Reviews

Colorful, awkward, bizarre, dreamlike... this is one of the most unusual comedies I've seen in a long while. Taking a close look at the artificiality of suburbia and the approval-seeking desires of modern culture, Jocelyn DeBoer & Dawn Luebbe turn the world sideways while keeping a sense of humor about it all. All characters are flawed in one way or another, revealing their inconsistencies and lack of permanence through a series of scenes that are as absurd as they are disturbing.

The crux of the story starts early with one mother giving away her baby to another mother out of a sense of societal guilt and a desire to please. This starts a string of events that take apart several families, as each criticizes the other in the most polite ways possible, feigning concern while making benignly vicious comments. That it all seems so colorfully happy is a testament to the writers and the overall direction of the movie. The Kafka-esque transition of a non-conforming child into the family dog is a brilliant vehicle, as the father enthuses over how much better the child is as a dog, how much better he is at sports, &c.

The reflection on modern society, our values and our priorities, glares through the sunshine and perfect teeth. One commentator here suggests that the movie feels like a series of short skits, which is both accurate but missing the point: each of these moments contribute to the fractured tapestry of this neighborhood and eventually tie together; when the baby-lending mother rips her braces from her teeth while losing everything you see the real message of the movie: conform or be ostracized. Brilliant.

I like the overall idea behind the movie, and had it been presented on a smaller scale perhaps it would have worked better--did they have to try to replicate the entire family? The CG android was perhaps one of the least remarkable I've seen in a modern movie, and the scope of the lab - both organic cloning & android mental transfers - was inexplicable and overreaching. Apparently the writers and directors thought they could appeal to a number of sci fi interests at once, but it just comes off as ridiculous, under-explained and extremely far-fetched. The acting was rigid and unimpressive, and I found myself completely detached from every character. The family was roundly unlovable, the villanous boss not particularly hatable, and the side character's death just a footnote with no emotional weight. If the science fiction was a bit implausible at least they could have tried to make the viewer care about, well, anybody in the movie.

Despite their trying to highlight some of their character's own plot errors along the way, there are so many inexplicable errors and disconnects in this movie that eventually you have to just accept it as fantasy. The entire family of disparate ages was cloned in 17 days to the exact age each had been at death? All of the equipment needed to clone 3 people was quickly moved and setup in one night? The transfer of memory only takes moments? The ability to selective erase experience and memory is some kind of trivial exercise? Keanu was able to steal dozens of car batteries and create a backup battery for them in a few hours? It goes on and on, so many plot holes or suspension of reality. Why did they even bother having the police stop by and accept his ridiculous denial when he was the only house not affected? Not a single person stopped by in those 17 days to check on the family after 5 days went by without a word?

In the end I found myself comparing the movie to Douglas Trumbull's "Brainstorm" with Christopher Walken and Natalie Wood, which has parallels in the ability to record and retrieve memories from people. There the director and writers introduce a level of credibility in the mechanics of the science, explore the direction and misdirection of the concept, and made us care about the characters and the issues between them. "Replicas" instead relies on computer graphics that don't adequately support the "science," quickly introduce the corporate corruption of the concept at the very last moment, and never create a compelling family dynamic. Really disappointing.

Having followed the Alien saga from opening night of the first movie, I found this an excellent addition to the story. The story has taken twists and turns along the way, this being the 2nd part of the prequel that leads us to the setting for the first movie. I have some questions left, and there's a gap that presumably the next movie will fill in. That said, I find Scott's progression (pre-gression?) of the story an interesting explanation, furthering the metamorphosis of the Alien species, and also the treasonous behavior of the androids. I really enjoyed Fassbender's dual roles in this movie, and while you could predict where Walter/David was heading, it still left me on the edge of my seat right up to the end, fitting for an Alien movie. There's good homage to the earlier movies that made it a fun ride. One last comment, I've heard from several that the acting was stiff, particularly in minor characters. That's true from the very first movie, and my expectations are the same for this movie; there's a certain "B" quality paired with "A" graphics & story that keeps me from thinking this is more than it is. But what it is, is a solid new addition to the Alien series.

Coincidentally I found Andy Weir's book "The Martian" without realizing that the movie was coming to the theater. So I read the book, which I truly enjoyed as a science-loving and sci-fi-loving enthusiast. In the book the main vehicle for Mark Watney's inner dialog was his journal, and the plot is propelled by his need to survive. The scientific explanations are credible and detailed, and his journey fraught with peril and struggle. It is a Jack London story of the (future) modern age, and for me one of the most enjoyable books I've read in a while.

Upon completing the book I went to the movies. Overall I give the rendering a good rating: Matt Damon is a good choice for Watney's character, and the cinematography and CG is mostly stunning. My caveat is that I had to augment the movie with the knowledge I had from the book to understand and enjoy it. In fact, I would advise anyone interested in the movie to read the book first to fill in the gaping holes in the plot that make the movie too much Hollywood styling and less science and survival.

A few key problems. In the book NASA and the other crew don't enter the story for a considerable amount of time. The sense of isolation and the need for Watney to survive dominates, and the reader's attraction to Watney quickly develops. In the movie the mix of situations breaks that isolation, so that we see Watney sometimes struggling, but never feel the danger or sense of time the book conveys. To fit the movie into a typical 2 hour format a great deal of the book had to be cut; I suspect Scott would have made a 4 hour movie if allowed, and I'm sure much was on the cutting room floor.

The worst of the cuts is the loss of Watney's journey to the Schiaparelli Crater. In the book Watney again loses contact with NASA, and must use his own ingenuity to survive. Again isolated, he solves problem after problem, including deducing and resolving a dust storm that would have made his journey impossible, and a horrible entry into the Schiaparelli Crater that nearly kills him. In the movie when he finally is rescued the crew cut away his suit to reveal a myriad of injuries that are never properly explained... unless you had read the book.

It's a pity to gloss over the foundation of the tone of the story, but I suppose it's understandable that a movie of this scale and with Hollywood money had to conform to convention. But it's a pale imitation of the book, albeit a beautiful feast for the eyes and a fine story of survival. Just nowhere near as impressive as the book. So go read the book!