Basically the front page is usually full of politics and/or wholesomeness, like that whole homemade/cheap schtick you guys have going around here. So I thought I'd leaven it out a bit with some cheap mass entertainment. So sue me, I'm a science fiction geek.
This is one of those cases where I'm glad I didn't read the reviews, because if I had, I wouldn't have seen Push, which is much much better than what the critics on rottentomatoes are giving it. It's a birth-of-superhumanity movie in the same genre as X-Men and Jumper, but much grittier with an Octavia Butler-novel feel to it (think Wild Seed). At the same time, it's a Hong Kong action thriller, and yes, it has a plot hole or two. It stars Chris Evans, who is a better actor than I thought, and more importantly, the now-adolescent Dakota Fanning, who retains her consistent talent as she grows.
The basic plot is that during (yes, *sigh*) WWII, the Nazis (yes, *sigh again* it was a good movie but not the best start) discovered the existence of humans who had a range of psychic abilities (telekinesis, clairvoyance, etc) and started experimenting on them. On their defeat, their research was secretly revealed to the world's governments, who started "Divisions", organizations to capture, control, and research superhumans. Inevitably, all the Divisions fell under the control of some of their subjects, who are, after all, superhumans---and they use their power to subjugate other superhumans (as they are mind controllers, hence my comparison with Octavia Butler).
Nick Gant (Chris Evans)'s father was a powerful telekinetic who was killed while resisting capture by Division agents, but not before telling Nick that at some point in the future, a young girl would present him with a flower, and he must help her. Nick, a telekinetic himself, survives to adulthood and eventually finds refuge in Hong Kong, where many fugitive superhumans hide in the Hong Kong underworld. Division agents have just tracked him down...but they aren't looking for him, but instead what he might know about an escaped experimental subject about whom (he thinks) he has no idea.
Immediately after he is confronted by Cassie Holmes (Dakota Fanning), a clairvoyant whose mother is a Division captive and even more powerful clairvoyant. Cassie, who has grown up too fast, is looking for something which she forsees will see her mother. Cassie can only see the future indirectly by drawing crude diagrams. However, Cassie has offended the clairvoyant daughter of a local crime boss, who sends her creepy phone calls ("Do you want to know how you DIE, little girl?").
In the midst of a plot of growing intrigue of mind controllers and clairvoyants, the brain (Cassie) and the brawn (Nick) must find a way to subvert their machinations and inevitable visions (Cassie's included) that apparently see Nick and Cassie lying dead. And in trying to survive, they must somehow rescue the experimental fugitive (a mind controller whom Nick knows very well indeed) and find leverage to free Cassie's mother...who set all of these events in motion before they were even born.
So there were cheesy action flick moments aplenty but I was satisfied by the plot and its resolution, which were quite clever. It appears that some critics simply couldn't follow the complexity of Nick and Cassie's clairvoyance-confounding plan.
- Mandos's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Cool, it's one of the few on my list this year
My first reaction to seeing the previews, was "Awesome, Jedi with guns!"
And the concept of government psionic research has been the focal point of many awesome stories, like Hellboy and Firestarter. It's nice to know that this one might live up to its expectations.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
Hellboy
I didn't see Hellboy the first, but I did see Hellboy II and was very impressed, actually, with the depth of thought that had gone into the plot and characters. Guillermo del Toro drew on a lot of the themes he had used in Pan's Labyrinth and it worked very well, despite the overall concept of the two movies being completely different.
The first is good
It is a typical origin story, where the hero suffers the loss of his mentor, and he reaches an acceptance of his freak nature, so it's definitely a good story, and it could have been done in a campier manner, but instead Del Toro approached the story as if it were "serious" subject matter, instead of as your typical comic book movie.
The most recent genre of comic book movies has been very impressive, IMO. Though the last X-Men was disappointing. I hope they come to their senses, and use a better story to conclude it, than the lame ass copout they used previously.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
Del Toro
I find Del Toro's "signature" style very interesting, the whole "mechanistic" clockwork style of presenting monsters and demons and magic, with lots of little gears and elaborate little mechanisms, very steampunk. And the whole theme, of course, of a complete parallel world that the human one callously displaces with its iron and steel, a world that might indeed have a legitimate right to survive by itself. Both in Hellboy and Pan's Labyrinth.
And yes, X-Men really copped out on the last one. Couldn't take it where it needed to go. Still, it had the the most beautiful prison break scene on screen, ever.
That was good
But that was from the second. Of course the escape scene from the third, where Mystique sacrifices herself for Magneto was very touching, until the betrayal. And that was a copout too, imo.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond