Frequencies (OXV: The Manual)

Director: Darren Paul Fisher. Starring: Daniel Fraser, Eleanor Wyld, Owen Pugh. UK, 2013. Budget: unknown, but very low. Box office: unknown. IMDB: 6.8. RT: 100%. My rating: 1.5/4. Romantic girly YA movie pretending to be hard science fiction.frequencies

– Sex is like masturbation, just with someone else.
– I hope not.
(conversation between Marie and Zak)

– I have a 210 I.Q. I never needed to take notes. I just didn’t want to always have to look at people or have them looking at me. It’s the eyes.
(Marie)

It may actually took a while to figure out what is wrong with “Frequencies”. The photography is solid, the dialogues ate witty, the acting is trustworthy and the concept may seem intriguing. Quiet high ratings for such a low budget British movie. But… it just doesn’t work all together. For a not high demanding viewer that doesn’t ask too many questions, “Frequencies” may seem fine. But after a deeper look, it’s easy that it is just another shallow YA movie, this time without a big budget. The whole construction of the movie starts falls apart rapidly. “Frequencies” suffers from a typical disease of being too ambitious, hence trying to say too much and as a result saying little.

vlcsnap-2015-04-20-12h20m10s808

The plot. What we have here? An alternative version of the world, where each person has a special frequency. It totally decides your destiny – those with high frequency w20170307_143753ill never be late for a train, get a bad job offer or spill a cup of coffee (and vice a versa). The whole society is divided from early school years in different groups based on each person’s frequency. Accidentally a boy (Daniel Fraser) with one of the lowest frequencies ever falls in love with a girl (Eleanor Wyld) with a uniquely high frequency. Can he find a way to stay with her?

After a good start, instead of developing more main characters and telling us more about 20170307_143545frequencies and the dystopian (utopian?!) world, the movie is piled up with unnecessary elements. None of which are truly original or well explored, mostly being borrowed elsewhere. Examples? For a few minutes we are introduced to a character who learnt how to foresee the future – this idea is never repeated again. Then, main characters manage to invent a special machine that can alternate frequencies if special words are pronounced. What is it, science fiction or Harry Potter? (I have nothing against Harry Potter, by the way). Then we learn that these magic words cause a side effect (and it’s rather silly). Later, we are introduced to the music concept – music somehow equalizes different people’s frequencies. To make it even worse, the plot even introduces a conspiracy based society. And trust me, there’s much, much more…

20170307_143708With this kind of a realization, the main concept seems even more superficial. Finally, what is this frequency? Is it your destiny? So what will happen if somebody with a high frequency and a low frequency go to catch the train at the same time? The movie never explores even an idea that simple, let alone how the whole society works.

The reception. The film currently has 100% on Rotten Tomatoes (which I find weird). It didn’t win any major awards on independent film festivals except for Kansas City FilmFest.

Worth watching? Not really. “Frequencies” may impress those who haven’t seen many good films as technically it is a well done movie. But dig deeper and you’ll recognize that it looks more like 20170307_143732a shallow gimmick than a good-hearted story it intended to be. After all, it’s one more YA romantic story about a divided society, two teens who cannot be together for some reason (frequencies, in this case) and try to change their destiny.

Don’t fool yourself with the sci-fi wrapping – there’s very little of it. The more you deconstruct the film, the more it starts to fall apart. Surprisingly, the messed up plot, good photography and very decent acting may mask the flawed concepts pretty well (hence high ratings), but as you peel deeper there’s little inside. At its best, “Frequencies” can deliver some witty lines.

Acting:  3/4
Directing: 2.5/4
Originality: 2/4
Maturity: 1/4
Pathos level: high
Final vote: 1.5/4

Watch instead: “The Lobster” for wry and deadpan humour about our society norms and a couple relationship’s dissection, sentimental “Fahrenheit 451” by Francois Truffaut is a curious old dystopia based on Ray Bradbury’s novel, “THX-1138” for minimal and deadly visuals, “Gattaca” for a futuristic take on humanity, “Sunshine” for space dystopia, “Moon” for a minimal thought-provoking futuristic dystopia.

But if you really want to understand why I was so harsh with “Frequencies”, have a look at “Dead Man’s Letters” and “Stalker“. These movie are meaningful and touching, but never manipulating… never having so much vicious excess.

Fahrenheit 451

fahrenheitDirector: François Truffaut. Starring: Oskar Werner, Julie Christie, Cyril Cusack. UK, France, USA, 1966. IMDb: 7.3. My rating: 3.5/4. Budget: $1.5 million. Dystopian science fiction.

– Well, it’s a job just like any other. Good work with lots of variety. Monday, we burn Miller; Tuesday, Tolstoy; Wednesday, Walt Whitman; Friday, Faulkner; and Saturday and Sunday, Schopenhauer and Sartre. We burn them to ashes and then burn the ashes. That’s our official motto.
(Guy Montag)

– Here’s a book about lung cancer. You see, all the cigarette smokers got into a panic, so for everybody’s peace of mind, we burn it.
(The Captain)

– These are all novels, all about people that never existed, the people that read them it makes them unhappy with their own lives. Makes them want to live in other ways they can never really be.
(The Captain)

Truffaut’s “Fahrenheit 451” easily divided the audience in two – some praised the film for black ruthless satire mixed with poetical and sensual style, while the others blamed it for simplicity, lack of imagination and small scale. Probably most of those who have read or heard of Ray Bradbury’s famous novel imagined it differently – sharper, darker, heavier. 20170425_115142But Truffaut, being a truly big artist, tried to blend with great imagination his own sensual style and the pressing rhythm of the novel. If you have seen “The 400 Blows”, you will surely recognize the style of the French director. Apparently, “Fahrenheit 451” is not a big movie, rather an intimate tale. It’s also is a perfect example of what happens a talented director is struggling to make a film. Truffaut was obviously not into sci-fi, and it makes “Fahrenheit 451” especially appealing. Continue reading

I Origins

Director: Mike Cahill. Starring: Michael Pitt, Steven Yeun, Brit Marling, Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey. USA, 2014. IMDb: 7.3. My rating: 3/4. Science, fiction, love, drama, reflection (in any order).

– How many senses do worms have?i_origins
– They have two. Smell and touch. Why?
– So… they live without any ability to see or even know about light, right? The notion of light to them is unimaginable.
– Yeah.
– But we humans… we know that light exists. All around them… right on top of them… they cannot sense it. But with a little mutation, they do. Right?
– Correct.
– So… Doctor Eye… perhaps some humans, rare humans… have mutated to have another sense. A spirit sense. And can perceive a world that is right on top of us… everywhere. Just like the light on these worms.

(conversation between Sofi and Ian)

“I Origins” is a tricky film. Probably it is the most difficult review I’ve ever written so far, as my impression passed from initial delight to dubious perplexity then finishing with some insight and comprehension. The film is deceitfully easy to watch as it is gorgeous 20170407_035501visually with some good acting (especially Michael Pitt was a great discovery) and warm affectionate soundtrack. But it may not be easy to read the main message – like many good directors, Cahill tries to leave enough space for various interpretations because here main arguments are pretty sensitive – science and religion. The result may anger those viewers, who interpret ”I Origins” in too straightforward manner, while others will adore it (and if you have a look at various reviews, this is exactly what happened). Both are right – yes, the film is uneven, but still, ”I Origins” is a very good science fiction movie. It also has more of real science than fiction.

By the way, long-time friends and collaborators Brit Marling, Mike Cahill and Zal Batmanglij are an interesting case indeed. Continue reading

Source Code

Director: Duncan Jones. Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga, Jeffrey Wright. USA, 2011. IMDB: 7.5. My rating: 4/4. Timelooped science fiction thriller. Source_Code_Poster

– You seem concerned about the time. What are you late for?
– I’m on my way to an asshole festival. I hear you’re headlining.
(a dialogue between Gyllenhaal’s character and a train passenger)

– Source Code is not time travel. Rather, Source Code is time re-assignment. It gives us access to a parallel reality.
(Dr. Rutledge)

“Source Code” is an incredibly catchy and stylish sci-fi thriller that captures your attention easily and straight from the start. All things are in the right place here – it offers a great story, real characters that you care about, intrigue and a fast pace. Once again Duncan Jones shows us after his amazing debut “Moon” (2009) that you don’t need big funds or epic action to make good sci-fi, and “Source Code” is for sure a remarkable sci-fi film. Continue reading

Passengers

passengers_ver2Director: Morten Tyldum. Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Chris Pratt, Michael Sheen, Lawrence Fishburne. USA, 2016. IMDB: 7.0. My rating: 1.5/4.

– Jim, these are  not robot questions.
(Arthur, the robot-barman)

– We were woken too soon… Ninety years too soon!
– We have too go back to sleep!
– We can’t!
(typical dramatic dialogue between main characters)

A second movie in Hollywood by a Norwegian director Morten Tylden, who made great and brutal “Headhunters” (which I highly recommend, a thriller with really Norwegian spirit) and his most famous film “Imitation Game”, both received well on various festivals and public. Tyldum mentioned few years ago that he has been dreaming to make a sci-fi movie for a long time. Did he manage to do it well? Barely.

Continue reading

Safety Not Guaranteed

safetynotguaranteedposterDirector: Colin Trevorrow. Starring: Aubrey Plaza, Mark Duplass, Jake Johnson. USA, 2013. IMDB: 7.0. My rating: 4/4. Science fiction romantic comedy.

– What are you guys, racists?
– It’s complicated. 
(conversation between Darius and guys when she asks them to get out of the car in a bad-looking suburb mostly populated by immigrants)

Wanted: Somebody to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. P.O. Box 91 Ocean View, WA 99393. You’ll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. Safety not guaranteed. I have only done this once before.
(main premise of the movie)

What a lovely and touching movie. Such an surprise! With its funny sci-fi premise and 750,000 budget one could expect in best case scenario some nerdy sci-fi geek C-movie. But that’s not the case. Continue reading