Month: December 2024

“They like to get the landmarks.” —David Levinson

Today’s quick review: Independence Day: Resurgence. Two decades after the people of Earth repelled an alien invasion, another mothership lands and begins drilling towards the Earth’s core. As scientist David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum) and former president Thomas Whitmore (Bill Pullman) coordinate the response, a new generation of fighter pilots (Liam Hemsworth, Jessie T. Usher, and Maika Monroe) takes to the skies to combat the alien threat.

Independence Day: Resurgence is a sci-fi action adventure that picks up twenty years after the events of the original Independence Day. Resurgence features an ensemble cast that mixes familiar faces with new ones, pitting Earth’s upgraded defenses against an even more devastating assault. The sequel ticks the boxes when it comes to action and humor, but it fails to match the polished execution and the intensity of the original.

The premise of Independence Day: Resurgence is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it gives the movie an interesting space to play in. The new characters provide fresh blood, many characters from the first movie are still active, and repurposed alien technology gives the humans an upgraded toolkit for fighting back. Independence Day: Resurgence starts from a very different place than most alien invasion movies.

But on the other hand, Resurgence’s premise saddles it with an arbitrary status quo and an unwieldy cast. The world feels less real than that of the original movie, the characters have less room to develop, and the callbacks to the original result in a story that feels derivative and forced. The sequel also suffers from clumsier craftsmanship, with a plot that barely covers what it needs to and special effects that don’t stand up to scrutiny.

The result is a mediocre science fiction movie and a disappointing sequel. Independence Day: Resurgence is a fine watch if you are just looking for some popcorn action and don’t particularly care about the world or characters of the original film. But fans of the original will find the sequel jumbled and aimless, good for some spectacle and not much more. Approach with caution.

For a cleaner take on the same premise, check out the original Independence Day. For a sci-fi action sequel with a lot of the same pros and cons, try Pacific Rim: Uprising. For a more focused showdown with an alien queen, try Aliens or Star Trek: First Contact. For a sci-fi Western that pits outmatched humans against an alien invasion, try Cowboys & Aliens. For a more benign alien arrival, try Muppets from Space.

[5.2 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1628841/). I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for flashy action that suffers from a cluttered plot and mediocre execution.

Today’s quick review: Total Recall. To escape his monotonous life, Doug Quaid (Colin Farrell) tries out a recreational memory procedure. But when the procedure trips a block in his memories, Doug learns that he’s actually a spy for the Resistance who was mind-wiped by Chancellor Cohaagen (Bryan Cranston). Hunted by his fake wife Lori (Kate Beckinsale), Doug turns to Melina (Jessica Biel), a Resistance agent, for help.

Total Recall is a sci-fi action thriller and a remake of the Arnold Schwarzenegger film of the same name. A factory work learns that his entire life is a lie when a medical procedure unlocks part of his true memories. Total Recall is set in a futuristic world where the Earth has been contaminated and a resurgent Britain exploits a dependent Australia. Lies, intrigue, and destruction await as Doug runs from his captors.

Total Recall benefits from a flashy setting and a high-octane plot. From the moment Doug sets foot in the memory clinic, his entire world changes. Unsure of who he is, Doug taps into combat skills he did not know he had to stay one step ahead of the Chancellor’s agents. The sci-fi setting lets the movie indulge in some sweeping chase scenes through tangled slums and crowded skylines, while the memory angle adds uncertainty to the plot.

Still, Total Recall makes mistakes around the edges. The world is visually flashy but ultimately generic, and the cluttered scenery makes the action hard to follow. The character development is fine for a thriller, but giving Doug a little more time to react to his life-altering revelations would have helped. Finally, the plot leans too heavily on stock elements, making it hard to invest in the Chancellor’s plan or the Resistance’s struggle.

These faults ensure that Total Recall does not stand out in a crowded genre, but it remains an enjoyable movie for the right viewer. Sleek visuals, non-stop action, and a sprawling plot make it a good pick for science fiction fans, even if it misses the chance to make a lasting impression. If you are in the mood for a sci-fi thriller, Total Recall is a safe bet. Just do not expect the full depth of what the genre has to offer.

For a cleaner and more action-packed take on the same premise, try the original Total Recall. For a sci-fi action thriller in the same vein, check out Minority Report or I, Robot. For more dystopian sci-fi, try What Happened to Monday, The Giver, or Gattaca. For a comedic action thriller that has more fun with similar plot elements, try Demolition Man. For a dramatic comedy about a man living a false life, try The Truman Show.

[6.2 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1386703/). I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for imperfect but enjoyable action.

Today’s quick review: Moonfall. Ten years after a catastrophic brush with alien technology ruined his career as an astronaut, Brian Harper (Patrick Wilson) gets called back to work when the same technology pushes the Moon out of orbit. While Jocinda Fowler (Halle Berry), Brian’s former partner, coordinates NASA’s response to the threat, Brian teams up with Dr. KC Houseman (John Bradley), a crank scientist, to uncover the Moon’s secrets.

Moonfall is a sci-fi disaster movie about the Moon falling out of its orbit on a collision course with Earth. Left with just weeks until the Earth is destroyed, NASA launches a desperate mission to investigate the cause of the disaster and correct the Moon’s orbit. Moonfall is an ambitious film that aims high with its plot and spectacle. However, uneven execution and some strange ideas make it an unruly, hit-or-miss popcorn flick.

Moonfall never really figures out what kind of sci-fi movie it wants to be. The movie opens with the kind of grounded sci-fi seen in Interstellar or The Martian, evolves into a disaster scenario as the Moon hurtles towards the Earth, then kicks logic to the curb as it heads into the climax. From there, the movie piles on as many outlandish ideas as it can get away with, resulting in a final act that is crammed with ridiculous spectacle.

The unevenness extends to the characters as well. None of the main trio are particularly likable, and the movie’s token efforts to get to know their families are not enough to give it a strong emotional core. But at the same time, Moonfall manages to avoid any real missteps. Brian, Jocinda, and KC are competent enough to keep the plot moving, and by the time their deficiencies would catch up with them, the movie has moved on to bigger things.

The end result is a wild ride of a movie that hits exhilarating highs and sanity-taxing lows, often in rapid succession. Audiences who want sensible speculation, a consistent tone, or genuine pathos will find the movie messy and half-baked. But anyone who’s interested in schlocky science fiction packed with bizarre ideas and raw spectacle should give Moonfall a shot.

For a sci-fi movie with some of the same appeal but more even execution, try Independence Day. For a disaster movie with a similar attitude, try Armageddon or The Core. For spacefaring science fiction with more careful speculation, try Interstellar or Ad Astra.

[5.2 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5834426/). I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for fun, schlocky sci-fi that doesn’t know when to quit.

Today’s quick review: Earthfall. When a rogue planet passes through the Solar System, it knocks the Earth out of its orbit, triggering cataclysmic storms and showering the planet with debris. Steve (Joe Lando), an author and family man, escapes from Los Angeles with his friend Vince (Andrew Elvis Miller) and sets out to find his wife Nancy (Michelle Stafford), an executive at a natural gas company, and their daughter Rachel (Denys Tontz).

Earthfall is a budget sci-fi disaster movie about the end of the world. Separated at the time of the incident, a father, a mother, and a daughter face different challenges as they try to find each other and get to safety. Earthfall makes a couple of smart moves with its plot and characters, but it ultimately succumbs to the same execution problems as its fellow budget flicks. The result is a weak movie with limited appeal.

Earthfall scores points that other budget titles do not. The characters have clear motivations and personalities, and they have enough challenges to keep them busy. The story is serviceable. The three perspectives of Steve, Nancy, and Rachel give the movie a bit of variety, while rumors of a safe haven are enough to keep the plot moving. Finally, Earthfall does a decent job of not biting off more than it can chew.

Unfortunately, Earthfall only rises to the level of competence. The premise of the movie is still generic, the characters are understandable but not particularly interesting, and the movie does a poor job of tracking where its characters should be and what they should be dealing with at a given point in time. The special effects are also a mixed bag, working well for some scenes but breaking down when the movie tries to scale them up.

Earthfall makes an honest effort, and while it manages to avoid some of the pitfalls of the budget sci-fi genre, it has very little to make it stand out. Fans of the genre will be able to appreciate its strengths, but the movie remains badly outclassed by both big-budget disaster movies and budget sci-fi movies that are more clever with their resources. Most viewers will want to steer clear.

For a big-budget disaster movie in the same vein, try Geostorm, Greenland, Deep Impact, 2012, or The Day After Tomorrow.

[2.9 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3630556/). I give it a 4.0 for competent storytelling that doesn’t amount to much in the end.

Today’s quick review: 2012. In 2009, an unprecedented burst of energy from the Sun destabilizes the Earth’s core. Over the next three years, Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) coordinates the government’s efforts to track and prepare for an inevitable global catastrophe. As the end approaches, Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), a failed author, catches wind of the official preparations and races to get his family to safety.

2012 is a disaster action thriller about the end of the world predicted by the Mayan calendar. With no way to prevent a shift in the Earth’s crust, governments around the world launch a secret program to save a select few people. 2012 sports a star-studded cast, large-scale special effects, and a suitably disastrous premise. However, even though it executes parts of the formula well, some questionable choices hold it back.

2012’s strength lies in its scale. Not content with just one catastrophe, 2012 packs in as many as it can. Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and worldwide tsunamis are the fuel for its many action scenes. Each one could be the climax of another movie, with big-budget special effects and a series of very close calls for Jackson and his family. While some of the chaos borders on ridiculous, the sense of spectacle is excellent.

However, 2012 has some quirks that make it an uneven watch. The basic elements of the genre are all there: a pending disaster, a family in peril, and a ray of hope. But the through-line of the story is bizarre, relying on a series of far-fetched coincidences to even give Jackson a chance. The tone also fluctuates in weird ways, bouncing between tragedy, black humor, and moral dilemmas that are not handled well enough to resonate.

As such, 2012 is only a partial success. Those who are in it for the spectacle will find that its scenes of destruction are inventive and visually impressive, while its cast includes the likes of Amanda Peet, Oliver Platt, Danny Glover, Woody Harrelson, and Thandie Newton. However, the movie has a hard time weaving its threads into a compelling story, and it ultimately overstays its welcome. Approach with caution.

For a more sober disaster thriller with a similar setup, try Greenland. For a large-scale sci-fi disaster thriller that takes even greater liberties with its action, check out Moonfall. For a similarly cataclysmic disaster movie from the same director, try The Day After Tomorrow. For a more even-keeled disaster thriller about earthquakes in California, try San Andreas.

[5.8 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1190080/). I give it a 6.5 for large-scale thrills tempered by some peculiar choices.

Today’s quick review: San Andreas. As the San Andreas Fault begins to shift, a series of devastating earthquakes sweep across California. Raymond Gaines (Dwayne Johnson), a Los Angeles rescue pilot, flies to San Francisco to rescue his estranged wife Emma (Carla Gugino) and their daughter Blake (Alexandra Daddario). Meanwhile, Caltech seismologist Lawrence Hayes (Paul Giamatti) races to get the word out about an even larger quake.

San Andreas is a disaster action thriller about a series of earthquakes in California. Dwayne Johnson stars as Raymond Gaines, a helicopter pilot who drops everything to rescue his family when the disaster hits. San Andreas starts big and gets bigger, tossing everything from debris and ravines to looters and panicked civilians at its heroes. What follows is a simple but honest action movie that delivers what it promises.

San Andreas is a movie for people who want spectacle. From the initial rescue that introduces Raymond to the cataclysmic finale, San Andreas never lets up for long. The special effects do a solid job of conveying the scope of the destruction, the threat of collapsing buildings and subsequent flooding gives the movie plenty of immediate action, and San Andreas cranks things up even more with gratuitous stunts for its characters.

The tradeoff is that San Andreas sacrifices any pretense at realism. The basic premise is plausible, as well as the kinds of devastation caused, but the way the events play out onscreen is pure cinema. San Andreas also sacrifices depth when it comes to its characters and its conflicts. The story of the Gaines family is drawn in simple lines. The characters are likable enough to follow but not innovative or surprising in any way.

San Andreas is the quintessential popcorn action flick. The scale of the disaster, the hefty special effects budget, and the plain but functional characters all do exactly what they need to do in the context of the movie. Give it a shot when you’re in the mood for something big that puts its formula to good use. Skip it if you are looking for a more grounded disaster movie or something with a deeper story.

For Dwayne Johnson in a similar role, try Skyscraper or Rampage. For a different flavor of action thriller about a member of a rescue squad, try Cliffhanger. For a grittier disaster movie, try Greenland or Poseidon.

[6.1 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2126355/). I give it a 6.5 to 7.0 for straightforward but satisfying action.

Today’s quick review: The Day After Tomorrow. Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid), an obstreperous climatologist, has his worst fears realized when the effects of global warming cause a sudden shift in the North Atlantic Current, triggering a series of tidal waves, blizzards, and tornadoes worldwide. As the United States government tries to cope with the emergency, Jack braves the weather to reach New York and rescue his teenage son Sam (Jake Gyllenhaal).

The Day After Tomorrow is a science fiction disaster thriller about global warming run amok. Dennis Quaid stars as Jack Hall, a scientist whose warnings go unheeded until it is too late. The Day After Tomorrow features spectacle on a massive scale as the world’s cities are battered by storms and flooding. But the movie makes missteps with its characters and story, making it a hit-or-miss film that has a hard time getting traction.

The Day After Tomorrow suffers from two main problems: a dearth of likable characters, and a conflicted premise. Jack Hall is supposed to carry the movie, but his character falls short. His warnings are meant to be prophetic, but his overly abrasive personality makes it easier to side with his critics. The other characters do not fare much better, with only Sam showing the resourcefulness and strength of character to feel worthwhile.

The other major issue is that The Day After Tomorrow gets caught between science and fiction. The movie attempts to dramatize a real-world issue by increasing the stakes and accelerating the timeline to fit within a disaster framework. But by doing so, it undermines its own foundations. The exaggerations make its theoretical foundation less credible, while the connection to the real world hamstrings the audience’s suspension of disbelief.

For all of its narrative faults, The Day After Tomorrow is still technically sound. The scenes that are meant to be dramatic are dramatic, the weather phenomena are suitably intense, and the challenge of survival gives the characters enough to keep them busy. Ultimately, how much you get out of the movie will come down to how much you are willing to invest in its premise. Approach with caution.

For a more comfortably fictitious disaster movie about a global weather catastrophe, check out Geostorm. For a more modestly scoped disaster movie about massive storms, try Twister. For dystopian science fiction that explores similar political themes in a different way, try Snowpiercer. For a different flavor of disaster movie that lionizes scientists, try Contagion. For a zombie movie set in the ruins of New York, check out I Am Legend.

[6.4 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319262/). I give it a 6.0 for decent execution marred by questionable narrative choices.

Today’s quick review: The Day the Earth Stood Still. When an energy sphere lands in Manhattan and disgorges Klaatu (Keanu Reeves), an alien in the form of a human, the United States government calls in astrobiologist Helen Benson (Jennifer Connelly) to help investigate. But when Secretary of Defense Regina Jackson (Kathy Bates) orders a hostile interrogation of the visitor, Helen follows her instincts and helps Klaatu escape custody.

The Day the Earth Stood Still is a science fiction movie about an alien who has come to render judgment on humanity. Keanu Reeves stars as Klaatu, a cold but rational visitor who befriends Helen and her stepson Jacob (Jaden Smith). Jennifer Connelly plays opposite him as Helen, one of the few humans to meet Klaatu with kindness. They are joined by a quietly impressive cast that includes John Cleese, Jon Hamm, and James Hong.

The Day the Earth Stood Still takes a different tack from the 1951 original. Modern special effects beef up the action and make Klaatu’s arrival more eerie. In addition, Helen plays a more active role in the story, Klaatu is less partial to humanity, and the specifics of Klaatu’s mission have changed. All of this leads to a darker and more dramatic film, one where humanity’s many mistakes are about to catch up with it.

Unfortunately, The Day the Earth Stood Still does not balance its drama correctly. Klaatu is indifferent to the fate of mankind, and Jacob is still bitter over the death of his father, leaving Helen as the sole ray of light. In spite of a decent performance from Jennifer Connelly, the character is not up to the task. Ultimately, The Day the Earth Stood Still is missing the humanity and warmth needed to make its story resonate.

The Day the Earth Stood Still will be an interesting pick for some science fiction fans, but its pessimistic tone and superficial treatment of a deep philosophical question make it a mixed bag at best. Give it a shot if you are curious to see a modern take on classic sci-fi speculation. Skip it if you are looking for either all-out action or an insightful examination of humanity.

For a cleaner and more enduring take on the same premise, try the original version of The Day the Earth Stood Still. For a more thoughtful tale of first contact with some of the same elements, try Arrival. For another dire prediction for humanity’s future, try Knowing. For a more introspective visit from an alien, try K-PAX. For an animated sci-fi adventure about a dangerous visitor from the stars, try The Iron Giant.

[5.5 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0970416/). I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for a promising setup that falls flat.

Today’s quick review: The Day the Earth Stood Still. The world is stunned when Klaatu (Michael Rennie), a human-like alien, emerges from a spaceship in Washington, D.C. After failing to deliver an important message to the leaders of Earth, Klaatu escapes from military custody to see how humanity lives. Wandering the streets of Washington, Klaatu befriends Helen Benson (Patricia Neal), a young widow, and her son Bobby (Billy Gray).

The Day the Earth Stood Still is a classic science fiction movie about an alien visitor who brings a dire warning for humanity. The film represents speculative fiction at its purest. Klaatu is a wise and peaceful alien who is met with hostility and suspicion when he lands on Earth. However, he finds the good in people when he meets the Bensons, resulting in a short but earnest friendship while Klaatu tries to get his message to the world.

The Day the Earth Stood Still asks a simple question: Is humanity ready for the future ahead of it? Nearly everything in the movie is geared towards answering that question, from the touchy response of the military to the range of reactions exhibited by ordinary people. The Day the Earth Stood Still handles its subject matter well, with cleanly drawn characters, a tense situation, and a careful examination of the best and worst of humans.

Still, The Day the Earth Stood Still has a few limitations, depending on what your expectations are. The special effects are fairly plain by modern standards, although they work well in context. The action is limited to a few key moments that are narratively appropriate. The story is short and to the point. And while the film offers hints about the world beyond our own, it only provides the information necessary for the plot.

Not everyone will appreciate what The Day the Earth Stood Still has to offer, but its vivid premise and crisp execution make it a classic of the genre. Give it a shot if you are interested in a philosophical story about an alien encounter without the usual distractions. Skip it if you are looking for raw spectacle or action.

For a classic movie that examines human society in a similar way, try Born Yesterday, The Bishop’s Wife, or Harvey. For a modern take on the same story, try The Day the Earth Stood Still, starring Keanu Reeves. For a family-friendly sci-fi adventure about a boy who befriends a visitor from outer space, try The Iron Giant or E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial.

[7.8 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043456/). I give it a 7.0 to 7.5 for a simple but iconic story.

Today’s quick review: Knowing. John Koestler (Nicolas Cage), an astrophysics professor at MIT, has his entire worldview turned upside-down when his son Caleb (Chandler Canterbury) finds a sheet of numbers that correspond to a series of disasters. As John deciphers the code, he becomes convinced that the numbers predict three disasters that have yet to happen, and he risks everything to try to stop them.

Knowing is a sci-fi disaster thriller from director Alex Proyas. A professor who does not believe in fate finds disturbing evidence that a calamitous future is set in stone. Knowing draws on elements of horror, the disaster genre, and far-flung science fiction to tell the story of one man’s fight against prophecy. This unique blend of influences gives Knowing its own niche, but it also results in a passive and somewhat disjointed story.

Knowing has some nice features, even if they do not always complement each other. The disasters that John witnesses are vivid and memorable, taking advantage of modern special effects to convey the scope of what is at stake. The rules of the prophecy are an interesting plot hook, especially as John wrestles with what he has found. The movie also keeps several mysteries going at once, pulling the plot in a different direction as they resolve.

Knowing’s main shortcoming is that it is indirect. The setup is played like a horror movie, with menacing presentation and disturbing questions that remain unanswered, but there are very few actual scares. The looming catastrophe affords John very little counterplay, so all he can do is decipher the clues and hope for a way to change fate. The result is a passive mystery whose answers veer into different territory than what came before.

Give Knowing a shot if you are in the mood for something dark and a little offbeat. Knowing tries something different with the way it sets up its mystery, and while this robs the movie of some of its direct impact, it lets the movie play with ideas that would normally be out of scope for its setup. Still, Knowing’s story is not as easy to get into as some other movies, and neither its characters nor its payoff are enough to fill the gap.

For a more artful science fiction mystery from the same director, try Dark City. For a darker, more personal thriller about a portent of the future, try Premonition. For a less polished sci-fi movie about a man who receives unearthly premonitions, try Terminus. For a more proactive Nicolas Cage movie about changing the future, try Next. For a sci-fi thriller that deals with similar themes of belief, try Signs.

[6.2 out of 10 on IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448011/). I give it a 6.5 for an unsettling mystery that reaches a little too far.