REVIEWS

2002, Part L: December

2002, Christian Sauvé

Featured this month:

...as well as the usual end-of-year 2002 Science-Fiction movies retrospective.

 

Where Angels Watch
Randall Wallace

Bantam Crime Line, 1992, 323 pages

If you're a movie buff, the name "Randall Wallace" should mean something to you. He wrote the screenplays for the Oscar-winning BRAVEHEART and the execrable PEARL HARBOUR. He directed WE WERE SOLDIERS from his own script. He's buddy with Mel Gibson. In short, he's what we'd call a Hollywood insider.

It's not a secret that he didn't start out that way. His biographies (check out his sort-of-official web site at www.thewheelhouse.net ) mention that he wrote a few novels before breaking into the Hollywood big-time in the mid-nineties. Finding those novels, however, isn't an easy matter given that they didn't sell all that well and are almost all out-of-print by now.

I was lucky enough to catch Where Angels Watch at a used book sale. It's the second novel in a series (technically a sequel starring the characters from Blood of the Lamb, though with a presumably brand-new all-exciting villain!), but I couldn't very well wait and hope to find the first novel anytime soon, so I dove right in.

In many ways, this is a strictly-business police thriller. In Los Angeles, a killer preys on hookers and strippers, leaving them dismembered and displayed as an unmistakable challenge to police forces. Protagonists Tom Ridge and Scarlet McCullers are now faced with a new mystery—and a killer than may be a policeman...

I'm sure you've read something similar before. It's not exactly original. But there's always some place for a well-written entry, and that's exactly what Where Angels Watch manages to be.

It all depends on a pair of sympathetic protagonists: Tom Ridge is a by-the-book policeman with some religious training and a mind like a computer. Everyone is a bit in awe of his cognitive capabilities, and indeed, he often intuits clues and conclusions well before the experts can confirm what he's already deduced. The only person not afraid to try to one-up Ridge is, of course, "Cully" McCullers. She's brasher, more willing to throw suspects around and always trying to prove her worth. Together, they make an unstoppable team. Except that... they've been together -in a biblical sense- and that only complicates matters.

It still wouldn't have worked if Wallace hadn't been able to give the required spark to his characters. But he does, and also manages to deliver a good crunchy police thriller with plenty of tasty passages. This being L.A., we get a look at the city's biggest industry, the relationships between police and celebrities, a believable look inside a police precinct and all sorts of other good stuff.

Wallace's writing is clear and easily readable. Even better; he also succeeds in wringing honest emotion out of passages that would be booed off the stage in any other context. (Though even he can't make the ridiculous strip-tease scene work.) I could explain the meaning of the novel's title to you in a few words, but then you'd look at the screen with a look of corny disbelief. But Wallace manages, and that's all that matter when you're reading the novel. (On the other hand, it may explain why Michael Bay's ham-fisted triumphant direction made such a mess out of PEARL HARBOR's sentimental scenes. But I digress.)

Understand that I'm not raving about this novel; for all its qualities, it doesn't come close to, say, Michael Connelly's work. But it's good stuff, it sticks to the point and it delivers what it's supposed to. Plus it's got curiosity value; how many novels on your shelves have been written by acclaimed screenwriters/directors?

 

Murphy's Gambit
Syne Mitchell

ROC, 2000, 377 pages, $9.99 Can. pb, ISBN 0-451-45809-5

Reviewer's Note: As I couldn't muster up the interest to review this mid-list SF novel, I simply stuffed it in my brand new ReviewMatron™ and let it cough up an automated review. Here are the results: (Warning! The ReviewMatron™ has an unfortunate tendency to spoil novels it doesn't like.)

Genre: Science-Fiction Adventure

Author Profile: searching... none.... first novel.

What the only cover blurb tells you: Mid-list SF author Eric S. Nylund says "Adamantine-hard science fiction with heart... a ripping good read"

What the only cover blurb doesn't tell you: That Eric S. Nylund is Syne Mitchell's husband.

Plot: Outsider gets embroiled in conspiracy revolving around piece of high-technology with potential to overthrow existing social order.

Protagonist: "Thiadora Murphy", a "floater" -zero-gee-optimized human- sent to a military college.

Protagonist's clichés (list): absent father... outsider amongst her peers... red-hot pilot... something to prove to the universe... meaningful tattoos...

Initial Plot Complications (list): Ostracism by peers... job offer from shadowy organization (refused)... framed... kicked out of academy... best friend killed... forced to take the job against her will...

Contrived or cliché?: Hard to say.

Author's unsubtle theme: Discrimination.

Assessment of first third of novel: Poor. Cliché. Dull. Déjà-vu.

Plot shift into second act: High-tech vessel stolen from company, then stolen back by company. Meanwhile, protagonist meets first ally.

"Ally" characteristics (list): "Kyle": Opposite sex... rather sympathetic to heroine... exceptional hard-to-explain skills... shadowy loyalties... secretly connected to powerful organization...

Thrust of Second Act (list): recovery of ship... discovery of capabilities of ship, including time-travel... forces pursue the ship... protagonist isolated from all sources of support...

Return of father: Check. (Sort of)

Explanation of Ally's willingness to help protagonist: Check.

Assessment of second third: Better. Now that all clichéd pieces are in position, magnanimous readers merely have to follow them around.

Capture of heroine as start of third act: Check.

Torture: Check.

Awful doubt that ally has betrayed her: Check.

Ally still comes through: Check.

Best friend back from the dead: Check.

Best friend pissed: Check.

Hot lesbian love scene between protagonist and best friend: No.

Escalation of third act into galaxy-spanning political reform: Check.

Revolt of the ostracized masses: Check.

All seems lost: Check

Heroine figures ultra-clever scheme to restore rightful social order: Check.

Happy Ending: Check.

Assessment of Last third: Fair.

Assessment of writing skills: Okay. Enough to keep reader's attention once everything gets going.

Assessment of Novel: Takes a while to get going. Slowly evolves in average mid-list SF novel.

Double-meaning title: Check.

Hard-SF? No.

Recommended action re Author's next novels: Acquire at used book sales if price is right.

Final state of mind: Blah.

 

The Popcorn Report
Faith Popcorn

HarperBusiness, 1992, 268 pages, $15.00 Can. tp, ISBN 0-88730-594-6

Oh, I so do love futurists. They're like stunted Science-Fiction authors who had all the imagination beaten out of them by MBA-holding Zen masters. Futurists say they explore new ideas and extrapolate from existing trends, but when you look at it ten years later, does their track record hold any better than SF writers of the time?

Not really. Exhibit number one: The much-celebrated Popcorn Report, by Faith Popcorn. Written in the early nineties, it was supposed to give us pointers on the ten following years. Well, ding-dong, the decade's up and it's time to take a look at what she said then.

Ten trends. Okay, here they are: Cocooning in a New Decade, Fantasy Adventures, Small Indulgences, Egonomics, Cashing Out, Down-Aging, Staying Alive, The Vigilante Consumer, 99 Lives and Save Our Society.

Okay. Sure. Spot anything incongruous here? You shouldn't.

And that may very well be my point. Re-read The Popcorn Report today and while some cultural differences may have evolved, it's not as if it's totally alien. Neither particularly prescient nor exceptionally wrong, this book could be re-issued today with only a few dates rubbed out and it would still be publishable.

So what does that say, exactly? That Popcorn was right enough ten years ago that she's still on track? Or rather that by predicting bland middle-of-the-road generalities, you can't go wrong? Of Popcorn's "ten big trends", a lot of them look like stuff consultants spout off to companies just to be one the safe side: "be honest or your customers will hate you." Ooh. "They will pay more for a premium product." Gee. "They love it when they get something that's customized for them." Wow. Smart thinking there, Einstein.

Of Popcorn's ten trends, you'd be hard-pressed to find one that's not true today. But then again, it's been the case for thirty years. Yes, everyone wants to save the environment. Yes, everyone wants to have a safe thrill or two from time to time. Don't you say that people want to retire as soon as they can afford to? Heavens!

Meanwhile, the Internet whooshes by Popcorn, who still goes bonkers for the oh-so-early-nineties virtual reality. But maybe I shouldn't be too hard on her for that, as a lot of people didn't see it coming either. ANd yet, that was the biggest business story of the decade. Whoosh. Business seers are ill-equipped to deal with technological discontinuities.

At least it's a dynamic read. If you're familiar with espresso-laced business consulting literature, The Popcorn Report's writing style will be familiar: All pow-pow-pow rhetoric, "backed" by fringe anecdotes that might actually mean something if you believe everything you read.

Please excuse my cynicism (or better yet; embrace it), but I have already seen far too many of those so-called "analyses" deceive over-eager "decision-makers". By fishing extreme anecdotes as indicative of trends, Popcorn marginalizes her propositions for anyone used to seeing facts and figures. How about a poll tracking attitudes over a five-year period? Wouldn't that be a more convincing method to prove or disprove how attitudes will evolve? But The Popcorn Report is heavy on stories and light on figures...

Despite my skepticism, though, The Popcorn Report still makes for good wish-fulfillment reading. It's argued in an interesting fashion, and probably stands best as a timeless reminder of ways one company can hope to distinguish itself from competitors. But the decade that has elapsed since the publication of the book certainly offers a more accurate assessment of the books true "predictive" worth.

 

Ad Nauseam: The Onion, Volume 13
The Onion

Three Rivers Press, 2002, 264 pages, $26.00 Can., ISBN 1-400-4724-2

Looking for Christmas presents? The helpful folks at The Onion can rescue everything by rolling out their newest volume in time for gift-wrapping season.

Unlike the previous three Onion books, (two best-of selections and one book of original content), this is a true collection. All 44 issues of The Onion published between November 1st 2000 and October 31st 2001 are contained here, reprinted from the original paper version of the humor periodical. Yes, that includes the famous September 27th 2001 "HOLY F—ING S—T: Attack On America" issue, which tackled the September 11 events well before the rest of America was ready to deal with it.

Compared with their latest best-of collection Dispatches from the Tenth Circle, there's no denying that Ad Nauseam is, overall, not quite as funny. The Onion can have weaker issues like any other periodical, and this collection also includes those. Still, sifting through the pages, there's still plenty of amusing material.

Highlights include "New Girlfriend Tests Poorly With Peer Focus Group", the special "Mayhem 2000" election edition, "I'm Like a Chocoholic, but for Booze", "Romantic-Comedy Behavior Gets Real-Life Man Arrested" (also found in Tenth Circle, mind you), "Everything in Entire World Now Collectible", "Girlfriend Changes Man Into Someone She's Not Interested In", "Bush Regales Dinner Guests With Impromptu Oratory On Virgil's Minor Works", "Author Wishes She Hadn't Blown Personal Tragedy On First Book", "Gore Upset that Clinton Doesn't Call Anymore", "Stephen Jay Gould Speaks Out Against Science Paparazzi", "Toaster-Instruction Booklet Author Enraged That Editor Betrayed His Vision" and an article I wish I'd have written; "Everybody Browsing At Video Store Saying Stupid Things"

All of this should be enough to make you laugh for a while. Noticeably thicker than its three predecessors, Ad Nauseam compensates quality by quantity. Even as a cash-grab endeavor, it's still more than a worthwhile buy for fans of The Onion.

Two things emerge from a linear read of a year in the life of The Onion, though, things that may not be obvious from reading The Onion on their web site:

The first is the developing stories of the "Community Voices" columnists. While I had traditionally considered the recurring columns to be among the weakest sections of the periodical, reading a bunch of them in short succession can really help in making those "columnists" being interesting. I even came to feel a strange affection for Jim Anchower's "The Cruise", Hertbert Kornfeld's tales'o'tha'Accountz Reeceevable Bruthahood and even -gasp- Jean Teasdale's formerly insufferable "A Room of Jean's Own". Go figure.

The second is strictly an accident of history: Reading months of Onion-accentuated silliness before the September 11th 2001 events is a lot like witnessing a nation whistling on its way to a good solid mugging. "A Shattered Nation Longs To Care About Stupid Bulls—t Again" [P.241] indeed. (Fortunately, even recent history shows that America is resilient and does, indeed, care again for stupid stuff.)

One nice side-effect of the "include everything" mission of Ad Nauseam is that I got to re-read one full year's worth of those terribly sarcastic one-liner "Horoscopes", which has become one of my favorite features in The Onion over the past few months. Those hadn't been included in previous collections.

An annoying detail, proving that nothing is perfect: I loathed the splitting up of stories over two, sometimes even three pages. Even though I understand the production constraints leading to that decision, no amount of rationalization could make it look good.

Enthusiasts of The Onion need to encouragement to rush out and grab a copy of this book. Newbies would be best-advised to pick up Our Dumb Century or Dispatches From The Tenth Circle as an introduction: Though there's nothing specifically wrong about Ad Nauseam, it doesn't reach the dizzying heights of the first two books.

So... can we hope for Volume 14 next year?

[March 2005: Annual volumes 14 and 15 are out, and if they do deliver hard doses of The Onion's trademark type of satire, they're not books fit to be read all at once and they don't measure up to the dramatic arc leading to and stemming from 9/11. Recommended, but only for those who already are familiar with The Onion.]

 

The Accidental Theorist
Paul Krugman

Norton, 1998, 204 pages, 34.99$ Can. hc, ISBN 0-393-04638-9

I don't know all that much when it comes to the science of economics, but I do love a good argument.

Paul Krugman wrote The Accidental Theorist for me.

It's a vulgarization book about economics, or more accurately a collection of essays that aim to dispel some of the most prevalent myths about the economy. In here, Krugman takes on the effects of globalization, the trickle-down economy, currency speculation, unemployment and much more. His favorite target is the type of empty rhetoric propagated by right-wing icons who don't understand the issues they're discussing... and I can't think of any more deserving targets.

Readers of Microsoft's slate.com magazine should be familiar with Krugman, as several of the articles reprinted here were originally published on the site. Not being a Slate reader, though, this was all new material as far as I was concerned.

And pretty good material too. Krugman's got everything he needs to be a good communicator: not only a thorough knowledge of his own field and the ability to make it understandable to the public, but also a set of strong beliefs and a passion to share them. His writing style is compact (don't be fooled by the low number of pages; this book packs more ideas than other works twice the size), exact, to the point and often devastatingly funny.

Yes, funny. Economics and humor. Stranger things have happened.

Krugman also has the requisite disdain for people who ignore or ignore the truth. His step-by-step deconstruction of Richard Armey's The Freedom Revolution ["An Unequal Exchange", P.52-61] is utterly convincing: Armey must have intentionally mis-quoted freely-available statistics in order to sustain an untenable point to his readers. This kind of dishonesty is inexcusable, and there's ample room for Krugman to make his point in exposing it. The Accidental Theorist really hits its stride when debunking bad economics.

Mind you, bad economics are prevalent across the political spectrum. Blaming Krugman for "taking sides" would be inappropriate, even if he seems to be an avowed liberal: he takes on sacred cows from both sides of the fence. Supply-side economics and globalization on one side, government size and currency control on the other.

[December 2003: In twelve short months, Krugman has, through a series of lively weekly opinion columns, emerged on the American political scene as a vigorous opponent of Bush II's economic practices. Vilification by the right ensued in the best tradition of polarized debate. How dare one "liberal" argue for smaller government and balanced budgets!]

All and all, it's a heck of a read. Krugman does more here to raise the profile and reputation of economists than anyone else I've ever read. He convinced me that this can actually be a fascinating field. I found myself, thanks to Part 5 of the book, enthralled by currency trading scenarios. Imagine that!

Though all of The Accidental Theorist, Krugman proves to be a witty, affable and constantly interesting commentator. He obviously loves his field and can't wait to share this enthusiasm with others. It works; I found myself asking questions I never thought about before, and watching the financial news with renewed interest. His interests go beyond simple economics matters, especially in the last section where he applies the tools of his trade to matters such as environmentalism, health care and traffic jams with conclusions you might not necessarily expect. Krugman loves to play with ideas, and that's an attitude I can only respect. The last essay of the book alone contains enough ideas for a full-fledged science-fiction novel... if anyone is bold enough to screw around with what "common sense" has been telling us for the past few years.

All in all, even though I accidentally picked up The Accidental Theorist without too much attention to the author, I'm now suddenly curious to find out what else Krugman has written. In the meantime, this collection is staying on my shelves besides Sagan and Pellegrino, smack-dab in the scientific vulgarization section.

 

The Voices of Heaven
Frederik Pohl

Tor, 1994, 280 pages, ~30$Can. hc, ISBN 0-312-85643-1

Frederik Pohl hasn't become the living embodiment of a science-fiction professional for nothing. When even his average efforts like The Voices of Heaven end up being more fun to read that most SF published that year, it's a sign that the man knows what he's doing.

It's not as if this novel has any particularly original element. Bring together a maniaco-depressive protagonist, a love triangle, a suicidal cult, a far-away colony, barrels of anti-matter, musings about religion, mix well and... there you have The Voices of Heaven.

It's not immune to some of the traditional Stupid Stuff that contaminates so much quickly-written SF, mind you: Pohl's assertion that political parties would be eliminated in favor of religious voting blocs is so silly it's hard to know where to begin. But given that this is Pohl's Religion Novel, some slack must be cut.

He certainly knows how to bring us in the story, as an unnamed questioner interrogates our narrator about his life leading up to the "present". Who is asking the questions? What is at stakes? The answers are ultimately disappointing, but it doesn't matter when it comes to make us read the novel.

This narrator, Barry di Hoa, is a technical specialist, an antimatter loader living a hard but comfortable life on the Moon, working in the only antimatter production facility in the solar system. Everything seems to be going well for him. He's even thinking about marriage when he's drugged by a rival and put on a colony ship headed light-years away. When he wakes up, he finds himself shanghaied on a faraway solar system. Without his beloved. Without the medication that keeps him stable.

The colony is not only ill-prepared to receive him, but it's also helpless against most things. Accidentally established in an earthquake-prone region, the colony has been so far unable to develop, stagnating at the same level for decades. It doesn't help that fully a quarter of the colony's population are Millenarists, a cult that openly encourages suicide as a way to atone for all past sins.

Yikes.

Well, if you actually find such a belief sustainable.

But stranger things have happened.

Barry, as a can-do type of guy, finds himself with precious little to do there. Naturally, it gets worse when he starts cycling through his manic-depressive roller-coaster again...

It's a short book, and a fairly simple plot, but Pohl's got too much professionalism to turn it into just another SF novel. He infuses his narrator with a gradual amount of empathy, making the book far more interesting than you'd expect. Barry, for all his faults and shortcomings, is someone we can really cheer for. Ironically, his greatest moment of triumph is related in an offhanded, almost embarrassed tone of voice, as he seems reluctant to take responsibility for actions committed when he was in the maniacal half of his cycle.

In short, The Voices of Heaven, despite unsubtle anti-religion shortcuts, predictable developments (oh, can't you predict part of the conclusion whenever it's obvious that our hero will remain virtuous?) and generally unexciting plotting, manages to be a worthwhile read. The writing is clear and enjoyable, the characters are well-defined and it ultimately amounts to a good time.

A true professional's job.

 

Media Virus!
Douglas Rushkoff

Ballantine, 1996, 344 pages, 16.95$ Can. tp, ISBN 0-345-39774-6

As someone who started reading Adbusters! magazine in high-school during the early nineties, media jamming and memetic theory aren't much of a discovery at this point in time. Still, "Hidden agendas in popular culture" is a tagline that'll get me every time, so it's no surprise if I picked up Media Virus.

Culture commentator Douglas Rushkoff wants to do two thing with this book. First, to show how media, far from being a fearsome monolithic entity that that tells everyone what to do, is in fact controlled by the public. Second, to give specific examples of how individuals can manipulate media to transmit ideas they have created and optimized for maximum impact.

At least, that's what I was able to gather. Media Virus is so scattered, so free-wheeling that it's hard to constrain. Like a channel-hopping teen wired on Jolt Cola, Rushkoff switches from one theme to another with a breathless energy, telling good stories but seldom bothering to pull them together. "Media Virus! Media Virus!" he shouts here and there. Well, okay: ideas can be propagated through the mindspace like their biological counterparts, but what happens then?

To be fair, though, you won't spend too much time worrying about the unity of the book as you rush through it, thrown from one field of interest to another with scarcely a moment's pause. Media Virus! is an exhilarating read even six years (and a full Internet revolution) after publication. (Unfortunately, some cultural references now need a footnote or two, and this caveat will only grow worse with time.) Highlights include a wonderful analysis of the 1992 presidential election and explanations of the cultural significance of Ren and Stimpy, Peewee's Playhouse and The Simpsons. Rushkoff shows us a television rushing toward greater realism fully four years before the reality show craze. (What did he write about "Survivor"?)

From a certain perspective, Rushkoff also shows us a society ready for the Internet. His forays on the Internet circa 1994 take on a nostalgic quality, but clearly show a society only a click away from Kazaa, ICQ and virulent political chat boards.

Oh, the first half of the book is more interesting than the second—mostly because after reading "Media Virus!" so many times, it's easy to be bored. (We're the MTV generation, Rushkoff. Our brain assimilates information more quickly. Don't you forget it.) It's also an unfortunate effect of his chosen field of study -media theory- that he has to rely on anecdotal "evidence" and personal interpretation of facts rather than harder numerical data in the form of, say statistics and survey. Media theorists have to apply, essentially, the tools of historians to subjects that haven't even had time to cool down. This makes his speculations fun and interesting to read, but rather less than convincing from a purely objective perspective.

But it may be a mistake to apply scientific thought to this subject. Maybe it's more accurate to consider Media Virus! as a bunch of ideas and thoughts half-way corralled in book form. That a lot of them are obvious would only mean that Rushkoff either did his research or was dead-on in predicting the prevalent Media Viruses of 1995-2002.

In any case, Media Virus! is great good fun. Even limiting itself to anecdotal evidence, it manages to explain (and defuse) the success of such latter pop icons as Eminem, Teletubbies, Survivor and a whole bunch of other things. As maybe the last book about the pre-Internet media, it may even be a historical curio of sort. In any case, this is a splendid thought-piece, a book to read whenever the success of the latest pop sensation looks too bizarre to be believed.

 

2002: The Year In Science-Fiction Movies

Now that we're firmly entrenched in the twenty-first century, past the 1999/2000/2001 transition years and equipped with brand-new social memes thanks to "the war on terror", what have we seen this year that may stand the test of time and come to define our common vision of the future? How were the SF movies in 2002? Let's take a look at the good, the bad, the sublime and the rip-off, with much-appreciated assistance from the Internet Movie Database at www.imdb.com

The Good

After a lacklustre two years, 2002 saw the first big good SF movie in a while: MINORITY REPORT might have plenty of flaws (especially when considered from a purely science-fictional perspective), but it was bold, it was new, it was exceedingly well-realized and it was entertaining from start to, well, almost finish. Cool gadgets, some much-needed subtext about privacy, a relatively realistic approach to the material and some crunchy ideas all make this the top SF film of 2002. Entertaining and thoughtful, it doesn't take much more than that to satisfy me.

In a wholly different register, closer to fable than thriller, S1M0NE delivered a slyly amusing tale of virtual realism run amok. It doesn't have much relation to reality and doesn't depend on many gadgets, but it's comfortable that way and does explore a few philosophical themes quite well. Not many people saw it and even fewer were ready to go along with the joke. But it's a lot of fun, and doesn't totally pander to a moronic audience.

Finally, the best SF film you haven't seen in 2002 was EQUILIBRIUM. This low-budget effort doesn't have the polish or pacing of the two other films, but it's actually an interesting take on those "totalitarian regimes" SF stories, with plenty of kick-ass action in the latter third to satisfy anyone looking for a temporary fix until THE MATRIX sequel comes up. Not distributed in Canada (don't ask how this reviewer saw it) and scarcely publicized anywhere else, this one is worth tracking down.

The Flawed

Some movies had significant qualities and big problems. Here are three of those imperfect efforts:

STAR WARS EPISODE II: ATTACK OF THE CLONES is better than the awful EPISODE I, but only if you take in account the fantastic combat sequences at the end of the film. Otherwise, you'll grind your teeth to powder while listening to the wretched dialogue, and maybe even go to sleep during the middle third of the film. But, hey, it's STAR WARS, so you just pay and shut up...

SIGNS is a frustrating film: As a hard-SF effort, it really sucks: The "alien invasion" aspects are dumb beyond belief, and the film's more spiritual focus will displease those looking for more literal action. As literary fantasy, it works better. Replace "alien" by "demon" and everything already makes more sense, especially given the water motif. The out-of-focus quality of this story also gives it sort of an anti-spectacular respectability. Finally, as a suspense film, SIGNS really shines, whatever the identity and motivations of "the evil". Make of that what you will...

SOLARIS is another one of those "make up you own damn mind" type of film. Was it boring? To some, yes, very. Was it fascinating? Some will tell you so. Was it smart? Pretty much everyone agree it was cerebral, but opinion is divided as to whether it was intellectual or simply pretentious. One the other hand, it took place on a space station and didn't feature huge laser-pistol shootouts. Whether this is good or bad, I'll leave up to you.

The Disappointments

True to form, Hollywood once again showed an unusual talent for turning promising concepts into run-of-the-mill films. Let's see:

Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones wore their black suits again in MEN IN BLACK 2, but sadly enough, the audience was not amused. This lame follow-up wasn't as funny, fresh or original as the first one.

REIGN OF FIRE took a promising premise and turned it into yet another "hunt the head vampire" film. Often ugly and failing to capitalize on some boffo potential, this film has come to represent everything that fans hate about Hollywood, and how it can make every single original idea in a one-size-fits-all script template. Oh well; at least Matthew McConaughey (of all actors) plays a decent action hero.

It's probably unfair to call CLOCKSTOPPERS a "disappointment" given low expectations, but the truth is that it features a gadget (a time-slowing watch) and fancy special effects that are much better than the actual result. Yes, it's for teens, but it doesn't actually excuse the laziness of the script. Too bad...

The Bad

STAR TREK 10: NEMESIS: Dull and boring "adventure" that breaks the even-odd pattern of Star Trek movies. Even die-hard trekkies will be left unmoved by this lame entry in the Trek mythos. Not much to see here...

THE TIME MACHINE was, ironically enough, a throwback to a time where Hollywood could churn out great special effects on top of a lousy story that completely ignored the social commentary of the original, transforming it in a loud and incoherent mess... oh, yes, that would be right now.

THE TUXEDO, finally, is a complete waste of Jackie Chan, who's actually less interesting than Jennifer Love Hewitt (!!!) in this awful "action" SF comedy that's even less interesting than what you may imagine. This is medium-budget, low-imagination filmmaking at its worst.

The Unseen

It takes a lot of bad reviews to convince me to avoid a science-fiction film, but let's just say that the critical consensus was very convincing when it came to ROLLERBALL, THE ADVENTURES OF PLUTO NASH and IMPOSTOR. I'll let you know if ever I'm suckered into seeing them.

My Disney-boycott policies were enforced for LILO AND STITCH as well as TREASURE PLANET. I hear they're not too bad.

I really would have liked to see 28 DAYS LATER, DOG SOLDIERS, BELOW, CQ and CUBE 2: HYPERCUBE, but those efforts weren't theatrically distributed in Canada in 2002, and unlike EQUILIBRIUM (above), I wasn't able to secure a copy by other means. Hopefully, they'll be available shortly, in theaters or on DVD...

The Fringes

SF or not, there was good fun to be found in films such as SPIDER-MAN, EIGHT-LEGGED FREAKS, RESIDENT EVIL and SPY KIDS 2. Who can go wrong with web-wielding superheroes, big spiders, zombie dogs and Robert Rodriguez? They're worth a look for any genre fan, even though the SF connection can be tenuous.

For fantasy fans, 2002 also proved as good a year as 2001, for exactly the same reasons: LORD OF THE RINGS (part 2) and HARRY POTTER (part 2). In both cases, the adaptations were decent enough, the filmmaking machine well-oiled to deliver exactly what the public was waiting to see, and satisfaction was had by all. Well, except for the obsessive Tolkien freaks, who deserve pretty much everything they can get.

Horror fans weren't left out in the cold either: THE RING marked a triumphant return of true horror in American cinemas (even if it took a remake of a Japanese film to do it), and that film alone compensates for a full year of trash like FEARDOTCOM, GHOST SHIP and the like...

Next!

It's easy to get excited about 2003 and what it promises to deliver.

In sequels alone, we're due for boffo material. THE MATRIX fans will get to see THE ANIMATRIX, THE MATRIX RELOADED and THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS. Then there's also THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING. Oh, and TERMINATOR 3. Plus TOMB RAIDER 2 and X-MEN 2.

Add in the comic adaptations of THE HULK and THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN, and you've got a whole lot of salivating fanboys out there. Plus, hey, let's throw in the film adaptations of the sorta-SF novels TIMELINE and DREAMCATCHER, plus the Bradbury story A SOUND OF THUNDER and the SF geeks will join the fanboys at the theater. It won't be pretty, but at least it will ensure that the ticket prices will go up.

Unconfirmed sequels include SPY KIDS 3, RESIDENT EVIL: NEMESIS, RED DWARF: THE MOVIE and TRON KILLER APP. We'll believe them when we'll see them.

I'm sort of looking forward to THE CORE in a typical dumb-SF-catastrophe-movie kind of mood. I'm not too picky: I just want to see San Francisco get trashed real good.

Other intriguing titles listed in the IMDB's "SciFi-2003" database include ABELCAIN, ALIEN AGENT, AQUANOIDS, BABERELLAS (porn?), THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT (any relation to A SOUND OF THUNDER?), THE CHILDREN OF MEN (adapted from P.D. James' novel, maybe?), GOOD BOY!, THE I INSIDE, LEECHES, THE LOW BUDGET TIME MACHINE (can't be worse than the big-budget version), MEGAPOLIS (probably won't be made, PAYCHECK, PHOENIX POINT, RATS (maybe in a double feature with LEECHES), SEX LIES AND SUPERHEROES, SUMURU, THE UGLY ONE, UNDEAD, THE UNINVITED and YERBA CITY. But what do I know? I'm just reprinting those without any critical judgment whatsoever. That'll come later. Like, when I'll see them. Until then, all hopes are allowed. Maybe there will be one, just one, worthwhile film in the bunch.

As usual, come again next year as we survey the wreckage of the year that'll be.