10. “2046” (2004)
Wong Kar Wai followed his mannered, yearning romance “In the Mood for Love” with what is, for Wong, a surprisingly direct sequel. Tony Leung Chiu-wai appears again as Chow, mourning his relationship failure by remaking his own image, and holed up in a hotel where he falls in love anew and pens science fiction tales, visualized gloriously for us, about a dystopian future where, maybe, lost memories can be found. So it’s about science fiction, kind of, but is the film itself sci-fi? Yes, if more in the manner of “La Jetee” and “Alphaville” than “Star Trek.” The director’s collision of intuition and perfectionism fostered an extended, fluid production. The result is a remix of the pains of love and regret so masterfully depicted in “In the Mood for Love,” but one that seems to be remaking itself as it goes along, melodrama as a self-aware system striving to replicate feelings rather than thought.
9. “Quatermass and the Pit” (1967)
Excavation in the London Underground reveals ancient human remains and the wreckage of a five million-year old alien craft, complete with strange passengers like giant mummified locusts. What emerges via these discoveries has ties to human evolution and religion, as uncovered by Andrew Kier as Professor Bernard Quatermass, gently bearish in tweed. Hammer Films is best known for its run of ’50s horror; that run began with a sci-fi/horror hybrid adapting groundbreaking 1953 TV series “The Quatermass Experiment.” Try to keep track: that original TV series had two sequel series, each of which was adapted into a feature film version. “Quatermass and the Pit,” aka “Five Million Years to Earth” in the U.S., adapted the third series as a blend of science fiction, folk horror, and pulp drama, pitched perfectly to appeal to “Twilight Zone” acolytes. The “Quatermass” series, despite revival attempts in the U.K., remains relatively undiscovered in the U.S., but this film is the best entry point to a collection of stories that deserve a lot more attention. (BBC America has announced a new “Quatermass” remake for television, so perhaps the professor’s time has come round again.)
Thank you for realizing “Catching Fire” was essentially a rehash and correction of the first film. Overall, the series never had much weight but the second one was always praised because, like the transition from “Assassin’s Creed” to “Assassin’s Creed II” in video games, they listened to fans to fix the tone and all. Personally, I think “The Hunger Games” would have been more successful if it hadn’t tried to be so bland. A lot of the writing felt like it was taken from other sources, not just “Battle Royale”. I have to say thank you for praising “Back to the Future Part II”. The sequels have never been particularly praised but I feel that Part II and Part III were made with a love of filmmaking and creativity, especially with Zemeckis who is a master of the visual medium. He likes to let himself run amok sometimes but when he’s on, he keeps you interested. Not to mention the split screen techniques used to have Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd talking to themselves or be in the same scene as each other is still pretty mind-blowing, especially how it’s utilized in the story. In a lot of ways, while being simpler and fun, it’s what “Primer” did years later. The continuing misuse of time travel and how it sort of folds over on itself. That’s just my thought anyway.
I’m going to check your prostate…with my foot. (^.~)