It must have fuller origins elsewhere. 

But in the end the movie is too disposable and harmless to be mean to. So let's just focus on the troublesome pet peeve: Alex Pettyfer's Magic Hands.

Pettyfer knows he's an alien and he knows he's number four but he doesn't actually understand his own powers yet and strange things keep happening to his body, like pulsing blue light from his hands. Pettyfer is a bit too, um, well-developed for I Am Number Four to double property as a puberty metaphor but it seems to be trying anyway. Once he starts using those hands his powers seem limitless. His hands are always ready with some solution: lock-picking, energy blasts, heat generation, super strength, you name it. At one point when he just decides to use them as flashlights in a dark room where key exposition secrets are hidden we had to add our own dialogue from the couch: "I've got an app for that, too!"

There's just nothing those mitts can't do.

Note to all filmmakers of this and Green Lantern and anyone taking on any future heroes with undefined powers: it doesn't work. If your hero's gifts are never defined there are no stakes. You can't push them to their limits for a dramatic climax if you've never given any indication that they have any. Think it over. 

TV @ the Movies: "Hoosiers" vs. "The Notebook"

I know that MTV's Teen Wolf is based on an 80s movie but it's not set in the 1980s so what to make of the bizarre opening scene of its latest episode "The Tell" in which Jackson (Colton Haynes) and Lydia (Holland Roden) visit that nostalgia-inducing endangered species, The Video Store, and have the following  ½ "80s" argument... 

Jackson: "Hoosiers" is not only the best basketball movie ever it is the best sports movie ever made. 
Lydia: No.
Jackson: It's got Gene Hackman and Dennis Hopper!
Lydia: No.
Jackson: Lydia, I swear to God you're going to like it.
Lydia: No.
Jackson: I AM NOT WATCHING "THE NOTEBOOK" AGAIN

[cut to: Jackson, defeated, inside the store]

Jackson: Can somebody help me find "The Notebook"? 

Haha. So, maybe this was intended it as a Men are from Mars / Women are from Venus argument but do today's teenagers (non film-fanatic variety... not you reading, obvs)  even know who Dennis Hopper and Gene Hackman are? It seems like this argument was between a 30something man and a teen girl. Or maybe Hoosiers mania still lives on in high school boys? I'm not a sports person or a high school boy so I cannot speak from authority.

Once inside the store, there are a ton of movies on view but none of them seem intentionally placed there for the camera. Lazy set dressers (kidding!). For instance, there's telltale signs of a dead body (a foot!) peaking out from behind the I Am Love row. But I highly doubt the director's were like "ooh, someone dies in that Tilda Swinton / Italian melodrama that won Best Pic at the Film Bitch Awards, so let's put the body there!".

This one on the other hand is 100% intentional.

Turns out there's an evil werewolf in the store and Jackson ends up hiding right next to a copy of Let The Right One In, the only movie with its own closeup. "The Tell" that it's intentional: It's out of sequence with the other movies sitting next to it, which begin with "S". Video stores may be on the verge of extinction but surely they still alphabetize.