ALL SCI-FI

[Bud Brewster]

If you're not a member of All Sci-Fi, registration is easy. Just use the registration password, which is —

gort



Attention members! If you've forgotten your password, just email me at brucecook1@yahoo.com.
____________________________________________________________________

size=22]The “pure” science fiction movies, all with ample budgets and eye-popping FX.

We’re treated to a slam-bang Star Trek movie, an Alien movie which brings Ripley back from the dea, and a somewhat disappointing sequel to Jurassic Park.

All three threads have some terrific posts! And remember, you post replies at no extra change! [/size]
____________________________________________________________________

Star Trek: First Contact (1996)



After a very disappoint first film, this TNG feature is a rousing success.

The story is superb, the new Enterprise is gorgeous, and the special effects are flawless. The film has just enough drama and just enough humor to be a recipe for success, as they say.

The characters all have their own dramatic and comedic moments in a fast-past story that builds on story elements established in the series. No messin' around makin' up stuff we never heard of before.

For the record, I like "Insurrection" just as much as this one. Two very different stories that both fit right in with the Star Trek universe on every level. By the time this movie came out, that was a pleasant surprise.
____________________________________________________________________

Alien Resurrection (1997)



If you're gonna bring a dead character back to life, do it in an outrageous manner.

Like they did in this movie.

Two hundreds years after Ripley throws herself into a vat of molten metal, she's back, she's bad, and she can joke about it. That's classy.

But I've never understood where the scientists in this movie got the aliens. Here's what Wikipedia says about it.
__________________________________________

Two hundred years after the events of Alien 3, military scientists on the outer space vessel USM Auriga create a clone of Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) using DNA from blood samples taken before her death. They extract the embryo of an Alien queen that had been growing inside her at the time of her death, raise it, and collect its eggs for further use. The Ripley clone is kept alive for further study.
__________________________________________

I understand how they cloned Ripley from a blood sample collected before she did a swan dive into hell, but how did they "extract the embryo of an Alien queen that had been growing inside her at the time of her death"?

Apparently the various clones of Ripley included a clone of the Alien queen growing inside it, just like the real Ripley did -- which is completely illogical. Nothing in the Alien movies ever suggested that an implanted embryo changed the host's DNA so that a clone of them would also have an embryo inside!

That's just not the way cloning works.

If I'm reading this situation wrong, guys, please straighten me out. Joss Whedon wrote the original treatment, and he's supposed to be smart enough not to make mistakes like that.
____________________________________________________________________

The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)



I didn't care for this one the first time I saw it — largely because I was angry about the way they treated the character who worked so courageously to save the folks in the dangling trailer. Two T-Rex's tore him in half.

The movie had me rooting for that little bald guy and his heroic efforts — and then he became a wishbone for two nasty lizards. It sucked.

However, I watched the movie again recently and pretended the little guy went straight to heaven, where God reminded him that He'd sent an asteroid to smush all the nasty lizards 65 million years ago, so screw 'em.

He who laughs last, etc. etc.

Other than that one unfortunate scene, this is a really fine follow-up to the 1993 hit that resurrected dinosaurs in the virtual world, if not the real one. Jeff Goldblum works his magic charm and remains calm in the face of hideous circumstances, and Joanna Moore makes a fiesty heroine, waltzing around among grazing triceratops like she's at a cocktail party, hoping to strike up a conversation with that hunky guy near the bar.

Meanwhile, mean and evil capitalist have teamed up with mean and evil big game hunters, and the smart money is not on the dinosaurs — although we know that heads will roll before the conflict is over, and that's not a figurative reference . . .

As in the 1933 King Kong (the only Kong worth it's salt, in my opinion), half the movie is on the monster-filled island and the other half is in the urban jungle of San Diego, where momma T-Rex is going to eat every yuppie in sight if they don't give her baby back and then pay for a boat ride back home.

All in all, I must say this is a movie I would have worshiped if I'd seen it when I was ten years old in 1958 (except for being traumatized for life by nightmares about little bald guy being tossed in two directions at once), and since I've succeeded in never really growing up, I still think it's pretty terrific.

What do you guys think?
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)