dhnyny

Blood and Chrome is the weakest piece of the modern Battlestar Galactica universe. Battlestar Galactica was brilliant because it combined superb acting, writing, direction, cinematography, special effects, and music. It was satisfying both intellectually and emotionally, probing compelling issues while also delivering adrenaline.

Caprica wasn't quite at the same level, or at least not as consistently successful. Like all prequels, it had to be both engaging in its own right and merge neatly with the existing narrative. It set up an intriguing world, populated with a somewhat uneven cast of characters, but the gap between where it began and where it would have to end if it was going to leave off where BG began was too great. That gap might have ultimately been spanned over the course of four or five seasons, but Caprica wasn't strong enough in its own right to be sustained for that long. Given how well any series must do in order to avoid cancellation, the producers of Caprica would have done better to plot out a two- or three-season series that would feel throughout as though it was building momentum toward BG itself. That was a tall order and they didn't manage it. Caprica is worth watching but feels unfinished. (Then again, the last season of BG itself wasn't nearly as good as what came before it.)

Blood and Chrome looks like a member of the BG/Caprica family but only superficially. It's weaker in almost every way, except perhaps visually. As a piece of generic space-based sci fi it's quite average: you've got space ships, good and evil, battle scenes, tension, death and destruction. But it's not actually interesting. It lacks any of the exploration of compelling questions that animated BG and, to a lesser extent, Caprica. BG and Caprica were series that might just appeal to viewers who didn't ordinarily care for sci fi. Not Blood and Chrome. It has nothing to say about the human condition, doesn't ask any questions, doesn't provoke any thought. In short, it lacks the critical core qualities that made Battlestar Galactica unusual and wonderful.

My brother took me to this film at a Brooklyn film festival because the soundtrack features four of his compositions. Nevertheless, about halfway through the film I found myself wondering why in the world I was sitting there watching it. The film tells the story of several days in the life of Jesse, a 13-year-old boy in Toronto. The filmmakers have nothing original to say about this well-worn topic. Several events or statements by characters feel unrealistic but not in an interesting way or for an interesting purpose. For example, numerous comments about sexual orientation and alcohol ring untrue. The biggest example is what Jesse chooses to submit as his assignment in a photography class, a choice with pointless shock value and no apparent connection to his character. The acting is uneven but the cast doesn't have much to work with, given the limitations of the script. The cinematography is beyond bad, full of pointlessly quirky shots that suggest the camera-work of a first-year film student who is just fooling around.

Readers of Jack Christal-Gattanella's comments may get the mistaken impression that "Solaris" is a remake of "2001." It is a remake of the 1972 film "Solyaris," a masterpiece by Russian director Tarkovsky, not of "2001." It strikes me as odd to make any comparison at all between "Solaris" and "2001," since the films have next to nothing of significance in common, other than being science fiction films written by masters of the genre, Lem and Clarke, respectively.