As much as I've always liked and respected William 'Bill' Shatner, I equally don't much care for JJ 'JarJar' Abrams.  In short (and with as little controversy as possible), his stories are the ultimate modern-Age developments, the kind that lack any lyrical substance and -- in the end -- look good, sound pretty, but are immeasurably vacuous at heart.  Much like Spielberg, Abrams gets his kicks on visuals, mostly, and -- while his films certainly are pretty, I find myself struggling to answer even the most basic questions when all is said and done ... like who was the good guy, who was the bad guy, and what really did all of this mean?

I'm reading this morning over on Yahoo News (and other outlets) about how Shatner spoke at the recent Saturn Awards about his desire to return to the Trek franchise in the role of Capt. Kirk, much in the same way that the late Leonard Nimoy enjoyed appearances in JJ's Star Trek and (the God-awful) Star Trek Into Darkness ... and I can't help but ask myself, "Why?"  Why go back and visit a character that's pretty much lived up to about as much potential cinematically as it ever could?  I suspect -- in some regards -- that maybe this is (ahem) vanity (both good and bad aspects of it) because Shatner believes there may yet be a story to tell ... but methinks JJ's ego probably won't let any highly regarded Thespian who speaks for a generation to take over his projects.

Again, I don't offer this up to diss either storyteller.  Abrams certainly has his supporters (if Box Office is any indication) whereas Shatner methinks has earned the right to speak whenever he wants about the state of Trek past, present, and future.  Maybe Bill is trying to con JJ into one more ride in the captain's chair ... or maybe it's just the fans who are suffering the con of both men.  Whatever the case, I'd rather the franchise boldly go where no one has gone before instead of where it's at today.

My two cents ...

As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

​1966’s STAR PILOT is precisely the kind of film that gives mid-60’s Science Fiction a bad name.  Deservedly.

​I say this even though I grew up in an era wherein public domain movies were practically all my small town TV set could get on Friday nights and Saturday mornings.  Many of these features much later found new life as part of the small screen lampooning done compliments of the knuckleheads at MST3K.  While there are pieces of PILOT I found familiar – making me wonder if I had, in fact, seen it before in my youth – I’m happy to forget all about it … except for the two lovely ladies who brought an unbelievable amount of camp to their respective performances.
 
So – basically – it’s the 1960’s, and Professor Solmi, his aide, and his daughter Luisa are called to investigate a geological phenomenon that turns out to be soil decay caused by the slowly-awakening spacecraft lodged well beneath the soil.  Eventually, Solmi and others (some technicians and a few Chinese spies somehow thrown in for plot convenience) find their way aboard the craft and are forcibly enlisted by Captain Kaena and her (ahem) two evil minions (well, after her robots are needlessly slaughtered by the Chinese) to help them raise the ship for yet one more adventure in the stars.  Along the way, these two races find common ground … but can they find love?
 
Seriously, STAR PILOT is the kind of thing one wonders just how and/or why it ever got off the ground (pun intended, for the damaged spacecraft).  Films come and go, but truly only the very worst (in most cases) end up falling into the public domain where they used to be scarfed up by syndicated outlets for eventual broadcast.  As a story, it’s deliriously unfocused, and perhaps only the cast inclusion of the particularly fetching Leonora Ruffo as Kaena paired up with the equally robust Leontine May interested potential (male!) investors.  So much of the action makes so little sense, including the footage truncated from another feature in the latter half in order to perhaps give it a better run-time as well as a more coherent series of events.  Performances are stoic (at best) or downright hammy (at worst), giving the entire presentation the feel that it was all culled together by some fancy-pants post production work in the editing suite.
 
In fact, besides the two memorable lasses there really isn’t much to say about STAR PILOT.
 
It begins with some obligatory set-up and then suddenly segues into what feels more like an old travelogue piece as the Professor and his small team go about sightseeing because – well – that’s what one does when they’re on the way to investigate unexplained phenomenon.  There’s no dialogue, only a long segment dedicated to the Professor and his team looking at this, the Professor and his team now flying in a helicopter over some archaeological ruins, and then young Luisa joking it up with the pilot.  Eventually, they (and the audience) make their way to the downed spacecraft’s location … which just so happens to have a fully furnished and useable cabin nearby!  The mystery deepens, which gives the team the cause to go out unexpectedly at night, a development that only feels like whatever logically was required for a few shots of actress May in her underpants.
 
Now, this is about the time when the armed Chinese agents show up (probably because someone realized that a villain was needed at some point in the story), and they’re hell bent on … well … something or other, but they’re not gonna stand there and let the Professor get his hands on that spaceship, no they’re not!  But then they do, and they’re forced to join in when Kaena and her henchmen – Artie and Belsy – in getting their ship spaceworthy again so the latter half of the picture can begin.
 
To the narrative’s credit, they do get into outer space again – hence the need to probably called it STAR PILOT as opposed to, say, “Dirt Pilot” – heading off to visit uncharted worlds overrun by ape-like creatures right out of the third season of NBC’s Star Trek or (worse) CBS’s Lost In Space.  (I kid, as neither of these shows had aired at the time of PILOT’s release.)  Eventually, science rears its ugly head (as does “love”) with the crew returning to Kaena’s homeworld only to find an obelisk proclaiming everything was dead from nuclear annihilation … well, except for whoever stayed around to erect the obelisk.
 
Now – all kidding aside – STAR PILOT isn’t a complete and utter waste.

Actually, some of the ship’s interior sets are quite good (especially considering the era and the poor attention to detail by seemingly everyone else), though about halfway through most of the action I started wondering if everything logistically was located on a single floor of the craft.  And there’s always terrific value in unintended laughs, for which PILOT was a bit of a viewer’s delight (so far as this viewer was concerned).  Plus, so many sequences really felt like they were excuses for Ruffo and May to try on other space-age outfits: who knew that body stockings and feather boas would have so grand a future in Outer Space?

​Back in the day, SLIPSTREAM was the kind of release I heard about all of the time.  I worked briefly in the home video industry, and – when it came out – customers rented it as a curiosity largely due to the placement of STAR WARS’s Mark Hamill prominently in the packaging.  In fact, I vaguely recall someone promising that the actor’s time as a Jedi Knight might’ve made Hamill a household name “but it was SLIPSTREAM that would make him a bona fide Science Fiction star!”  Of course, such notoriety never quite materialized, but the flick enjoyed a modest sleeper status for its era.
 
Respectfully, SLIPSTREAM does have a modest bit of charm to it.  Besides Hamill (as Will Tasker, lawman), the film offers the always likeable Bill Paxton in what might be one of his earliest lead performances as the kinda/sorta fortune hunter and hustler Matt Owens; and it’s Paxton’s obvious chutzpah that makes much of even the dullest points of the plot work.  The late Bob Peck – best known for his turn in Steven Spielberg’s JURASSIC PARK wherein he portrays the big game hunter tasked with keeping the predators under his watchful eye – plays Byron, an android (of sorts) on the run from Tasker for reasons that never quite get adequately explored.  Throw in the fact that even the great Ben Kingsley and F. Murray Abraham fill out important supporting roles and one begins to question why the film hasn’t been more widely seen … but leave it to those who have seen it to perhaps enlighten the rest.
 
Thematically, SLIPSTREAM is all over the place.
 
The feature opens with a voiceover – something I’ve often called a “kiss of death” for the Science Fiction film: if your world is so complex that it needs to be explained by essentially breaking the fourth wall, then you’re already embarking on a risky business.  Basically, what we learn is that it’s the future, the Earth has suffered some kind of environmental catastrophe, and now mankind is left to navigate the planet via the ‘slipstream,’ an apparently global phenomenon perhaps a bit too mystical for something as simple as “wind.”
 
At times, the film feels almost juvenile, especially early on when Paxton’s antics resemble somewhat his performance in James Cameron’s ALIENS yet toned down as if presumably for a younger audience.  However, once Peck and Paxton join forces, the film takes on an almost “buddy comedy” quality, all this in spite of the fact that Paxton’s Owens eventually seeks to profit from the bounty on the android’s head.  Director Steven Lisberger sets much of SLIPSTREAM’s action in the post-Apocalyptic wasteland not all that dissimilar from George Miller’s MAD MAX films (indeed, the flick at times ‘feels’ like it could be in the same universe), with nifty air-gliders replacing the gas-guzzling vehicles.  Late in the piece, however, SLIPSTREAM suddenly starts channeling SciFi’s meatiest elements with characters suddenly delivering brief soliloquies about space and time and one’s place in the remaining universe, even postulating (almost ironically) whether or not androids dream of electric sheep.  (The wittier readers will understand the reference.)
 
Quantitatively, it all builds to a life-or-death showdown, but – qualitatively – methinks most audience members will be left scratching their heads over scenes involving vengeance and mercy in a film that spent so much of its time in the vastly more comfortable “fish out of water” territory.  Hamill’s Tasker – in particular – is so poorly written by screenwriter Tony Kayden that it’s hard to understand whether or not we’re supposed to like or hate him; he’s introduced with a kind of ‘Han Solo’ charm but then out of the blue he starts thirsting for blood, so much so that I can’t help but wonder if the script was reworked at some point in the production process to ramp up the violence (or, at least, the potential for it).
 
Still, SLIPSTREAM remains a legitimate curiosity, at many times embracing the B-movie elements the way a good sleeper should.
 
I’ve done a bit of reading on the film (what little I could find), and what I’ve learned suggests that Kurtz – at one time a huge collaborator with George Lucas before their falling out sometime between THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK and RETURN OF THE JEDI – was never quite pleased with finished product.  Wikipedia suggests that the producer intended for the film to perhaps be a bit darker and with more violence, and it even admits that such changes might’ve strengthened the plot (which seemed disheveled, at best).  Sadly, the film resides in the public domain, so it’s unlikely we’ll ever have any kind of special release with added features to tell us just what we missed.
 
I’ve written often of my love for B-movies, and I’d certainly consider SLIPSTREAM a B-movie but with grade-A talent.  As a story, it works as often as it doesn’t; and as entertainment you’re likely to be as entertained as you are frustrated.  But that’s one of the B-movies most endearing qualities: they force viewers to occasionally fill in a few blanks along the way, maybe even giving the audience the chance to connect in a way unlike major studio fare like STAR WARS or RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK that are made and packaged to be experienced vicariously.  Bill Paxton’s Owens may not always be noble, but he ends up that way; and Bob Peck’s android may not have a soul, but he finds one in spite of a few narrative contrivances.  Anything else you find is just icing on the cake, and there are far worse baked goods out there than SLIPSTREAM.

Regular readers at SciFiHistory.Net know that I'm no huge fan of the latest incarnation of Star Trek made for the big screen by JJ Abrams and Paramount Pictures, but my criticisms have honestly had nothing to do with the talent on-screen.

​In fact, I think each and every one of the actors have done the very best they could with the material provided them, even when considering how little screen time Anton Yelchin was given in Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness (2013).  Sadly, Star Trek Beyond (upcoming) largely looks like it's going continue into Trekdom's thematic decline, the latest gaffe being actor Chris Pine's admission (paraphrased) that "Star Trek can't be cerebral any more."

All griping aside, I -- probably like most -- was absolutely gobsmacked with the news today that Yelchin was the victim of a freak accident (apparently by his own hand and with his own automobile), leaving the young actor to be found dead by friends and family at his own home this morning.  It's sad, sad news to have to share; he was a young talent with plenty of promise.  Thoughts and prayers go out worldwide to all those in mourning.

​Matt Damon?  Not a fan.  Never have been.  Now, honestly, part of it has to do with my political persuasion, of which Matt Damon and I would probably rarely if ever agree on issues.  But beyond that … I just haven’t been all that impressed with him as an actor.  He’s had good roles, mind you, and I’m certainly not gonna nitpick any particular Thespian’s roles apart.  It just seems to me that Matt’s repertoire consists entirely of two different speaking levels, a Boston accent, and the occasional facial twitch here or there in the mastery of any character.
 
Before you hate me, I’ve often said the same of Tom Cruise but the difference between Matt and Tom is that I think on some level Mr. Cruise knows what he’s particular good at and he delivers on it almost each and every time he’s asked.  Matt – on the other hand – finds his way often into big budget films that just don’t resonate with me … but I’ll endure as THE MARTIAN is definitely something in my wheelhouse as a longtime SciFi junkie.
 
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last three paragraphs for my final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
 
From the product packaging: (edited) “When an American astronaut is left behind during a mission to Mars, he must find a way to survive on the barren planet until a team of scientists can devise a rescue plan to bring him home!”
 
If you’ve seen the adverts for THE MARTIAN then rest assured you’ve really seen this picture.  Without sounding unnecessarily obtuse, this is a high-tech re-visioning of ROBINSON CRUSOE ON MARS with more than a dollop or two culled from APOLLO 13.  (Yes, I know it’s based on a novel.)  And – in that respect – it’s actually done quite well, so much so that I’m not surprised at the awards notices it received.  Granted, I didn’t see Damon’s performance as that particularly enlightening, but I think much of that goes back to the writing and not the actor: not a lot of depth was required so long as you bought into the circumstances.
 
Under Ridley Scott’s direction, THE MARTIAN is masterfully entertaining.  It’s vivid.  It’s tense.  It’s jaw-droppingly beautiful at times.  Everyone in front of and behind the camera clearly all hit their marks, though there are a few players who didn’t quite seem to be up to the level of talent required here: Kristen Wiig maintained an appearance that seemed to be stifling a laugh consistently (I have seen her in other dramas and liked her, so it isn’t the ol’ ‘comedienne’s curse,’ if that’s what you’re thinking), and Jeff Daniels seemed far too dry to be an authentic government bureaucrat (for my tastes).  Still, those are easy to overlook when the packaging around them was handled so well.
 
And while I didn’t think the film effectively addressed everything involved in Damon’s existence on Mars (never once did it satisfactorily explain his seemingly inexhaustible supply of oxygen), I think my only real gripe with it is that I found it entirely too long.  I didn’t see this one theatrically, and this “extended edition” only adds 10 minutes to the running time … but the relatively predictable result after two-and-one-half hours was a bit of a letdown to me.
 
Yes, you can call me cynical, if you like.  You wouldn’t be the first.
 
THE MARTIAN: EXTENDED EDITION (2016) is produced by 20th Century Fox.  DVD distribution for this release is being handled by Fox Home Video.  As for the technical specs?  Folks, this is a Ridley Scott film, so you can expect the highest quality sights and sounds associated to it, and it all looks and sounds wonderful.  Also, the disc is chocked full of special features: two different cuts (the theatrical and the extended version), commentaries, behind-the-scenes features, a gag reel, and quite a bit more.  Seriously, if you’re a fan of this film, then you probably owe it to yourself to purchase this upgrade.
 
RECOMMENDED.  Despite some weaknesses in the narrative, THE MARTIAN is probably as close to a crowd-pleaser as one can get these days.  At times it grows a bit formulaic, and director Ridley Scott continues to impress even with his masterful command of Science Fiction entries.  While I wasn’t a fan of several casting choices, methinks the ensemble does end up being greater here than any individual contributor, and there’s definitely something to be said for that.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at 20th Century Fox provided me with a Blu-ray of THE MARTIAN: EXTENDED EDITION by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

"Flushback" is a periodically recurring feature on SciFiHistory.Net wherein older films get re-examined to see if -- somehow -- they improved with the passage of time.  (My guess is that, in most cases, they won't.)

I’d forgotten how frustrated I was with Predator 2.  Granted, I remember seeing it theatrically and really not thinking good thoughts of it, but seeing it again recently only refreshed all of the disappointment I felt with what shoulda/coulda/woulda been a fantastic follow-up and (minimally) the start of a better franchise.
 
Having done a fair amount of reading into the film (well, what’s available via web outlets anyway), I realized that Arnold Schwarzenegger – star of the original film – was the first choice to headline the follow-up, and that’s a creative move that would’ve made far greater sense than bringing in new blood.  However, what I did learn was that Arnold backed out due to what arguably is an incredibly insignificant amount of money ($250,000 less than what he wanted); I can only imagine that the producers were kicking themselves as this vacancy probably cost them at least that much in rewrites alone, though I’m not entirely convinced that was money well spent either.
 
Basically what you have with Predator 2 is the great return of the alien hunter but, this time, he’s been transferred from the mighty jungle to one vastly more urban: the gang-filled streets of Los Angeles.  Somehow (in a plot contrivance that never quite gets developed) the Predator has decided to “clean up the streets” of the Bloods, the Crips, the Jets, and the Sharks, only to come up against the toughest beat cop this side of dirty Harry in the form of Michael Harrigan (played by Danny Glover).  Naturally, the cop gets his own team; and together they chase down the alien, but not at the expense of a few of the city’s finest.  Before all is said and done, Harrigan and the Hunter (could’ve been a sitcom) go mano’a’mano in the big finish, with the script holding back a trump card for a reveal that gives Glover the chance to deliver a truly funny quip … much like Schwarzenegger would’ve done.
 
While I loved the move from the jungle to the wild streets, that’s honestly about all I did love in Predator 2.
 
The performances are all rote, with each and every character feeling more obligatory than they did authentic to even what was intended as a hard-boiled script.  The lovely Maria Conchita Alonso is wasted as the bitter female officer whose adopted the ways of men in order to survive in life (and this motion picture); the great Bill Paxton basically repeats the work he did in James Cameron’s Aliens as a streetwise new detective who thinks he’s God’s gift to mankind; and Ruben Blades is not given enough material or screen time to shine the way he has in smaller roles.  Glover’s Harrigan is what I’d call a cinematic paradox: the actor had only recently been made famous by playing Roger “I’m too old for this sh#t” Murtaugh (Richard Donner’s Lethal Weapon) and appears entirely out-of-place in a roll better suited for, say, Mel Gibson?
 
Why, even the Predator himself (herself?) never quite seems up to snuff here as his abilities with invisibility tend to come and go as either the screenplay requires or perhaps the production people simply forget the hunter had that talent.  He has no problem mowing down gangbangers, one after another, but it takes him apparently a level of advanced concentration to hit one of contracted headliners.
 
As I said, I totally got into the move from the jungle to the city, but Jim and John Thomas’s script really lacked cohesion in understanding what made the Predator such a tangible menace in the first film, instead reducing the character to some kind of urban stalker with the face of – well – female genitalia.  In their hands, the hunter gets reduced to a weird urban Jack the Ripper albeit with better tools.  This was only director Stephen Hopkins third film, and perhaps a more experienced storyteller would’ve noticed all of the narrative weaknesses in the pre-production stage, as so very much of the film “feels” like he shouted ‘action’ and let everyone just roll with it.
 
That said, I’m certainly glad that the Predator franchise continued (after a time), though none of the subsequent installments really got any better.  In that respect, Predator 2 kinda/sorta underscores that maybe this particular alien shtick still evades quality understanding for untested screenwriters.  This means that someone might eventually go back to the creative nuances of the first feature and recapture what made the hunt worth repeating.

​Think what you may but I think Dark Horse has weathered a pretty rough ride these past few years.  Essentially, they lost something special when the Lucasfilm licensing for the Star Wars comic books was pulled out from under their publishing feet and given back to Marvel (where it has been decades ago), but – as they say in the world of business – “it is what it is.”  Frankly, I think they did some spectacular things with Luke, Han, and Leia, and I haven’t been all that enamored with what little I’ve read of Marvels ‘official canon’ exploits.
 
In any event, this brings me to PROMETHEUS, another franchise they have their hooks into.  What they began with the mega-crossover event, FIRE AND STONE (it bridged the worlds of Aliens, Prometheus, and Predator into one collective property), is now continuing under the mini-series, LIFE AND DEATH.
 
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last three paragraphs for my final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
 
From the press materials: Colonial Marines have commandeered a mysterious alien ship—wresting it from the savage Predators who also wanted it. But now the owner of the vessel has awakened, and the marines find themselves trapped in space with an angry god!
 
Even for this long-time (admitted) SciFi junkie, Ridley Scott’s film Prometheus was a tough sell.  As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t think a lot of the pre-release interviews helped the flick, mostly because there was always an ongoing debate about whether or not the property legitimately tied into Scott’s earlier Alien saga.  Truth be told, it did, but it probably didn’t touch as closely to that commodity as audiences either wanted or expected; reviews were kind though I think audiences didn’t quite know what to make of the motion picture.  This tends to happen when you show up expecting Indiana Jones and you get Allan Quartermain.
 
However, Dark Horse Comics has opted to continue with the franchise while audiences patiently wait for the next theatrical outing; and – as my tastes go – they’re doing a pretty reasonable job despite some of the canon’s nebulousness.  LIFE AND DEATH is an awful lot of set-up – there’s an opening page that helps place the tale chronologically – as established Dark Horse readers are probably the only one who’ll fully understand from whence this tale springs in the early pages otherwise.  (Rest assured, newbies, it ain’t all that difficult.)
 
Where LIFE AND DEATH really takes off is in the latter half of this issue: the first half spends time with the particulars of introducing characters and placing them in a precarious set of circumstances, but once that is out of the way and the presumed antagonist rears his Godly noggin it’s all guns and blood … typically something one expects from military-based space operas of this magnitude.  At first blush, scribe Dan Abnett’s story appears to tap into the elements that made ALIEN and ALIENS (the film) such wild romps – a unknown spaceship, Colonial Marines, and a menace to be avoided at all costs – though wise readers know that no writer worth his (or her) salt plays all his (or her) cards in the first issue, so stay tuned as what comes next might just be everything fans have dreamed about since this space journey began.
 
PROMETHEUS: LIFE AND DEATH (1 of 4) is published by Dark Horse Comics.  The tale is scripted by Dan Abnett; the art is provided by Andrea Mutti; the colors are by Rain Beredo; with lettering by Michael Heisler.  For those interested in special features, there’s a brief afterward that talks about the behind-the-scenes mechanics of bringing this ongoing ALIENS-based saga to life on the page, and it’s worth the read.
 
RECOMMENDED.  If you liked the cinematic world that Ridley Scott’s PROMETHEUS served up, then there’s probably as much to love here, though I’ll admit that so very much of it essentially serves as an action-packed set-up for things to follow.  And – despite what you might fear – I don’t think you need to be as familiar with the events taking place in the already completed multi-property crossover, “Fire and Stone,” as this installment opens with a respectable recap.  (Still, there’s nothing wrong with picking up a copy, if you’re so inclined.)
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Dark Horse Comics provided me with a digital reading copy of Prometheus: Life and Death (1 of 4) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

The problem with my reviewing Science Fiction films can be a bit vexing.  As a long-time admitted SciFi enthusiast, I have developed a talent for finding a bright spot – even the dim ones – in practically any relatable property.

For example, I recently screened 1962’s Journey To The Seventh Planet on home video, a flick that’s almost universally regarded as one of the worst space adventures of its era.  The result?  Well, I didn’t dislike it, certainly not anywhere near the magnitude that most critical types ascribe to the Sidney Pink film.  Despite some obvious plot contrivances, there were parts I found almost zanily wholesome.
 
Which brings me to Andron …
 
From the press materials:
In the year 2154, a group of young men and women awake in a dark claustrophobic maze. They don't remember who they are or how they got stuck in the Black Labyrinth of Andron. The group must learn to decipher codes, understand the signals and beat the tests in this mysterious and bizarre place. Out of necessity they struggle to form a bond to survive, while the outside world watches and wagers on their fate. 
 
Despite the presence of some big contenders, such as two of mankind’s biggest and most bitter Liberal blowhards like Alec Baldwin and Danny Glover, Andron is more than a bit of a narrative mess.  Writer/director Francesco Cinquemani captured his dystopian tale with lots of herky-jerky camera work and plenty of question sound recording, and he’s figuratively packed it to the gills with every SciFi cliché and/or trope imaginable.  In fact, at times I suspect some might question whether or not Cinquemani went out and made his own film or simply purchased countless reels of unused The Hunger Games B-roll and spliced it together.
 
The biggest problem is that – unlike other recent contenders trying capitalize on the young-adult-novel-adaptation craze – Andron takes too long to really say what all the fuss is really about: the participants of ‘the Redemption Games’ (sound familiar?) are stuck in this ‘fish out of water’ mind game wherein even the audience isn’t let in on what’s fully up until about halfway into the motion picture.  Far too much time is invested with actors and actresses walking around some abandoned warehouse, posturing, saying things like “What is this place?” or even the ubiquitous “This place is alive!”  (Hint: it isn’t.)  By that point, I had completely lost interest in the poorly drawn characters, each of every one of them dulled down with dialogue so bland it may as well not have been said.  The upside?  They have no memories (kinda/sorta accurate), but audiences will likely have no memory of having watched this languid adventure once it’s over.
 
Still, I do so love SciFi so very much that I can still appreciate watching a bunch of reasonably good-looking millennials on the run from Alec Baldwin.  And Cinquemani does chock his feature full of the kind of ideas fanboys and fangirls do love to talk and think about.  As a result, Andron may find an audience – albeit small and maybe even cult(ish) – but I doubt it’ll earn the clout needed to fully greenlit the sequel hinted at in its closing frames.
 
(MILDLY) RECOMMENDED (for die-hard SciFi folks only).

In the final estimation, Andron isn’t an awful film: it’s simply awfully derivative.  On some levels, it’ll likely strike a chord with fans of dystopian Science Fiction (from which it steals shamelessly and often), but the lack of any original idea will more probably deem it to the cinematic dustbin before too long.  On that note, I’m not sure any of the cast and crew deserved better.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Momentum Pictures provided me with an online opportunity to online screen their film, Andron (2016), for the purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.