 "Triumph of the Will" | 2009-10-24 |
| - Reviewed By User: A39EXH9JJAI80R |
This is a beautiful movie. Interesting plot. Romantic. And a great moral
fable about environment versus genetics versus something else...It is
about the internal struggle to define oneself and the limitations that others
would place upon you based upon their prejudices. This is one of my favourite
movies, and I think it is one of the best films of the science fiction genre,
since Fritz Lang's Metropolis. Another reason to like this film is the fact that
there is no profanity, no "curse words", no bad language, no blasphemy, in this
movie, which is great for teenagers and adults alike: Very, very rare to find a
movie of this quality.
Vincent (Ethan Hawke) has a brother named Anton, who is genetically healthy
and predestined by an Orwellian Society, not to suffer as a common labourer,
whereas Vincent, because of his genetic profile is not allowed to enter certain
schools or have certain career aspirations (sound familiar?). He is confined not to
look beyond a certain economic class, and not to fraternize with people who are
better than he is, because there exists ample scientific evidence to support this
assertion. The society of the future predetermines a person's mate, economic
status, and career objectives, how he (or she) will live, based upon their genetic
code. And in this society, Vincent will rebel, by pretending to be somebody he is
not. But, a murder investigation (he didn't do it) threatens to reveal his true identity,
and who will believe that he did not do it, when it is revealed that he is a "degenerate"?
'Degenerate', in this future society, is a term (label, name) given to people who are
"genetically unhealthy", and does not refer to behaviour, criminal or moral: It is the
new prejudice in the class-conscious society of the future. But what of "falling in
love" with a complete, or partial, stranger? Can you truly know somebody based
upon a sequence of letters?: Namely, these four: G T C A, which stand for the basic
four constituent elements of DNA. Tragic how a label, or a piece of paper, can
change the perception others have of you, whether positive or negative. For example,
if somebody says, "white house", will your attention not be drawn away from the house
itself, to a specific aspect of that house, namely, its colour? And thereby, might you not
miss noticing the windows, or the architecture, the landscape, or even the address?
People, like houses, are multi-dimensional, or so one hopes. But "name-calling" can
lead to a total rejection of an individual. Which is perhaps why words such as 'homosexual'
or 'lesbian' do not appear in the Bible (KJV).
My recommendation:
Get the dvd with the green cover. The edition that came after that one, blue with
a picture of a DNA strand on it, changed the look of the film, such that it looks
computer-generated. Yuck!
Personally, I like seeing real people acting, rather than "touch-ups", "brush-ups",
or other "special effects", that make them look like "computer generated cartoon
characters". (Worked in the movie 'Tron', only because it was integral to the storyline.)
I guess "Hollywood studio executives" are hoping to convince audiences that
computer-generated characters are just as good to watch as real people are, and
therefore they can replace real actors with computer generated images (with computer
programmers serving as puppeteers) so that they will not have to pay actors salaries,
thereby permitting them to cut their costs of production and increase their ROI (return
on investment) or other such metrics. Or maybe "they" just like wrecking great movies.
Whatever the reason for the change, of the two, the green cover dvd is the best. My
guess, in a few years, people will think this CGI fad was just that. Prediction: Just as
paisley went out with the sixties, so too will CGI. Because "the kids" will hate it. |
| |
 "Inadequate underdog story posing as a brilliant sci fi" | 2009-10-08 |
| - Reviewed By mackshere |
Let me come right out and say it--I hated this movie. Hated, hated, hated. Okay, that might be a little too harsh. After all, it's not as bad as genital herpes, swallowing cat piss, or watching a Michael Bay flick. But as far as genius sci-fi goes, this is inferior, an imposter, an in-valid.
Gattaca does have an excellent premise, and has garnered quite a cult following. Manipulating genetics to form the perfect human being is an intriguing concept. Utilizing Science to eliminate birth defects and create a person less susceptible to diseases or illnesses is a possibility that many might consider justifiable. On the other hand, tampering with nature is bound to have its repurcussions.
My main problem with this story is the fact it tries to pound one element into your head over and over again and never offers much of anything else. A man born all-naturale wants to have the same priviledges as his genetic superiors. For the first half, it worked admirably. Then it started to get pretty dang stagnant. Still it kept riding this one-trick pony till the cows came home. Not sure what that means really, except I was annoyed and bored to freakin tears.
Ethan Hawke does a decent job. But how many fingerprint id's, blood samples, and heart tests can a man fake? Then they had his face plastered EVERYWHERE, and nobody could make the connection he was a murder suspect? PLEASE!!!! I don't care how blind your ego makes you, it is completely obvious!
Plus the differences between the valids &n in-valids were blown way outta proportion. Granted, he shouldn't be able to run as fast or swim as far. But he can't cross the freakin street? This movie might be making a statement how ridiculous prejudices are, which does of course carry some merit. But I felt this was way too heavy-handed.
And possibly one of the worst scenes I can recall off the top of my head--the party date with Uma. She realizes he is a murder suspect and has been deceiving her, watches him beat down some cop, forces her to run off with him, and then they make love under a gorgeous starlit sky. Atrocious!
Another thing I didn't care for--this had relatively few cool futuristic gadgets and gizmos. The cars looked retro, but they made a cool humming sound as they sped past. The cops didn't have any laser guns or sweet tracking devices. Nobody had cell phones. No teleportation tubes with dialethium crystals or electronic floatation devices? Nothing really. Bummer.
Anyway, I'm sorry. I'm rambling. But seriously, I don't put this anywhere close to the elite sci-fi masterpieces. In fact, it is one of my least favorites of the genre.
|
| |
 "Great premise, dull execution." | 2009-09-27 |
| - Reviewed By nickverboon1 |
Make no mistake, "Gattaca" is a science fiction film with a vitally important message. It would have made an outstanding episode of "The Twilight Zone". But for a two-hour feature film, the story feels so padded that I had great difficulty staying awake through the recycled scenes and massive amounts of Michael Bay-style sap that spent too much time affirming the audience that they are perfect just the way they are. In spite of it's intellectually sound premise, the film ends up insulting the audience's intelligence with populist tripe when it should have taken on a much darker, grittier tone. The film has it's (legions of) fans though, so if you have ever questions about whether or not human genetic manipulation is something we should explore, then I'd recommend checking this out. You'll probably like it. But if mainstream Hollywood's penchant for talking down to the audience makes you clinch your teeth, pass it up and get back with Blade Runner instead.
The premise of "Gattaca" is a future utopia where humans are able to be genetically engineered. This is to say, that parents can shop for their offspring's biological traits as one would select features on a custom-designed automobile. Innocent enough according to most people, but those of us who think these things through know where that will inevitably lead. This is a story about that inevitability. Ethan Hawke plays an abused minority in the film; he was born naturally through sexual intercourse the way we all were. This makes Vincent what is referred to as an "Invalid". "Valids" are those who had their makeup determined for the strongest and most genetically superior traits. How can a random smattering of parents' DNA with all of the intrinsic flaws compete? It can't. Hawke's character is not only gnerally physically inferior, but he was born with a heart defect that all but insured he wouldn't live to see 30. But he did. Being a stubborn underdog we can all root for, he is bound and determined to realize his dream of being an astronaut. But given that every Valid on the planet is physically better qualified, people like him are only allowed to perform menial labor. Legalized worldwide apartheid with no constitutionally unsound ramifications. The idea bears a striking resemblance to some of the practices of Communist. It's a simple system of picking the best people for the job so technically it's not discrimination. No morality involved. At all. Hitler's vision of a Master Race is just around the corner.
Great idea for a film, no? Sadly, I found the execution lacking and the film had trouble keeping my attention once the premise was established. Shots of Vincent gazing longingly at the sky as rockets take off for outer space while he mops the floor are almost humorous to a cynical bastard like myself who gets his jollies blowing spitballs at such storytelling practices. The backstory where Vincent's younger brother (a Valid; the parents didn't want to make the same mistake twice) lords his superiority over him and then loses in a swimming contest is reiterated over the course of the film again and again in such a manner that I felt that the filmmaker was treating me like an idiot. Yeah! I get it! We don't like the super-people so we revel in the guy who is just like us winning. No need to show us four more times! I about turned the film off when his ability to outdistance his physically more able sibling is explained by Vincent by saying he never saved anything for the swim back. But his brother never made it to the swim out so what was he saving exactly? So all that does is give the people a line that makes no sense to cheer about. "Yeah, you fascist jerk! He didn't save anything for the swim back except that he not only had enough to swim back, but he carried your sorry behind with him so obviously he did save something... more then you in fact since you were the one drowning. Wait, what'd he say again?" Things like that eat at the inside of my brain and make me angry that the writers and director can't even think through their own story for our benefit. They just assumed we'd be too dumb to care. This is not Transformers, damn it! If you're going to make a cerebral film with no action at all, get your stuff straight!
The vast majority of the running time is spent watching Vincent cover his genetic tracks as he enacts a plan to join a space mission by posing as a Valid by borrowing the identity of a crippled athlete. He has urine samples, nail clippings, hair, fake ID, and everything else to pass the constant genetic screenings. The screenings and the fervency of those involved seem to indicate that the innocent "best person for the job" ideology has evolved into outright racism. Along the way, our everyman courts a Valid played by Uma Thurman, who looks extremely genetically superior in this. Seeing Vincent dust his skin dust off of his keyboard and enact successively more complex plans to bypass the system got old to me quickly. I didn't much care about him nailing a hot Valid chick either. After a while, I just wanted the movie to be over already. we all knew how it was going to end from the second he looked up at that rocket. The rest was filler. Very sappy filler.
As far as using film for a device to explain a complex subject such as genetic tampering, "Gattaca" is a triumph. But seeing that I already was well aware of the social ramifications of such a practice, I have to judge it based on how the story affected me personally. It didn't. The devices were hackneyed, the characters were boring, there was no visual feast to pull it out of the fire. As nice as it is to think that no matter what, the way we do things is always the best, the fact is that once we open that Pandora's Box, Invalids will be exactly that. Invalid. It's always fun to see David beat Goliath, but a more realistic take would have been appreciated. Take District 9, for example. When the underclass was abused and treated as animals, that's practically what they became. Seeing something like that mirroring the real-life hardships of apartheid would have been much more convincing then the schmaltzy approach taken here.
2 1/2 stars, rounded down for blowing a great opportunity. |
| |
 "Dark story in a future which may not be that far away" | 2009-09-15 |
| - Reviewed By aterh |
The story is a newer idea of 'big brother' which, when you come to think of it, may not be that far away. The current DNA insights make this very plausable and quite scary, really.
Acting is quite different from the usual (possibly to create a more alienating environment?) but really good.
I really enjoyed this movie. |
| |
 "Great film with one weak link" | 2009-09-01 |
| - Reviewed By somedamnedguy |
While a number of years old, Gattaca keeps becoming more timely as our biotechnology continues to advance. The movie depicts a near-future where the genetically engineered are a privileged class and those born "naturally" are second-class citizens.
Hawke's character has serious heart defects but desperately wants to go to space, a trip that will likely kill him. The "defective" characters are portrayed as far more motivated than the genetically engineered (for example Jude Law, whose identity Hawke's character assumes). The obvious moral is that eugenics isn't the answer, but more along the lines of the Hell's Angels slogan "the will to win is more important than the skill to win."
The music, set designs, and nearly all the actors are excellent. The weak link: the always greasy, one-dimensional Ethan Hawke. This is a pity, because he's always appeared genetically deficient to me; this is the role he was born to play. I have to wonder how much better this film could have been with a worthwhile actor in the lead.
Oh, and why must astronauts go into space in business suits? Can't we evolve past neckties? |
| |
| "A beautiful film" | 2009-06-26 |
| - Reviewed By User: ADOLBUXJDEIZB |
| This has to be one of the most pleasing, thought provoking and beautifully made science fiction films of the decade. The movie is briliantly acted out, well crafted and will leave the viewer affected by its charm and dignity. |
| |
Expedited Available
