The Golden Compass

Fantasy from 2007 starring among others Nicole Kidman, Daniel Craig and Sam Elliott.

—

In a parallell universe young Lyra Belacqua goes on an adventure up in the arctic. Or something. Here, I’ll just steal the summary from IMDB instead of writing my own: “In a parallel universe, young Lyra Belacqua journeys to the far North to save her best friend and other kidnapped children from terrible experiments by a mysterious organization.” Yeah, I guess that works as a plot summary.

—

Okay, back in October when I mentioned this film I was pretty interested in it. Mainly that interest stemmed from the controversy the film (as well as the books it’s based on) was causing among the fundamentalist christians over in the US, but also because I thought it might be entertaining. When I read about it sounded kind of like Narnia crossed with the Lord of The Rings.

So, now I’ve seen it and what do I think of it?

I think it’s a pretty but incredibly dull affair.

Sure, it’s a nice production and visually it looks kind of like a steampunk-version of Narnia. It’s filled with computer-animation and gorgeous environments, and it’s got some pretty impressive actors. Yet it all feels so darn wasted.

The story is filled with incredibly heavy-handed metaphors for things Philip Pullman doesn’t like. It doesn’t really take a big brain to see that the magistrate is in fact the church, and they want to outlaw science (the dust) and free will. But the way these otherwise interesting metaphors are presented is so obvious. The whole world built in this film is just flat, there’s no excitement. It’s wooden.

And speaking of wooden. Let me tell you what else is wooden in this film. The acting. It’s like watching a bunch of planks sprouting ridiculous lines. Even Daniel Craig and Nicole Kidman who usually manage to bring some kind of gravity to films fail miserably here. In fact, Daniel Craig barely even makes an appearance in this film, and Nicole Kidman is some generic Cruella DeVil-like villain. Pretty much every character in the film is just some two-dimensional cliché that’s been tossed into the mix to make it seem exciting. Casting Sam Elliot as the swaggerty adventurer with an accent as wide as his cowboy-hat is just too obvious.

Speaking of the dialogue. I mean, seriously, even in an alternate dimension, who the hell speaks like they do in this film?

Let me give you an example:

Normal film: RUN!

The Golden Compass: My young friend, I fear that now is the time where we must apply force to our legs and outrun the foolish enemy behind us. Lead the way and I will attempt to stave the flood of… etc etc etc etc and so forth and so on.

No, I think that the only people who will get a kick out of this film are already fans of the books. We who haven’t yet read them just find that this film is so self-important it’s almost falling over itself, and it’s formulaic and utterly boring delivery just underscores that. I had trouble keeping my eyes open, and I doubt that any kid who’s not a fan of Lyra will have troubles doing it too.

Watch this only if you have nothing else to do, and only if you aren’t paying for it. I don’t care that Phil Pullman is an atheist and is making the religious right nervous - this film is most of the time like watching paint dry.

If you want a fun and exciting film set in an alternate reality I instead recommend you go off and rent Stardust. Now that movie was fun!

Cloverfield (2008)

Action/Scifi/Drama featuring a bunch of virtual nonames.

—

A monster attacks New York City and a small group of survivors equipped with a camcorder try to make it out of the city alive.

—

This. Movie. Is. Awesome.

I’ll say it again for emphasis. This movie is awesome. This movie will blow your socks off, rip your shirt to pieces and not introduce itself to your parents.

The story is pretty non-descript, but this is not a story-driven movie. The story rather acts as a frame to the characters. This is a disturbingly realistic and amazingly intense film. It is not your average hollywood-movie, filled with a bunch of overpaid actors hamming it up in front of a bluescreen.

The film is presented as a piece of government evidence, retrieved from a camcorder found in what was previous to the events in the film Central Park. The whole film actually looks like something that was shot by someone holding a camcorder, while being a part of the events.

And in case you didn’t already hear me say it, it is awesome. This is not your average monster-movie. The only thing it raises is questions. The really wonderful thing about it is that the way it’s filmed makes you forget that it’s fiction. You feel as if the boundary between reality and what you’re watching disappears. You have to remind yourself that this, despite appearances, never happened.

This movie is as awesome as Godzilla should’ve been back in 1998.

See it. Even if you’re not into monster-flicks, or action, or scifi. See it because it’s awesome, see it because it’s not cheesy, it’s not cliché. Strongly recommended.

The Mist

Action/Horror/Scifi/Drama starring among others Thomas Jane and Marcia Gay Harden.

—

A strange storm descends on a small village in the northeastern USA. Immediately afterwards a thick mist envelops the town and traps a number of citizens inside a supermarket. Strange noises are heard from the mist, and people venturing into it are brutally killed. It’s discovered that strange creatures roam inside the mist, and a stand has to be made inside the supermarket by the survivors…

—

At first this movie seems like a very cheap knock-off of the old John Carpenter-classic The Fog. Even the title alludes to it, and it shares a lot of obvious themes with it’s predecessor. After a while it changes, and you start to assume that this will be a cheap monster-movie full of standard scares.

And that’s exactly what it is. At least at first glances.

Because, after a while the monsters become simply a backdrop to the madness that humans produce all by themselves. The movie changes gears, changes tempo, changes focus and instead become a surprisingly disturbing account of the darker nature hidden within humans. When the order around people are shattered, so is the illusion of civilization. The characters in the movie revert to a much more primitive and less coherent state of mind.

Up until that change in pace and focus I was rather bored by the whole thing. I even rolled my eyes at some of the typical Stephen King-stereotypes (since this movie is based on a novella by him) that are common both in his writings and even more so in movies based on his works.

But after the change, it became a fascinating and rather scary insight into the abyss of the human soul. Several themes work parallel to each other, but the most obvious theme is Rationality vs Religion. The rationality is represented by a continuously diminishing group of people led by David Drayton (Jane) and the Religion contingent is led by the impressively deranged Mrs. Carmody, (Harden). She is certain that the mist and it’s denizens are the wrath of god, and her unstable mentality gets the better of both her and the people she preaches to.

All during this disaster of the soul I sat thinking, wondering how Frank Darabont (the director) would wrap this all up. Would he go for a cheery Hollywood-ending where everything thanks to some Deus Ex Machina just goes away? Or, would he go for the horrible ending that was implied several times through the movie?

I don’t want to spoil this for people, but he did both of those things. The ending is horrible, not because it’s bad but because it’s a cruel and evil fate that befalls those who is damned under it. It’s beautifully gut-wrenching, and I can safely say that anyone who isn’t depressed by it must lack all forms of emotion. It’s the bleakest ending since Leaving Las Vegas.

Strongly recommended.

Resident Evil: Extinction

Action/Horror/Scifi from 2007 starring Milla Jovovich.

—

In the third installment of the Resident Evil-franchise we again get to familiarize ourselves with the heroine Alice (Jovovich). This time it’s really bad. The events of the previous film didn’t stop the T-virus from spreading, and it not only infected most of the human population of the world (turning them into dangerous zombies) it also killed the forests, nature, infected animals and generally wreaked havoc on our planet. The world as we know it is gone, replaced with a merciless desert eating away at what little natural resources are left. Alice maintains a day-to-day life until she gets reunited with other survivors of the Raccoon City-massacre in the previous film, and they decide to head for Alaska where supposedly there are more survivors. The remnants of the Umbrella Corporation have other plans in mind however…

—

I’m not really the target-audience for movies of this kind. I have a difficult time relating to the whole zombie-thing, and even though I enjoy most horrorfilms I have a somewhat strained relationship to this kind of movie. In general I feel that the zombie-genre is ridden with heavy clichés and that every attempt to modernize it simply confirms this theory.

I’ve never played a Resident Evil-game either, so I have no idea what all that is about, other than that most RE-fans seem as rabidly obsessed as the zombies in the games themselves.

(relax, I’m just joking)

So, while I had a somewhat fun time watching the first film, the second one soured me pretty bad on the whole concept. The first one had a good feel to it, and even though it was somewhat laughable at times it still provided decent entertainment. But the sequel was a far cry from being entertaining. It was almost painfully bad, and took itself way too seriously. Add to that, it was astoundingly silly in most every department, and as always riddled with clichés of the genre.

The groundwork didn’t look good for the third one. In fact, I considered not watching it at all. But it turned out I was in the mood for something braindead and filled with action, so I relented and gave it a go.

Surprise, surprise. It wasn’t as bad as I expected. Sure, it won’t win any awards for… well… pretty much anything, but it was pretty solid entertainment, and I didn’t yawn or check my watch a single time. Admittedly this also suffers from a lot of tired clichés, and Russell Mulcahy (yes, THE Russell Mulcahy, of Highlander-fame) falls pretty heavy for the temptation of using old by-the-book techniques to scare the viewer. The costumes are bordering on silly, and I always find it a bit amusing in movies of this kind how the hot chicks always have perfect makeup despite having spent years wandering the desert.

But for all it’s drawbacks this movie somehow works. A lot of people complained about a perceived lack of action, but I thought it was fine. I don’t really like movies who try to cover a thin plot or crappy acting by shoveling lots of action-sequences over the viewer, and I felt that this movie was somewhat balanced. Plus, the whole Zombies Meets Mad Max In The Desert-concept was interesting. I’ve always liked post-apocalyptic movies, and this fit the bill fine.

All in all, I’d say this is the best of the three movies so far. Which means it’s pretty mediocre, but hey - it wasn’t meant to be another Citizen Kane or something. Think of it as entertainment for teenage guys. And Milla has nice legs.

+ Desert
+ Milla Jovovich
+ Not too silly zombies
+ Guns, Guns, Guns
+ Lots of sand
+ Las Vegas buried in sand
+ Action
+ Weird ending
+ Slightly more character development than previous movies

- What’s with the ridiculous boss in the end of every movie?
- Tired dialogue
- Wooden acting
- Predictable plot
- Lots of genre-clichés, i.e. groups splitting up then getting killed off one at a time, monsters jumping out of closets, etc.

If you would say that I’m border-line obsessed with Blade Runner then you would be right on the money. I’ve had an ongoing love-affair with this movie for at least fourteen years.

I think it all started when I read the book by Philip K. Dick, “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” in my early teens. I had no idea that Blade Runner was based on this book, even less had I even seen said film. I’d seen some screenshots in magazines and was mildly intrigued by the visual aspect of the movie, but it pretty much stopped at that. I was too young as well to be able to fully comprehend the complex themes of the book, and at the time I felt most of Dick’s writing was rather weird and bizarre.

Hindsight being 20/20 I now know that I really wasn’t the target of the book. At thirteen you’re just too young to be interested in weighty philosophical subjects about humanity wrapped in amphetamine-fueled writing.

My first contact with Blade Runner was ironically it’s soundtrack. Written, produced and performed by the greek master Vangelis it hooked me immediately with it’s deep atmosphere. Intertwined was soundbites from the movie, and at this point I just knew I had to see the movie. I was now around sixteen or so, and I greedily devoured everything I could find on Blade Runner. Finally, I managed to see the original european theatrical cut. I’m a bit fuzzy as to how I saw it, but I think one of the TV-channels ran it. Yes, while that may sound cheezy this particular channel shows a lot of good movies, without commercials and in proper widescreen. They even did this back in the early nineties as well.

After that, my obsession snowballed rapidly and since then I’ve become something of a walking encyclopedia on Blade Runner. I wouldn’t say that I’m fanatical, and I don’t know every stupid bit of fact there is. But I do know a lot, and it’s easily one of my favorite films of all time. I’ve read the behind-the-scenes book by Paul M. Sammon (called Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner) and I’ve even bought the book - twice! I lost my original copy when I moved back from USA to Sweden, and a year ago I re-purchased it. It’s a bible of information regarding the production of Blade Runner. I recommend it to any fan of the movie.

To say that I was excited when I heard about the Final Cut of Blade Runner being produced would be a mild understatement. I’ve eagerly waited for it’s release for at least a year, and today I got it. Me being crazy I of course bought the Collectors Edition, with five (!) DVD’s including every other version of Blade Runner (especially the elusive Workprint) as well as documentaries and other tidbits. I was never a fan of the Directors Cut from 1992, it didn’t have quite the punch of the theatrical cut and even though I agree that a lot of the monologue is superfluous I really did like it included. Another thing I didn’t like with the Directors Cut was it’s DVD-transfer. It was one of the first DVD’s and as such is sub-par compared to… well, pretty much anything. The visuals are muddy and the audio is a horrible 2.0-mix. In fact, most every release of Blade Runner on video, DVD or even Laserdisc has been mistreated in one way or the other.

But the Final Cut promised to remedy all this, and I look forward to popping it in the DVD-player and firing up the receiver later tonight. Not only will it be an audio-visual experience for me, but I look forward to seeing if or what is different in the Final Cut. I think Blade Runner finally has come full-circle in a format that makes it’s qualities justice. When I get HD-gear I’ll probably repurchase the Final Cut in HD-version, but so far I’m not HD-ready yet.

None the less, I’m very excited right now!

A shot of the Collectors Edition:

One of my minor enjoyments is b-grade scifi-movies from the 80’s and 90’s. Not the really cheesy ones, but the ones who are at the lower-end spectrum of budget and ambition. They’re still major enough to have gone the rounds in the cinemas, but lack a lot of things in pretty much every other department.

They have a tendency to take themselves way too seriously, to have silly and overblown special effects and vehicles and to generally play loose and wild with various concepts as well as laws of physics. These movies have a very cheap cartoony style, even though that style usually is the result of inexperienced directors using the same techniques that they’ve copied from other low-budget inexperienced directors.

Also, it’s surprisingly common that these movies involve at least one or two actors who either are quite respected even at the time of release, or who will become respected and famous a few years later. In other cases, it’s actors who used to be respected or famous but who has for one reason or another has fallen from grace.

These movies are usually located in the bargain-bin at various supermarkets, electronics outlets and gas-stations. You know the kind, three movies for five bucks, that kind of deal.

Two excellent examples of this type of movie is Virus from 1999 and Tank Girl from 1995. Both have this very typical cardboard-style of filmmaking, being extremely corny and usually quite enjoyable mostly due to being very cardboardy and corny. Other excellent representations of this sub-genre is The Running Man from 1987 featuring the current gubernator of california as well as Repo Man from 1984.

Late last night I encountered another movie fitting this genre of mediocrity. It was named Freejack, a scifi/action-movie from 1992 featuring Emilio Estevez and among other people Mick Jagger (!) of Rolling Stones-fame.

The premise is a deliciously silly farce about time-travelling bounty-hunters who take people just before they die and then in the future sell their bodies as hosts for dying peoples minds.

The story itself serves as a great example of how overblown these movies usually are. They almost always have outrageously campy visions of future dystopias and Freejack is no exception to this rule. Most of the movie is set in 2009, two years from now, but features hovercraft limos with bubbletop canopys for the drivers as well as various other really silly “predictions” about the future such as a mega-corporation named McCandless Corporation who owns and operates pretty much everything in the world. But, 2009 is two years away so who knows what might happen?

This is a beautiful hangover-movie. Mick Jagger is wonderfully ridiculous in his various “badass” outfits sprouting cartoony lines, and Emilio Estevez is as gloriously one-dimensional as always.

If you manage to catch this on late night cable and have a penchant for silly scifi-movies then you won’t be disappointed. It’s also excellent stocking-stuffing for people who love this stuff, a useful tip since christmas is rolling around in less than two months time.

(this entry contains some spoilers for a really nice hollywood-movie from 1997 called Contact. If you haven’t seen it and don’t want your experience ruined then don’t read on.)

Me and Ann-Sofie watched Contact a little while ago. It’s in my opinion one truly great film, and one of the few scifi-movies who have some kind of grounding in “real” science. Sure, after they receive the signal it gets a little out there, but none of the scenarios presented are completely unrealistic. Of course, a certain suspension of disbelief is required to enjoy any movie. If one were too critical it wouldn’t be much fun, would it?

So we watched it, and Ann-Sofie made a comment that they should’ve left the ending after the machine out. You know, the whole inquiry into why it supposedly “failed”. I thought about it for a second or two and then disagreed with her, I felt that without that ending the whole movie would just be a waste of time. Sure, a very pretty waste of time, but none the less it wouldn’t have the same punch as with it.

I didn’t continue with the argument since I didn’t want to seem condescending or as if I was lecturing her from high up on my soapbox. I have a tendency to sound very arrogant when explaining stuff, and I’ve learned in the past that this isn’t always appreciated by my peers. Thus I chose to keep quiet at the time. Instead I’m going to off here.

You see, the whole theme of the film (and to a certain extent the book it was based off) is that of the conflict between science and faith.

The main character –Ellie Arroway– is a woman steeped in science, she believes in things that she can observe through empirical evidence. She does not believe in a higher being of any kind, and this causes a lot of friction between her and other characters as the movie unfolds. In a dramatic moment she is denied the trip in the machine due to not believing in god, something that apparently is a prerequisite for that privilege. She is frustrated that such a trivial thing is the key to keeping her grounded, and we as viewers share that anguish. Us viewers get even more frustrated when her opponent for the chair in the machine more or less flatly admits to lying to the board of directors and telling them what they want to hear, even though he doesn’t believe anything himself.

But the theme of the film is faith as opposed to science. The ending is essentially a change of roles for Ellie. All through the film (and her life) religion has never answered any of the really big questions for her. No priest or any believer has ever produced any tangible evidence of the existence of god. Yet, at the end of the movie, she’s in the same position. She’s experienced something amazing, something truly eye-opening — yet she cannot produce a single proof that it’s happened. She just knows that it has happened, deep inside her heart she has faith in it. The only other person in the entire world who can understand what she feels is her exact opposite, the enigmatic and openly religious Palmer Joss.

Without placing her in the position that she earlier placed Palmer Joss and religion there wouldn’t be a proper ending. Also, without the last two lines of dialogue there wouldn’t be a proper ending.

It’s a great film, even if you don’t care about the juxtaposition between two very different bases for belief. Carl Sagan himself was in my opinion even at the best of times rather fuzzy about what he believed in, and I think it reflects in the movie. The movie just as well as Sagan himself begs the viewer to find their own truth.

Me, I don’t think there’s a god out there. Sure, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some really mind-boggling things out in the great big universe we live in. But an all-powerful god watching over us? Nope.

One thing that I thought about while watching the ending of Contact is how unfairly science is competing with organized religion. Religion has never had to prove anything since faith itself cannot be proven in a scientific manner. No one puts any pressure on faith proving that god exists, or any of the other deities that people all over the world believe in. Yet these religions put huge pressure on scientists and atheists to prove everything from the theory of evolution to gravity itself. If we don’t prove it, then essentially we’re proclaimed not trustworthy and accused of pulling stuff right out of our asses.

It’s quite strange in my opinion. Overall I feel more and more that organized religion is more like a collective psychotic episode, but then again it’s impossible to prove faith. Also, I again stress that I don’t mind faith as such, but I feel it’s a bit wasted to use that faith to believe in a book or some invisible god rather than humanity itself.

Två filmer som jag verkligen ser fram emot:

The Day The Earth Stood Still: remake på filmen från 1951 med samma namn. Väldigt lite är känt om handling och rollbesättning, det enda som tydligen är verifierat är att Keanu “Träplankan” Reeves är inblandad. Filmen har nätt och jämnt gått in i preproduction, så det dröjer nog tills resultatet levereras.

Avatar: James Cameron återvänder till spelfilm och slutar göra Titanic-dokumentärer. Handlingen verkar helt klart lovande, jag menar A band of humans are pitted in a battle against a distant planet’s indigenous population kan ju inte gå fel, eller hur? Det är ju dessutom Cam The Man som regisserar, mannen som skapade Terminator 2, den absolut mest actionfyllda filmen genom tiderna. Dessutom har han ju ett sånt skönt stuk på sina filmer, mycket blått och kameraglidningar. Dock dyker den här inte upp förrän 2009. Ouch.

Technorati Tags: film, scifi, keanu reeves, hollywood, terminator, james cameron

Sunshine

Scifi/Drama från 2007 med bl.a. Cillian Murphy och Michelle Yeoh.

—

Året är 2057 och våran sol är döende. I ett desperat försök samlar mänskligheten allt sitt kunnande och skapar Icarus-projektet. Målet med projektet är att starta om solen och hindra den från att slockna - om den dör helt försvinner mänskligheten. Det första skeppet misslyckas av okända skäl, och mänskligheten samlar ihop sin sista desperation och skickar ett andra skepp. Om även det skeppet misslyckas med sitt uppdrag är allt hopp ute för mänskligheten. Ombord på skeppet sätter ett litet misstag igång en kedjereaktion av problem, och besättningen måste ta en hel del svåra beslut…

—

Sen jag först såg trailern ville jag se den här filmen. Det var nånting med den som tilltalade mig på samma sätt som t.ex. 2001: A Space Odyssey tilltalar mig. Jag är väldigt förtjust i smart Science Fiction, den typen som får en att börja fundera. 2001 är visserligen en rätt seg film, men man kan inte undgå att bli fundersam av den (om man är mottaglig) och jag hoppades att Sunshine var en film i samma anda.

Jag hade både rätt och fel, tror jag.

Upplevelsen av Sunshine var i min mening ungefär som att bli utlovad tre jättegoda bakelser. Den första man äter är fantastisk, den andra smakar gräs, hundskit och gamla strumpor, och den slutgiltiga och sista smakar underbart, med maräng och änglar och citronsmak.

Så var Sunshine. Den börjar fantastiskt, sen försvinner den ner i ett träsk av klyschor och tvådimensionella karaktärer, och sen slutar den på ett spektakulärt sätt.

Visuellt är filmen precis som en scifi-film ska vara. Den är storslagen på samma gång som den är trång - kontrasten mellan den oändliga rymden och det pyttelilla utrymmet som åtta besättningsmedlemmar ska dela på är mycket skarp. Kontraster är överhuvudtaget det allmänna temat i filmen, och det är oundvikligt att regissör Danny Boyle är inspirerad av äldre filmer med liknande tema. Kontrasterna finns överallt i filmen - gud och ateism, ljust och mörkt, galenskap och förnuft.

Början är otroligt stämningsfull, och vi får bekanta oss med den blandade skara som ska rädda mänskligheten. Ingenting konstigt där. Men mitten… ay caramba! Den är så full av gamla slitna rymdklyschor att jag ibland undrar vilken film jag egentligen ser på. Det finns ingen substans, utan filmen styltar på i nåt slags ryckigt tempo där dåliga saker händer på löpande band. Mitten av filmen hänger på en skör tråd, och redigering såväl som skådespeleri är allt annat än lysande. Ett tag känns det som om det saknas scener, filmen blir ryckig och konstig och ansträngd.

Men så hittar den sig själv igen, den hittar sin andning och sitt tempo och sin hjärna - och tar slut på ett så skönt sätt.

Ambitionerna för filmen var uppenbarligen höga, men mitten av filmen är verkligen… urk. Som jag sa till Ann-Sofie: “Jag vet inte om jag ska tycka bra eller dåligt om den”. På det rent tekniska planet är den här filmen adekvat. Såväl effekter som ljud är mer än dugligt. Musiken är fullständigt underbar, om man tillåter sig att lyssna på den. Kanske måste soundtracket inhandlas.

Det blir ett svagt “Rekommenderas”. Om inte annat för att bli avskräckt av den hemska mittenbiten som uppvägs av skön musik och ett fint slut.

Technorati Tags: sunshine, film, recension, scifi, danny boyle, cillian murphy, michelle yeoh

The Astronaut Farmer

Drama/Scifi från 2006 med bl.a. Billy Bob Thornton och Virginia Madsen.

—

Charlie Farmer är en relativt vanlig medelålders ranchägare nånstans i Texas. Han har kor, hästar, ett hus, en lada och problem med banken. Men han är ändå inte helt vanlig… Charlie är nämligen besatt av tanken på att flyga i rymden, och har varit det ända sedan han blev tvungen att återvända hem från flygvapnet för att rädda sin familjeranch. Han löser sin besatthet genom att ta saken i egna händer och bygga en raket i sin lada — det finns bara några mindre problem med allt från befolkningen i staden han bor, FBI-agenter som misstänker att han egentligen håller på att bygga en missil av nåt slag, samt i princip hela resten av landet…

—

Jag hörde talas om den här filmen först i våras, och blev omedelbart intresserad av den. Handlingen verkade helknäpp, och allmänt rymdintresserad som jag var tilltalade Charlies dröm även mig. Tänk om man kunde bygga en egen raket? Jösses, inte nog med att man måste övervinna alla tekniska detaljer, hur ska man ta sig genom all den byråkrati som finns?

Det här är en familjefilm. Den är stöpt och helgjuten som en familjefilm som kan uppskattas av hela familjen. Stora som små hittar säkert nånting att relatera till, och man blir hela tiden så sabla nyfiken på om Charlie kommer att få fjutt på sin raket. Filmen spelar mest på dramastråkarna, men den har starka inslag av komedi och scifi. Scifi-biten handlar just om Charlies raket, och jag måste säga att t.o.m. jag som amatör förstår att filmskaparna tagit sig ENORMA friheter med hela raketbiten. Men det är okej, själva raketen är faktiskt en sekundär bit i handlingen. Den primära handlingen är om Charlie ska lyckas genomföra sin livslånga dröm, eller om den kommer att bli krossad under (ur hans synvinkel) meningslöst trams.

Dom bra sakerna är som sagt att det är en relativt barnvänlig film. Handlingen är intressant och berättas på ett ganska stillsamt sätt. Billy Bob är ungefär i sitt standardläge, han är tystlåten och lite träig och funkar faktiskt jättebra som Charlie Farmer tack vare det. Birollerna är rätt bra castade, och inga större klagomål på deras skådespelande från min sida. Fotot är mycket imponerande och riktigt vackert, det känns som att filmskaparna la ner mycket tid på att få med de vackra vidderna i filmramen.

Men de dåliga sakerna finns också. Personligen tycker jag filmen drar för mycket i de gamla slitna hjärtesträngarna. Det är en väldigt amerikansk film på alla sätt och vis, och man kan säkert läsa in många tolkningar i filmens generella helyllehet. Ljudet är dessutom fantastiskt dåligt, jag vet inte om det är DVD’n det är fel på eller vad, men ena sekunden hör man knappt vad folk säger om man inte skruvar upp ljudet högt, och nästa sekund blir man döv eftersom nån bil kör förbi kameran och ljudet dånade ut ur högtalarna.

The Astronaut Farmer är lättsmält underhållning för hela familjen. Kan man stå ut med den extremt amerikanska berättelsen så är det en helgjuten film en lördagkväll.

Rekommenderas.