How Sci-Fi Movie Depictions of the Future Compare to Reality

Since almost the beginning of cinema filmmakers have attempted to depict the future. While of course they weren’t necessarily meant as serious predictions, I think it’s still fun to compare their version of the future with what really ended up happening.

There appears to be a regularly consistent trend of movies overestimating technological advances, at least in some ways. One of the clearest examples is space travel and transportation. The film that defined space travel on the big screen for a generation, 2001: A Space Odyssey, depicted a future over three decades from its 1968 release date. In Stanley Kubrick’s film, space travel is mundane and there’s even a manned mission to Jupiter. In reality, we’ll be lucky to have a man on Mars in the next few decades, and a mission to Jupiter feels impossibly far off.

 It’s not shocking that Kubrick and co-writer Arthur C. Clarke were so optimistic given that the film was made during the space race when this kind of technology appeared to be advancing at a rapid rate. Humanity went from putting the first person in orbit in 1961 to landing on the moon only 8 years later, so it wasn’t crazy to think that 30 years later, we might be exploring other planets.

Released fourteen years after A Space Odyssey, the original Blade Runner was set in 2019 and also vastly overestimated how quickly things would advance as Earth has already colonized other planets. This is even more egregious than 2001 as it should have been obvious even in the early 1980s that this wasn’t happening anytime soon.

There are also flying cars, a popular sci-fi staple audiences would see again a few years later with Back to the Future Part II. According to that film, we should have had flying cars for over 3 years now. The film’s writer and producer Bob Gale has stated that they knew this was completely unrealistic, but just thought it would be cool to see in a movie. The movie’s director Robert Zemeckis said that he doesn’t “like films that try and predict the future” and that “rather than trying to make a scientifically sound prediction that we were probably going to get wrong anyway, we figured, let's just make it funny.”

It does seem incredibly unlikely that we’ll be using flying cars anytime soon, but Uber has unveiled a concept for a flying taxi.

The seminal 1988 anime Akira was set in 2019 and its portrayal of transportation technology is pretty accurate. Kaneda’s bike is a bit high tech, but it and other motorcycles in the film appear to be fundamentally similar to those in reality. It’s mentioned that it has electronically controlled anti-lock brakes, which is common in current vehicles. Automobiles, helicopters, and tanks all appear to be relatively normal and space travel is not mentioned.

Movies also frequently think way too highly of humanity’s future advancement in robots and AI. The aforementioned Blade Runner features androids that are as intelligent as a human and are able to pass as one unless given a lengthy test, something that’s obviously quite far off.

The original Terminator from 1984 posited a world where an extremely powerful and self-aware AI called Skynet basically controls much of the world and then decides to attack humanity in 1997. It goes without saying that we aren’t even close to such an AI in 2019, much less in the 90s. The sequel, Terminator 2 is even more absurd in that it was made in 1991 and still has Skynet taking over in 1997. And not only are there robots that are capable of blending in as humans and shrugging off gunfire, in the second film they can shapeshift due to being made out of liquid metal.

However, these films are kind of an exception in that the Skynet technology was based on the Terminator that went back in time in a sort of bootstrap paradox. So the fact that technology advanced quickly is actually a key plot point.

The Westworld movie came out in 1973 and was set in 1983. It features an amusement park full of androids that are pretty much indistinguishable from humans. Clearly, looking back this seems quite silly.

In the 1995 anime Ghost in the Shell, humans can entirely replace their bodies and brains with cybernetic parts. While the film is set in 2029, which is, of course, a decade away, I think it’s safe to say we won’t be seeing this technology anywhere close to that year.

I think with robots and AI, there’s less of an excuse than with space travel, as it’s not like there were massive advancements in the area going on in the 80s and 90s.

One area where movies seem to often underestimate advancements is in communications and entertainment technology. Rarely, if ever, did films predict anything resembling the rise of the Internet and smartphones.

In 2001, they do have video calls, but people don’t carry around personal devices. Heywood Flood still has to go into a dedicated booth where he manually types in a phone number. Many works of science fiction predicted some form of video calling, which is reminiscent of Skype or Facetime, but it never seems to work quite like it does in real life.

Likewise, Blade Runner does have video phones, but again they are used in a dedicated phone booth. It’s really not that shocking that so many movies predicted video phones, as they are just a combination of two previously existing technologies, whereas the internet was a whole new paradigm.

Back to the Future Part II actually got quite a bit right when it comes to this kind of technology, despite the filmmakers’ lack of concern with accuracy. Devices are voice-activated, which is similar to Siri on iPhones or smart speakers like Amazon Alexa. Like 2001, there are video calls, but people still use fax machines that print out physical pieces of paper.

Marty’s children wear goggles that seem to be like some sort of virtual or augmented reality and they also have qualities of smartphones. People also have the ability to pay for things with their fingerprint, which is definitely something that’s been gaining traction in the real world.

In the 1995 film Strange Days, there’s a new form of entertainment where people can experience the recorded physical sensations of another person. Ridiculously the movie is set only 4 years into the future in the year 1999. It does partly take place on the New Year’s Eve before the new millennium, and while it certainly makes for a dramatic backdrop, it’s hardly essential to the story.

Futuristic weaponry in science fiction cinema is a bit of a mixed bag. Blade Runner feels accurate in that its version of 2019, people still use low-tech guns that aren’t too far off from what people use in real life. However, in the Terminator films, the scenes set in the future do feature laser guns.

In Akira, there are energy weapons, like Kaneda’s battery powered Heavy Laser Rifle, but they seem to be relatively rare. We see real-life weapons used for most of the film, like Micro Uzis and the Colonel’s Desert Eagle. This is a world where World War Three happened, so it makes sense that more effort was put into creating advanced weapons. That could also explain the Satellite Orbital Laser, a weapons platform that fires on Tetsuo from space.

When it comes to stuff like this, filmmakers may have been unconcerned with potential realism. They might have just wanted weapons that looked cool, and to be honest, I can hardly blame them.

Of course, it’s ridiculous to expect filmmakers to accurately predict the future all the time and they often aren’t even trying, but our visions of the future still reflect our anxieties and hopes in a  very interesting way.

The Ethics of Historical Accuracy in Film

Filmmakers have been adapting historical events and true stories since basically the beginning of cinema. In that time, movies have had varying degrees of historical accuracy and I’d like to look at what ethical concerns that may raise.

Some people may disagree with the idea that this is even a concern. They say “it’s just a fictional movie after all” and that “people should know films aren’t always a good representation of the truth.” But unfortunately, the reality is that people often don’t know or care about how inaccurate movies can be and just assume what they see on film is true to history. If events are portrayed a certain way in popular media, it seeps into the collective consciousness regardless of the truth. This can be especially dangerous with regards to people who are still alive or issues that still have significant reverberations today.


A common argument against this viewpoint is that concessions have to be made for the sake of the plot and I certainly understand where people coming from, especially in regards to big-budget Hollywood films. The studios are spending tons of money and don’t want to take risks in terms of narrative. However, there are a few reasons why I don’t find this argument 100% convincing.

To me, if the true story isn’t interesting enough on its own and needs massive embellishments, maybe it just shouldn’t be made into a film. And of course, many of the people these films are about did live fascinating lives, they just don’t necessarily fit into a tidy three-act structure. But that’s where the artistry of filmmaking comes in. They can still make it compelling with dialogue, performances, cinematography, and all the other stylistic elements of cinema.


If the filmmakers really just feel they can’t make a good film out of the real story, they could just change the names of the people involved and that would solve the issue, at least in my opinion. For instance, the novel and the movie Primary Colors are clearly about the presidency of Bill Clinton, but with names and details altered. I think this communicates clearly to the audience that things are just loosely based on reality.

But it seems as if filmmakers want to use famous real-world figures and events as a crutch. A movie about a fictional monarch isn’t as easily sold to audiences as something about say, Queen Elizabeth.

And to be clear, I’m mainly just talking about things that completely contradict reality. Obviously,
with most historical topics, we don’t know many of the exact details or specific quotes that were said, and admittedly filmmakers have to fill in the blanks to a certain extent. But altering major things is a much bigger deal.

A great example of the dangers of factual imprecision is controversial director Oliver Stone’s 1991 film JFK. Throughout the film, he takes liberties that consistently make the case for a conspiracy regarding Kennedy’s assassination seem like it’s backed up by more evidence than it really is. For starters, Joe Pesci’s character is shown admitting that he was part of a CIA plot to kill JFK, but the real person Pesci was portraying maintained he was unaware of any conspiracy and didn’t even know Lee Harvey Oswald. There are already tons of interesting things about JFK’s assassination; you don’t need to make stuff up to make the story compelling.

This did result in a huge controversy and the film was pretty much pilloried by the press. Obviously, JFK conspiracy theories were already widespread, but this film definitely helped keep them alive in popular culture. And Stone’s movie has even been credited with causing Congress to release documents related to JFK’s murder. So regardless of your opinion on whether or not the theories are true, clearly films like these can have an effect on society’s perception of reality.

In 2015, a film was released about the life of mathematician Alan Turing called Imitation Game. In it, Turing covers up the existence of a spy in order to keep his homosexuality a secret.  This is completely made up to add drama and is basically slandering a war hero. Turing has been dead since the 1950s, but I can’t imagine his living relatives were too happy about this.

On top of that, the filmmakers created tension that wasn’t there between Turing and his superior Alastair Denniston in order to give the movie a villain. This led his family to publicly state that they were deeply offended. A situation like this could have been easily avoided by simply changing Denniston’s name and I can’t really come up with a good excuse as to why the filmmakers didn’t do this.

Historical accuracy led to a controversy about Best Picture winner Green Book. It features pianist Don Shirley, whose brother called the film a “symphony of lies.”

I do think there are a small number of clear exceptions. Take, for example, the 2012 film Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, which is about exactly what you’d imagine hearing the title. Any reasonable person watching such a film should be fully aware they aren’t seeing a realistic depiction of history. The entire premise is a “what-if” situation.

Furthermore, I think there’s an exception to be made for movies that are set in a historical situation like World War Two but with completely fictional characters. There were millions of people involved with the war and we can never know all of their stories. And this doesn’t affect the reputations of real people.

Something like Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds is a good example, which makes clear with its ending that it’s portraying an alternate history. It makes no claim of being based on a true story, and while it does feature real figures like Hitler and Churchill in minor parts,  the main characters are all fictional.

It should go without saying, but it’s not that I dislike all movies that alter history. I thought The Favourite was one of the best films of 2018 and many things were different than in the life of the real Queen Anne.

But I often hear people suggest that filmmakers have no responsibility whatsoever to adhere to the facts, and to me, this is going way too far in the other direction.

Capernaum Review (2018, director: Nadine Labaki)

Capernaum is a Lebanese film in the Arabic language from director Nadine Labaki and was one of five films nominated for Best Foreign Language film at this year’s Oscars.

It’s a sad and often heartbreaking, yet also hopeful movie about a 12-year-old boy who sues his parents for giving birth to him. They live in poverty in the city of Beirut, located in the Middle Eastern country of Lebanon. Nothing is sugar-coated as Capernaum is realistic, emotional and never cheesy or overdramatic. Labaki’s film deals with social issues like refugees, but avoids being preachy or manipulative. 

The boy’s parents are abusive, but are shown as real human beings instead of cartoonishly evil villains. The film could certainly be seen as depressing and it’s far from a comedy, but it still has quite a few moments of humor. These different tones are deftly managed and don’t feel jarring.

The protagonist Zain, like most of the cast, was not a professional actor before this, which makes his excellent performance even more impressive. The actor, whose name is also Zain was a Syrian refugee who is now settled in Norway. The other casts member similarly have real-life circumstances similar to their characters, which certainly lends an air of authenticity as well as blurring the line between fiction and reality.

I also have to mention the incredibly adorable baby who is given tons of screentime and a crucial role, something you don’t often see. The filmmakers did a great job of getting realistic reactions out of the 18-month old, which I’d imagine is incredibly difficult.

The story is told in a somewhat nonlinear fashion and the courtroom scenes serve as an effective framing device. Capernaum is paced well as it moves along quickly and has no boring parts.

Shot on an Arri Alexa, the cinematography is solid and often handheld and shot from near Zain’s perspective. Not much of it particularly stood out to me, other than the gorgeous top-down drone shots of the city.

Lebanon doesn’t have much of a film industry so it’s nice to see them get nominated for the Best Foreign Film Oscar two years in a row. I still haven’t seen Germany’s Never Look Away, but of the other nominees, this has the most traditional and accessible narrative. It’s definitely not on the level of Roma, but I’d say it’s roughly comparable in terms of quality to Shoplifters or Cold War.

Critics are quite happy with Capernaum and it has an 84% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It also won the Jury Prize at this year’s Cannes Film Festival.

Velvet Buzzsaw Review (2019, director: Dan Gilroy)

Velvet Buzzsaw is a Netflix exclusive supernatural horror film set in the Los Angeles art scene. It comes from writer-director Dan Gilroy, who was also responsible for the Denzel Washington drama Roman J. Israel, Esq. and more notably the Oscar-nominated 2014 film Nightcrawler. Velvet Buzzsaw brings back two major actors from Nightcrawler as well as the cinematographer and editor but unfortunately pales in comparison.

Nightcrawler was an incisive examination of media, and Velvet Buzzsaw tries to do the same thing with the art world. It starts to explore some interesting ideas, but just doesn’t really have anything insightful to say and is far from subtle in saying it.

The movie starts off somewhat promising but basically turns into a generic slasher-esque film halfway through. I have no problem with gory horror, but in addition to failing at satire, Velvet Buzzsaw also doesn’t work as horror. It’s not scary or creepy and the kills aren’t particularly noteworthy. The story is bland and there no good reveals or twists.

The performances are also a massive step down from Nightcrawler. Even Jake Gyllenhaal, one of the best working actors, is incredibly over the top, and his goofy facial expressions make it feel almost like a parody. Rene Russo isn’t awful, but definitely has some scenes where her acting is shaky and flat. Other great actors like John Malkovich and Toni Collette are fine but are pretty much wasted.

None of the characters are that well-written and they often feel like caricatures. This is very minor nitpick, but a lot of them had ridiculous names, like Morf Vanderwalt and Vetril Dease.

The film’s visual style is also unimpressive. While there are a few creative shots here and there, the look is overall quite generic. No technical aspect of the film stands out.

Velvet Buzzsaw’s pacing is a bit off as the beginning is a little slow, and then it just becomes a rapid succession of murders. It has a reasonable runtime of under two hours but still feels long.

Unfortunately, this seems to be following the odd trend of underwhelming Netflix exclusives from talented directors, like Jeremy Saulnier’s Hold the Dark, Gareth Evans’ Apostle, and Duncan Jones’ Mute. Of course, there are exceptions like Roma and The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, but this is still an issue for some reason.

Despite being free, I honestly can’t recommend this to any group of film fans. Horror fans will likely find this to be something they’ve seen tons of times before, and those looking for a more serious drama will be bored by the second half. I can’t even suggest this to fans of the director as it’s easily his worst effort so far.

Critics seem to be a little more positive on the film than I was, giving it a 68% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Cold War Review (2018, director: Paweł Pawlikowski)

Cold War is a 2018 film from Polish art house director Paweł Pawlikowski, whose previous film Ida became the first Polish movie to win the Oscar for Best Foreign Language film. Pawlikowski won the Best Director for Cold War at the 2018 Cannes Film Festival. It also got shortlisted for this year’s Foreign Language Oscar and is practically certain to score a nomination, although it will probably lose to Roma.

The main selling point here, in my opinion, is clearly the cinematography. Like Ida, Cold War was shot in the boxy 4:3 ratio and in crisp, high contrast black and white. I especially enjoyed the snow scenes with blindingly stark white that looks almost otherworldly. Also, the camera movements and framing are always precise.

This style perfectly matches with the bleak environments the film takes place in. The characters are often given lots of headroom and placed in the lower half of the frame, which fits with their oppressive surroundings.

As far as the narrative goes, it’s pretty sparse and simple. The episodic story is about a romance that begins in communist Poland in 1949. The film jumps a year or two at a time, spans multiple countries, and ends up in the mid-1960s. Major events happen offscreen and there are really no important subplots or supporting characters. What happens during the time jumps is hardly spoonfed to the audience and cause and effect is loose at best, which some may find frustrating.

The two leads are named after the director’s parents as well as loosely based on them, so this is clearly a very personal story. Their romance is tender, but never sappy or cliche.

There’s no traditional score or non-diegetic music, but folk music and dancing play a large role and we get extended performances of both.

The acting is fantastic, especially from the magnetic Joanna Kulig as Zula.

Cold War is relatively short for an art house film at only 85 minutes so it may be accessible for those new to this type of cinema. There are a few moments of humor, but generally, it’s quite serious.

Overall, I don’t have any criticisms of the film. I definitely recommend to this anyone who has an appreciation for art house film or cinematography.

Cold War has a strongly positive Rotten Tomatoes rating of 93 percent.

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) Review

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is the newest Marvel adaptation from Sony and is unusual in being a theatrically released animated film based on such a big superhero.

I was a little skeptical of the visual style going in, but it ended up blowing me away. More so than any comic book movie, this really feels like a comic come to life, largely due to the unique, highly stylized animation. There are comic style thought bubbles, split screens that look like panels, and sound effects written out as words.

Spider-Verse stays true to the anything can happen nature of comic books, which is something that’s much easier to get away with in animation. The characters from different universes are portrayed in wildly different animation styles that match their themes, which is something that would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to pull off in live action.

I was surprised by how trippy a lot of the animation ended up being and the kinetic, kaleidoscopic imagery results in one of the most creative animated films I’ve ever seen.

There are a massive amount of references and easter eggs, including a hilarious Spider-Man 3 joke right at the beginning, but they never feel shoehorned in. The fourth wall gets broken and there are some meta jokes, but these never take away from the emotional stakes.

Despite showing many different universes and a ton of characters we haven’t seen before in film, Spider-Verse is never convoluted. I’m very excited to see what comes next in this continuity and given the alternate dimensions the possibilities are almost literally endless.

Spider-Verse also manages to balance many different characters while still having plenty of time for character development and fun, high-energy action set pieces. There are plenty of jokes, but not at the expense of the film’s heart and it’s serious when it needs to be.

The 100-minute film is perfectly paced and never slow but doesn’t feel rushed either. There are a few cheesy lines, but overall the dialogue is quite well-written and witty.

I highly recommend this to any fans of comic book movies and this might even appeal to those who aren’t that crazy about superheroes.

Spider-Verse got nominated for a Golden Globe for best animated film and is basically a lock to get nominated for that category at the Oscars. I don’t know if I see it winning, as that award will probably go to Incredibles 2. For me though, I just might slightly prefer Spider-Verse to Incredibles 2 as the best animated film of the year.

It’s also the 2nd best comic book movie of 2018 after Infinity War and the best Spider-Man movie. I’d even go as far as to say it’s one of the best superhero films ever made.

The critics are loving SpiderVerse as it has a 97% on Rotten Tomatoes and an 87 on Metacritic.

The film is doing decently well at the box office as well, and will probably end up with an opening weekend of around $40 million. It also has an A-plus on Cinemascore.

If Beale Street Could Talk Review (2018, director: Barry Jenkins)

If Beale Street Could Talk is the newest film from acclaimed director Barry Jenkins, whose previous film Moonlight won Best Picture at last year’s Oscars. It’s based on the novel of the same name by author James Baldwin and is about a man falsely accused of rape and his pregnant wife in the early 1970s and set in New York.

The highly emotional and powerful Beale Street is easily one of the best films of 2018 I’ve seen so far, and is up there competing with First Reformed for my favorite of the year. This is about as good as Moonlight and it’s hard for me to pick one over the other at this point.

The highlight of this film for me was probably the evocative, string-heavy score from Nicholas Britell. The music is a huge part of Beale Street and there are several scenes where the plot slows down and we mainly just hear music as opposed to dialogue for a bit. This just might be the best score of 2018 from the films I’ve seen.

The cinematographer from Moonlight, James Laxton, returns and this film is shot just as beautifully. The fluid camerawork always serves the emotion of the scene and there are never cool shots just for the sake of cool shots. The straight-on close-ups from Moonlight return and are used to a very powerful effect.

Beale Street’s story is small but with the way it’s presented, it never feels that way. The story is quite heavy, but yet there are still moments of genuine humor. It uses a nonlinear chronology and the shifts between time periods are always smooth. The film is paced well and while it slows down a bit at times, this definitely feels necessary.

The production and set design are excellent as it lets the audience know when it takes place without hitting you over the head with it. The film, in general, makes some mentions of the era, but isn’t overly referential and tells a somewhat timeless story that could take place today. There’s some social and political commentary, but again this is subtle and not heavy-handed.

Jenkins’ screenplay contains some very well-written dialogue, especially in a family argument towards the beginning with some great back and forth exchanges.

The acting is solid all-around and the leads have great chemistry together. Most of the main characters aren’t big names, but a few more famous people fill smaller roles.

I really don’t have any complaints about Beale Street. Make sure to go out and see this as soon as possible, especially if you like Moonlight, as this solidifies Jenkins as one of the best filmmakers today.

\
The critics have been loving this movie and it has a 94% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Beale Street is absolutely going to get multiple Oscar nominations as it’s basically a lock for Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay. Regina King will surely get a well-deserved Best Supporting Actress nomination and I can easily see it getting in for cinematography as well. I don’t think it will win Best Picture, as at the moment it seems like that’s between A Star is Born and Roma. Obviously, we can’t count out Barry Jenkins after last year’s dramatics, but Moonlight seemed to be getting more buzz going into awards season.

Halloween (2018) Review

Halloween is the eleventh film in the iconic slasher franchise that started in 1978. It was co-written by Danny McBride, who starred in Pineapple Express and the show Eastbound and Down. He wrote the script with Jeff Fradley and David Gordon Green, who also directed and previously made Pineapple Express and Your Highness.

It was also produced by Blumhouse, famous for making highly profitable and often critically well-received low budget horror, like Get Out, The Purge, and Happy Death Day.

I had relatively low expectation for this as I actually thought the trailer looked super cheesy, but this was way better than I thought it was going to be. It’s leagues ahead of the Rob Zombie versions and easily the best since the original. It’s also probably the best straight-up slasher film to come out recently, at least that I’ve seen.

The 2018 version is decidedly more comedic than John Carpenter’s film, but it didn’t overdo it. It took itself seriously when it needed to and the funny parts were well done. Green’s sequel is predictable for the first half or so, but has some surprises towards the end. It mostly avoids cliches and characters are rarely bumbling idiots like in so many slashers.

This portrayal of Michael Myers is pretty solid. He looks great and we don’t get extensive explanations or backstory, and his true nature is wisely left ambiguous. This is much like the 1978 original as is how he’s not invincible and explicitly supernatural like he was in some of the other sequels.

Jamie Lee Curtis is fantastic as I was a bit unsure at first about how strongly they were emphasizing how much the traumatic experience affected her over the next 40 years, but her performance sold it for me. The Laurie Strode character is written as very intelligent and capable.

There’s a new doctor introduced who studied under Donald Pleasance’s character Dr. Loomis, but I don’t really care for his subplot. It goes in a weird, unnecessary direction and doesn’t have any sort of satisfying payoff. This is a pretty minor complaint, though. A few other minor characters were kind of annoying as well, but none of them detracted too much.

The kills are gorier than the original for sure, but they never go too crazy with the violence. John Carpenter returns to do the score, which I loved and listened to on its own as soon as I got home.

Halloween moves along quickly. It’s only around an hour and 45 minutes, which I think is about the perfect length for a horror film like this. Slashers generally don’t need to be over two hours.

It has a somewhat rocky start but gets better towards the end and leads to a very tense conclusion.

Green and McBride decided to ignore all of the sequels and reboots and I think this was a smart decision. The Rob Zombie reboots were poorly received by a lot of fans and critics and only hardcore fans care about the other sequels. There hasn’t even been a film in the original continuity since 2002.

Almost absurdly, the Halloween franchise now has 5 different timelines, in what has to be some sort of record. There’s a continuity with the original Halloween, Halloween II, and 4 through 6, one with the original, Halloween II, H20, and Resurrection, the reboots, Halloween III, which was an entirely unrelated story, and now this timeline with just the original and the 2018 version.

I definitely recommend this to any fans of the series and really just horror in general. Even some non-horror fans could get into this as it’s pretty accessible to general audiences.

Right now it has an 82% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is 30 points higher than any other film in the franchise, excluding the first’s 93%.

Halloween only cost $10 million to make, less than both Rob Zombie versions. It’ll also outgross both of them before it’s even been in theaters a full week as it’s currently looking at a domestic opening weekend of at least $75 million. The would be the second biggest October opening weekend ever.

Tetsuo Trilogy Review (director: Shinya Tsukamoto)

Tetsuo: The Iron Man is easily one of the most unique films ever made and a landmark of experimental cinema. It has a singular style. even in the world of avant-garde film.

Tetsuo was released in 1989 and directed by Japanese filmmaker Shinya Tsukamoto. It’s still his most well-known work, but he’s also garnered accolades for his other films, especially A Snake of June from 2002. Tetsuo is the first feature Tsukamoto made as an adult and he had previously only worked with 8mm film. It’s a good example of auteur theory as he was also credited as writer, producer, editor, art director, and he did the cinematography with Kei Fujiwara. He even stars as the Metal Fetishist and did all the animation himself. Tsukamoto has gone on to have a pretty notable acting career, working with acclaimed directors like Martin Scorsese in Silence and Takashi Miike with Ichi the Killer. He also lent his voice to the Japanese version of Metal Gear Solid 4.

The first Tetsuo film is an insane, visceral experience dripping in style. It was shot on grainy black and white 16mm film, which leads to a very gritty look. Tsukamoto uses high contrast imagery, extreme camera angles and frenzied, hectic editing to overwhelm and bombard the viewer. At times, the camera will even go completely sideways.

Stop motion photography is used throughout and is a distinct part of Tetsuo’s aesthetic. These effects are technically impressive as well as visually stimulating and the prosthetic work is equally skillful. Dialogue is kept to a minimum as Tsukamoto chose to tell the story more through visuals and this sometimes makes Tetsuo feel more like a music video than a movie.

Hold the Dark Review (2018, director: Jeremy Saulnier)

Hold the Dark is a Netflix exclusive and the newest film and fourth feature from Jeremy Saulnier, who’s currently one of the best up and coming directors out there. His first feature was 2007’s Murder Party, but he gained a lot more respect in 2013 with the tense thriller Blue Ruin. His third film Green Room was even better than Blue Ruin and got a 90% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

I still haven’t seen Murder Party, but I loved Blue Ruin and Green Room, so I was highly anticipating Hold the Dark. Like Saulnier’s previous two efforts this is a violent thriller full of dread. It’s a slight step down from Green Room, but about as good as Blue Ruin. It just doesn’t quite have that same intensity as Green Room that kept you riveted throughout. Hold the Dark has some gore, but isn’t as brutal as Green Room was. However, it is a much more philosophical and ambiguous film than Saulnier’s prior work.

I won’t give away much of the plot as it’s very difficult to describe without spoilers. It begins with a wildlife expert and author being contacted by a woman who says her son was abducted by wolves. It’s a little hard to tell where it’s going at first, and I think this worked. The plot isn’t super complicated, but there are some interesting twists. I recommend watching this knowing as little as possible.

Hold the Dark is leisurely paced and over two hours but I never found it boring. The slow build up increases tension and the impact of the sudden violence, which is a trademark of Jeremy Saulnier, who proves yet again he’s great at creating atmosphere.

The cinematography is good but doesn’t bring attention to itself. There are slightly long takes,
but nothing too crazy. The film is set in the Alaskan wilderness are there are certainly plenty of beautiful shots of the scenery.  The wide nature shots drive home the isolation of these small towns.

This is the first Saulnier film that he didn’t write the script for, and it’s not quite as tightly written as the ones he penned. The dialogue is at times cryptic or unnatural, but this fit the feel of Hold the Dark, so this wasn’t a huge negative.

The characters are fine but we don’t really get to explore too deep into any of them to care much what happens to them. The main character, played by Jeffrey Wright, is mostly passive, but I know by now not to expect a traditional protagonist from a Saulnier film. The performances are all good and pretty subtle and there’s definitely no overacting, but none of them will blow you away.

The ending wasn’t that satisfying, especially compared to the director’s earlier films.

While Hold the Dark is certainly a solid film, I don’t anticipate it ending up among my favorites of 2018. But since you don’t have to leave the house or pay any extra money if you already have Netflix, I highly recommend giving this a chance. And unless I’m forgetting something, this might just be favorite Netflix original film so far.

Right now Hold the Dark has a decent Rotten Tomatoes score of 73% and a 64 on Metacritic.

A Beginner's Guide to Japanese Cinema

The nation of Japan has been one of the most significant in terms of cinema, and quite possibly the most important in the continent of Asia. Japanese films have won the Oscar for Best Foreign Film four times, and they also have five wins of the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival. Both of these are more than any other Asian country.

Japanese movies have often been very experimental and broken many boundaries and taboos. Their influence on the world of cinema is simply undeniable.

The biggest icon to come from Japanese film is easily Godzilla. It started with the movie Gojira in 1954 and has impressively gone on to over 30 Japanese installments as well as multiple American versions, notably in 1998 and 2014.

Godzilla is part of the kaiju genre which focuses on giant monsters. Other notable examples from Japan include Mothra and Gamera, and it’s inspired Hollywood movies like Pacific Rim as well.

The Godzilla series was mainly produced by Toho studios, the famous Japanese distributor and production company that was also involved with well-known anime from people like Hayao Miyazaki as well many of the biggest art house directors.

While the franchise has a reputation for being silly monster movies, Godzilla started with a deeper meaning. The original film came only a decade after the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Godzilla was created by nuclear radiation, and it also echoes the mass destruction of those events.

The Weirdest Movies of the 1970s

With the rise of the counter-culture and experimental film in the 1950s and 1960s, there were plenty of bizarre movies, but in the1970s, we start to see a plethora of films that descend into absolute insanity.

It's impossible to talk about weird movies of this era without bringing up "The King of Bad Taste" himself, John Waters. He eventually settled down and became more mainstream, but his films from the 70s were absolutely nuts. The most well-known is easily the transgressive classic Pink Flamingos from 1972, which starred the drag queen known as Divine and was made for only $10,000.

Pink Flamingos featured over the top acting that was far from naturalistic and was full of extremely offensive content, such as a man with a sausage tied to his penis, Divine giving unsimulated oral sex to an actor that portrays her son, and the also unsimulated ending which consisted of her eating actual dog poop. This is the only non-pornographic work I'm aware of that featured an actor going to such lengths.

There's plenty of other stuff that's just weird without being gross or disturbing, like the so-called egg lady and characters licking each other's feet. Waters' film was so far out there that it was banned in Australia as well as parts of Canada and Norway.

There have been imitators, but no one has made a film quite like Pink Flamingos since. Along with a couple other films I'll mention, it was crucial in the popularity of the midnight movie phenomenon that formed in the 1970s, where theaters started playing cult films late at night.

Waters' second most famous movie of the 70s was Female Trouble, also starring Divine and many other cast members from Pink Flamingos. It doesn't quite reach the depths of depravity of that film, but it's still very odd and includes a scene where two characters have sex and are both played by Divine, one female, and one male.

It wasn't just low budget movies that were strange in the 1970s, but expensive, mainstream films as well. The most obvious example is the self-indulgent science fiction film Zardoz, from acclaimed director John Boorman, who had already garnered an Oscar nomination for directing Deliverance.

Zardoz lets you know right from the start how weird it's going to be. After an intro featuring a disembodied human face on a black background, the first scene has a giant floating stone head announcing the "gun is good" and the "penis is evil". Then a bunch of guns spill out of its mouth. Boorman thought this scene would make it easier for audiences to understand, but he later admitted that this didn't quite work.

Zardoz starred Sean Connery, who was a huge name at the time having just come off portraying James Bond multiple times. He spends the film in a ridiculous outfit that consists of thigh-high boots and red shorts that resemble a diaper.

This film had a decently sized budget at over $1.5 million and barely made that back at the box office. It unsurprisingly didn't get a good critical reception and has gotten somewhat of a cult following over the years.

How Home Video Changed Movies

With the rise of home video that began in the 1970s and 80s, the way we watch movies changed forever. To me, the biggest difference is that films were no longer a practically once in a lifetime event.

Prior to television, for the most part, the only way to see a movie was to catch it in theatres. Sure, a few got re-released but only the most popular ones, and these were rare occurrences. And even once TVs were a fixture of people’s homes, finding what you wanted was a crapshoot. You had to hope you were available when it happened to air, and of course, there was no pausing or rewinding. On top of all that until channels like HBO, films were edited for content, time, interrupted by commercials, and the aspect ratio was altered, so people definitely weren’t getting the full experience. Hypothetically one could get their own projector and prints, but this was costly and very uncommon, especially compared to what was to come.

Once home video became commonplace, there was no longer a sense of urgency to see a film in theaters, and many started waiting for something to come out on VHS or DVD if they weren’t dying to see it as soon as possible. In fact, at this point, some moviegoers only see visually impressive action, science fiction and fantasy in the theaters and think of dramas and comedies as something to watch on streaming or on Blu-ray. Some think this trend may lead to theaters being solely for big-budget spectacle with quieter films being relegated to streaming services.

On the other hand, this also meant that fans could enjoy their favorite films over and over again at their leisure. This led to some movies gaining huge cult followings and people watching things like Star Wars dozens of times and memorizing every line of dialogue. Star Wars may not have had as much staying power if new generations weren’t able to easily get access to it on home video.

Similarly, this has allowed movies that underperformed at the box office to sometimes have a second chance to become loved by audiences, like with Fight Club, Donnie Darko, or Big Lebowski. In earlier eras, offbeat films like these would most likely fall into obscurity. This allows filmmakers to experiment more as their work has a chance to become profitable in home video or at least gain more respect among fans.

Before we could watch movies at home, most were limited to what was currently playing, but since the 70s and 80s we can all check out stuff from any era or things that didn’t make it to where you live. For those that like older or foreign films, home video is a godsend. Anime likely wouldn’t have become as popular in the United States in the 1980s if it weren’t for VHS and Laserdisc. It’s now much easier for anyone to become a cinephile.

Another major way that video formats have changed the world of cinema is through special features that give movie watchers insight into how they’re made and what the filmmakers were thinking. This has made making movies into a less opaque process that everyday people can wrap their heads around. Acclaimed directors such as Ava Duvernay have specifically stated that they used supplementary materials as a sort of film school. With things like deleted scenes and full-length commentaries, we have unprecedented insights into what went on during production.

The ability to pause, rewind, and fast forward can also not be overstated as we are no longer at the mercy of a projector. Pausing has led to creators adding in little tidbits and jokes that are difficult or even impossible to notice without freeze frame. Minor continuity errors or goofs could be left in without anyone seeing if they were on screen for a short enough amount of time, but now we pause and pick up on small mistakes. And with rewinding, we are able to watch our favorite scenes over and over or fast forward past parts we don’t feel like seeing.

Especially once DVDs made it big, director’s cuts or other alternative versions were often made. In the early 2000s, it seemed like every other movie had a so-called “unrated cut” or something along those lines. With some films, an alternate version became the definitive one, like how hardly anyone recommends the Theatrical Cut of Blade Runner. With the original Star Wars trilogy, a lot of younger viewers probably only know the Special Editions as that’s the only way you can access it in HD. Directors know going in that they can at least make minor tweaks later on, an opportunity not afforded to filmmakers in the golden age of Hollywood.

Home video has also greatly opened up the world of film production, as it allows for straight to DVD movies, or more recently exclusives to streaming services. These can have much smaller budgets, especially when it comes to marketing, so way more people can make content. Straight to DVD used to be an indicator of low quality, but now with Netflix and Hulu, artists can take risks and not worry about how many tickets they are going to sell. Scorsese’s upcoming film The Irishman was rejected by the major studios and probably wouldn’t have been made if Netflix hadn’t picked up on it.

One more huge factor is the massive increase in piracy. In the first half of the 20th century, paying to see a movie was pretty much your only option. Piracy reached the mainstream with bootleg VHS tapes, and now, those of us who are even a bit tech-savvy know that they can easily obtain any movie for free a few months after its release while sitting on their couch. It’s become harder than ever to convince us to pay to see things in theaters.

Clearly, home video has had a significant impact on the film industry and this isn’t likely to slow down in the future.

The Academy's Bias Against Genre Films is Overstated

I often hear people lamenting the supposed bias that the Oscars have against genre films. Usually, this is in regards to things like horror movies and comic book adaptations, with science fiction and fantasy sometimes thrown in there as well. I won’t deny this bias exists entirely, but I do think it’s massively overstated. It's true that these types of movies rarely get Oscar nominations, but do they necessarily deserve it? I love horror and superhero films, but I hardly ever find them to be among the best of the year. Most film critics, when they release their end of year lists, rarely include a lot of these genres, so if the Academy does have a bias, its one they share with many critics.

It’s well known that most of the movies nominated for Academy Awards are realistic dramas, often about social issues or historical events. When you look at the films considered to be among the best of all-time, you usually see stuff like The Godfather, Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Lawrence of Arabia and The Shawshank Redemption. These examples are all relatively realistic, dramatic works. Of course, there are a few genre films that rise to these levels, but they are few and far between, and when they do the Academy often recognizes them.

Even just looking at this year, they gave tons of nominations to two films that at the very least had strong horror influences, with Get Out getting 4 and Shape of Water getting 13, the most of any film. The science fiction movie Blade Runner 2049 got mostly technical nods but did get a cinematography nomination. I personally thought it should have gotten nominated for Best Picture, but I think missing out on it may have more to do with its financial failure than its genre, especially considering there was a sci-fi Best Picture nominee just last year in Arrival.

The superhero genre was even represented as Logan got in for Best Adapted Screenplay, but some thought it should have gotten in for Best Picture as well. I do think it’s better than a 1 or two of the actual Best Picture nominees, but I can think of several I’d put in before Logan, so I don’t think of this as a snub. A lot of people were calling for Wonder Woman to get a best pic nomination, but to me, that’s a bit silly.

It’s hard to think of too many superhero films over the years that got snubbed for Oscars. Obviously, The Dark Knight is the commonly cited example, but while it missed out on a Best Picture nod, it did get a major win in Best Supporting Actor and a Cinematography nomination among others. The Dark Knight has significant flaws and I can easily see not putting it in your top 5 of the year. And that’s one of the very few superhero movies that even comes close to a legitimate claim of being snubbed.

It’s true that horror films haven’t gotten a ton of Oscar love, but when they do excel they can get Best Picture nominations as we see with things like Jaws, The Exorcist and arguably The Sixth Sense and The Silence of the Lambs. Rosemary’s Baby, Carrie, and Misery have gotten major nominations as well.

One notable horror snub was The Shining, but Kubrick was tragically underappreciated by the Academy in general, so I don’t know that you can blame that one on genre.

Similarly, Psycho surely should have been nominated in 1960, but Hitchcock also didn’t get the Oscar attention he deserved, especially after the 1940s and Psycho did get major nominations like Best Director and Supporting Actress. Hitchcock was nominated for Best Director five times, but three of those were in the 40s and never won despite being one of the most respected and influential directors ever.

His movies got nominated for Best Picture four times, but all four of those were in the 40s despite his most impactful work coming in the 50s and 60s. So Psycho missing out on a Best Picture nomination isn’t that odd as classics like North by Northwest and Vertigo did as well.

Even the most influential classic horror films like Halloween, The Omen, and Night of the Living Dead aren’t quite good enough to say the Academy completely disregarded them just because of the genre. Also, those movies gained a reputation over time, so these could just be one of the many examples of the Academy looking wrong with decades of hindsight.

And recent horror films like The Witch, The Babadook, and It Follows were all excellent, but again, not so good that it’s some great tragedy they were ignored during award season.

I think the fact that top-level actors, writers, and directors don’t often work on horror films is likely a much bigger factor in why they don’t get any Oscars than any bias the Academy might have.

A science fiction film has never won Best Picture but many have been nominated. It’s an absolute travesty that 2001 didn’t get at least nominated, but it was much more experimental than your typical Oscar fare and like The Shining it may have been more of a Kubrick thing than a genre thing.

Like with horror, a few of the classic science fiction films that are considered among the best movies ever did get a chance to compete for the top prize, including Star Wars, A Clockwork Orange, and E.T. However, in recent years many more sci-fi movies have done so, including District 9, Avatar, and Her.

I also think that whatever bias does exist will likely disappear over time as younger Academy members are more used to genre films being mainstream.

Part of the reason the conventional wisdom regarding the Academy exists is because many more casual film fans focus more on blockbusters and may not have seen the smaller dramas that often get nominated. They may not have a complete understanding of just how difficult it is to get Oscar buzz and how stiff the competition often is.

They also may not realize how differently the various craftspeople that make up the academy view films and that they don’t just consider entertainment value.

The History of Live Action TV Shows Based on DC Comics

DC comics have been adapted into live action television for over 6 decades now, with dozens of shows on several different networks.

The story begins in 1952 with Adventures of Superman, the first television show based on a comic book (not counting comic strips). The syndicated show was shown in black and white and starred George Reeves as the title character. Reeves was mostly known for his work as Superman and tragically took his own life at age 45, although the exact circumstances of his death have been hotly debated.

Despite the efforts of the producers, the series did not survive the death of its star and the final episode was broadcast in 1958. There were 104 episodes over 6 seasons.

It featured the famous description of Superman as "faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound" as well as the lines "It's a bird, it's a plane, it's Superman!"

Adventures of Superman's special effects may look silly by today's standards, but for the time, and especially for a television program, they were actually pretty impressive. At first, they made the scenes of Superman flying by suspending Reeves from wires, but during the first season, they broke causing him to fall and be injured, so a safer method was devised. In season three, they started filming in color, even though the episodes were still being broadcast in black and white and this coincided with a more lighthearted tone aimed at younger viewers.

Some comic creators even worked on Adventures of Superman, like Mort Weisinger, who served as story editor.

They attempted a pilot called The Adventures of Superpup in 1958 with a main character named Bark Bent, but it was never actually aired. Similarly, The Adventures of Superboy pilot three years later also went nowhere.