How I miss sci fi of the 90's, or any decade before that. Now, people are so used to seeing special effects that a real sci fi film would collapse under its own weight or stupidity if all of the special effects were removed.
So back in the mid 90's Cameron, (who back then had still had an edge) wrote and produced this film Strange Days.
So, what about it? First the bad.
What is the shelf-life of a sci film that introduces a new technology but happens to be set only a few years in the future? Where is the internet? What about oddly appropriate character names like Iris and Faith that also define those characters' roles in the story (though none of these names are as egregiously bad as Ariadne from Inception)?
So those questions might be good questions, but I think if you want a real- gritty science fiction morality tale, one with a bit of an edge, you can watch the film for what it is rather than bringing all of the baggage that we bring with it that might be adressed in any of the above questions.
I think the technology shown in the film is at least as plausible, if not moreso, as the technology in Inception, and yet Strange Days probes further into it, presenting some of the more horrific implications of this technology. It even creates it's own believable street lingo that goes with the technology. I loved Inception, but in some ways, this film is far more challenging, far more ambitious, at least for the time. You have sequences filmed without the benefit of CGI that were incredibly difficult to film because they had to be done in long continuous shot (the POV shots during playback) that I think seem gritty, real, and fascinating, like a first person shooter game but with a bit morality tale thrown in. But the implications of the technology are taken even further, as in the death of Iris.
I miss films that were dark and gritty filled with atmosphere and real dilemmas. Many sci fi films are style over substance, and the films themselves are overly stylized. Where are the light sources in films plastered in front of green screens ala Sucker Punch? This film looks real, always, and is not afraid to present the viewer with real tough questions.
So back in the mid 90's Cameron, (who back then had still had an edge) wrote and produced this film Strange Days.
So, what about it? First the bad.
What is the shelf-life of a sci film that introduces a new technology but happens to be set only a few years in the future? Where is the internet? What about oddly appropriate character names like Iris and Faith that also define those characters' roles in the story (though none of these names are as egregiously bad as Ariadne from Inception)?
So those questions might be good questions, but I think if you want a real- gritty science fiction morality tale, one with a bit of an edge, you can watch the film for what it is rather than bringing all of the baggage that we bring with it that might be adressed in any of the above questions.
I think the technology shown in the film is at least as plausible, if not moreso, as the technology in Inception, and yet Strange Days probes further into it, presenting some of the more horrific implications of this technology. It even creates it's own believable street lingo that goes with the technology. I loved Inception, but in some ways, this film is far more challenging, far more ambitious, at least for the time. You have sequences filmed without the benefit of CGI that were incredibly difficult to film because they had to be done in long continuous shot (the POV shots during playback) that I think seem gritty, real, and fascinating, like a first person shooter game but with a bit morality tale thrown in. But the implications of the technology are taken even further, as in the death of Iris.
I miss films that were dark and gritty filled with atmosphere and real dilemmas. Many sci fi films are style over substance, and the films themselves are overly stylized. Where are the light sources in films plastered in front of green screens ala Sucker Punch? This film looks real, always, and is not afraid to present the viewer with real tough questions.
Last edited:
Great, great punchline. I'm really disappointed with the output of Cameron and Bigelow since. None of it has been this good, although "Titanic" was all right.
