Tag: science

PROJECT HAIL MARY – Review

Ryan Gosling stars as Ryland Grace in PROJECT HAIL MARY, from Amazon MGM Studios. Photo credit: Jonathan Olley. © 2026 Amazon Content Services LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Can a middle school science teacher save the world? With Ryan Gosling as the teacher with more potential than it first appears, he just might. In the intelligent, highly-entertaining, often funny science fiction adventure epic PROJECT HAIL MARY, we set out to find out, with a perfectly-cast Ryan Gosling as the science teacher plucked out of his classroom to try to do something incredible to try to save the world. PROJECT HAIL MARY is a film that exceeds expectations of what it could be, with great performance by Ryan Gosling, in a top-notch, visually glorious adaptation of the best-selling novel by the author of “The Martian,” Andrew Weir.

Like the movie adaptation of “The Martian,” this tale is science-forward and a thrilling adventure tale with a good dose of humor, about an unlikely man who finds himself in space, tasked with saving the world by using his brain-power, creativity and scientific skills to figure out how to not only survive, but save the planet – and more. Humor is a bigger part of PROJECT HAIL MARY than in THE MARTIAN, with its quirky main character, but this is still a smart, science-filled adventure that also offers the same uplift as THE MARTIAN.

Reportedly, PROJECT HAIL MARY is largely faithful to the best-selling novel. The film is directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, the Oscar-winning team behind SPIDER-MAN: INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE, and THE LEGO MOVIE. Besides the frequent use of humor, PROJECT HAIL MARY is an optimistic film, offering hope and inspiration, which is a refreshing change from the dystopian science fiction dramas more common now, and making it a call-back to some earlier classic science fiction. Ryan Gosling carries the film as almost a one-man show for most of the film, and does so brilliantly, with charm, humor and heart.

Humor is a bigger part of PROJECT HAIL MARY than THE MARTIAN, often laugh-out-loud funny, but Ryan Gosling’s biology teacher in space, like the stranding astronaut in that previous film, has to uses his knowledge to figure it out on his own. But it is not just his survival at stake but the whole planet – and more – as something is destroying – eating – the sun. An international team has come together to solve the problem before the sun dims too much to sustain life on Earth. They recruit teacher Dr. Rylance Grace (Ryan Gosling), a molecular biologist who was ostracized from the scientific community after publishing a paper with a shocking premise, to help figure out what is destroying the sun, as part of a “try everything” plan to save the Earth.

But we first meet Dr. Grace as he is waking up from an induced coma aboard a spaceship, light-years from Earth. Grace remembers who he is but little else – not where he is, how he got there, or why he’s there, due to the prolonged time spent in an unconscious state for the trip. As Grace comically stumbles around the ship, he starts to figure things and discovers he is the only crew member to survive the journey.

Ryan Gosling is perfect in this role as this smart but quirky, funny and self-deprecating reluctant astronaut. The memories start to come back as this lone scientist starts to figure things out, which allows the film to tell us the backstory in long flashback sequences, of what brought him to space and why, while Grace’s space adventure story in the film’s present moves forward. Like in THE MARTIAN, Gosling records himself in little messages to himself about what he is experiencing, videos that are both funny and helpful narrative.

While it is only Gosling on screen much of the time, he does get some help from a few co-stars. Sandra Huller plays the stone-faced leader of one of the international teams working on the threat to Earth, who recruits the reluctant Dr. Grace to help with the project.

When Huller’s Eva Stratt shows up at Grace’s school, Grace argues that he’s just a teacher, but she counters by pointing to his biology paper with a startling hypothesis about life on other planets. Grace has a PhD in molecular biology, not astrobiology (yes, that’s a real field) but Stratt wants him to give it a shot anyway. Huller plays this character with a deadpan style that is the perfect comic foil for Gosling’s more emotional, oddball, non-conformist Dr. Grace.

Of course, Eva Stratt’s team isn’t the only one working on this problem, as many other teams are trying to solve it from different angles, and presumably, another team is working on this with astrobiologists. After all, it’s called Project Hail Mary because finding the solution is such a long shot – but the alternative is to do nothing and just wait to die.

Throughout the Earth-based part of the film, before he finds himself in space, Gosling’s Dr. Grace is reluctant, due to lack of self-confidence or maybe just aversion to risk, although when backed into the proverbial corner, he shows remarkable resourcefulness. His ability to “figure things out” keeps him on the team as they move towards finding a solution. But once he wakes up in space alone, he has to overcome this innate reluctance because he only has himself.

Gosling’s other major co-star is a space alien he meets when he encounters another spaceship. also with a sole occupant, sent from a different planet with a similar mission. This is no spoiler, as the alien is in the movie’s trailer, and the character is a major par of the story. The alien, which Grace dubs Rocky, is played by a puppet that looks like a rock with legs, winningly operated and voiced by puppeteer James Ortiz. Rocky is enthusiastic and energetic, and his comic bits have Gosling playing the foil, as the two, scientist and engineer, “figure things out” (a repeated phrase in this film).

Yes, the film has a little fun with the title, with Gosling’s Grace aboard a spaceship he calls Mary, but this is a smart if playful film. PROJECT HAIL MARY gets most of the science right and also delivers it in an accessible, engaging way. The most hard-to-believe part is that the world would come together to solve this problem, something that hasn’t happened since nations and businesses worked together to fix and ozone hole, and with current anti-science attitudes and lack of international cooperation generally, seems exceedingly unlikely now.

Visually, the film is marvelous. It shifts between close-in personal sequences, often laced with humor, as the scientists work, and gripping, exciting adventure sequences, moments of danger and tension, often in space. The film is visually astounding, shot for IMAX and with some 70mm versions out there too, so it is well worth seeing on an IMAX screen for sheer enjoyment.

Despite it’s two and a half hour running time, PROJECT HAIL MARY does not feel long, due to its level of excitement and engaging storytelling, but this is clearly an epic story.

All in all, PROJECT HAIL MARY is a smart, entertaining, not-to-miss science fiction adventure film, with a fabulous performance by Ryan Gosling, a wonderful story, and terrific big-screen visual effects. It is something to see on the biggest possible screen, and it is a film that holds up as entertainment through multiple viewings, while inspiring with a hopeful message that we can use our brains to figure it out.

PROJECT HAIL MARY opens nationally in theaters on Friday, Mar. 20, 2026.

RATING: 4 out of 4 stars

THE HIDDEN LIFE OF TREES – Review

A scene from the documentary THE HIDDEN LIFE OF TREES.
Courtesy of Capelight Pictures, MPI Media Group and Fusion Entertainment.

A walk in the woods is a lovely thing but when it is nature tour is led by the deeply-knowledgeable, infectiously-enthusiastic Peter Wohlleben, a renowned forester with 25-years experience in forests and deep knowledge of the biology and ecology of trees, it is an entry into a secret world where trees communicate with each other and work together to benefit the whole.

It has a magical ring to it but Peter Wohlleben’s lessons are rooted firmly in science – plant biology and ecology – and his years of experience tending forests. Wohlleben is the author of the 2015 non-fiction book “The Hidden Life Of Trees,” the basis of this documentary of the same name. The non-fiction book, an international bestseller, presents scientific fact in the form of an accessible tale of the secret, social lives of trees. The documentary offers Wohlleben narrating immersive tours of the forests, along with generous excerpts from his non-fiction book presented by a narrator, footage of Wohlleben teaching classes that introduce lay audiences to what plant science knows about how trees interact with each other and their environment, and Wohlleben interacting with loggers, gently making the case for sustainable practices and imparting his knowledge of forests in a friendly, respectful way, drawing on his standing as someone with years of expertise in forestry to strengthen his points.

When looking at animals, we are never surprised to learn that they are social or that they have ways of communicating with others in their group. But people have a different perception of plants. Because they don’t get up and run around, and do not vocalize, it is easy to think of them as being like rocks. But as any student of plant biology quickly learns in class, plants do indeed move, but more slowly and in more subtle ways, something the documentary points out. Actually, it makes sense that a living thing that is rooted to one spot like a tree, which cannot get up and flee from threats, might have other ways to defend itself, and moreover, might want to help out others of its species survive as well. Such examples are all over the animal kingdom, but Wohlleben reveals how they exist in plants as well, specifically trees. Trees release chemicals into their cells and structure to discourage predators, such as insects and deer, and they also disperse chemical signals on the air to warn others of their species, to let them prepare for the threat.

The documentary has a good deal of such scientific information but Wohlleben, natural storyteller, always presents it in an accessible, even entertaining way. We cannot help but be caught up in his enthusiasm for trees and forests, as the charming, upbeat forester takes us on a tour of the woods – several woods, in fact – in his native Germany as well as Poland, Sweden and Canada. In his affable but clear way, he introduces us to the ways in which trees communicate and cooperate with others of their species, shelter and nurture young offspring trees, and form partnerships with other species like fungi for mutual benefit.

Director/writer Jorg Adolph avoids the usual documentary structure of talking head interviews and archival still and footage. Instead, we get lots of cinematographers Jan Haft’s and Daniel Schonauer’s immersive, beautiful photography of leafy forests, combined with imaginative graphics, making the documentary a visual delight. There is just the right amount of scientific detail, so the audience feels informed but not overwhelmed. Part of the documentary is Wohlleben’s nature walks, where he points out aspects of forest, and contrasts the health of old growth natural forests with mono-culture tree plantations of species not native to the region. Another part is sections of his non-fiction book, read by a narrator over images of trees and forests. A third part is Wohlleben talking about how to sustain forests, and people’s ability to use them, and visiting various location to talk with people who work with forests.

He also gently but persuasively presents the case for sustainable forest management to loggers, and to us in the audience, noting that conventional forestry is like putting a butcher in charge of animal care. Such an approach to forest management has a particular focus, which is not the benefit the trees or forest health. But Wohlleben is no unreasoning purist; he makes clear he is someone who enjoys wood products and understands the use of forests, and the people who work in them, from lifelong professional experience. That background gives him standing and credibility that other ecologists might lack, when he talks to those who make their living with trees. Wohlleben thinks people should be allowed to use forests, to harvest trees, but in a more sustainable way. His focus is on sustainability for people more than nature.

As an example of sustainable logging, the documentary presents footage as logger selectively harvests large trees, leaving the smaller ones to grow into the space now opened, and then instead of using heavy machinery, the weight of compacts soil, hauls the log out by heavy draft horse, a traditional method that leaves the forest floor intact and logging to continue with the next generation. In fairness, the documentary also lets other loggers have their say about their methods, and costs, although Wohlleben notes that one needs to look at the whole expense of growing and harvesting trees, not just a portion.

Wohlleben, always upbeat and informative, also visits sites in Sweden to see a tree believed to be the world’s oldest, carbon-dated to 10,000 years old, and a site in Germany where locals are trying to preserve a beloved local forest from development. He visits the site of a forest fire in a stand of non-native pines farmed for timber, to access re-growth and natural regeneration versus replanting. He talks about the hazards of cultivating non-native species of trees and threats like wood-boring beetles. He also goes to a site on Vancouver Island in Canada, where a small tribe of indigenous people are asking for more of a say in what happens in the forest of their traditional lands. It is a pretty wide-ranging documentary but always focused on trees and forests in temperate climates.

“THE HIDDEN LIFE OF TREES” is both an informative and enjoyable science-based nature documentary, elevated by fine forest photography and the charismatic, positive presence of its knowledgeable leader of our adventure among the trees, forester Peter Wohlleben. If you have not yet read Wohlleben’s fascinating book, this first-rate documentary may prompt you to seek it out – along with a nice walk in the woods.

THE HIDDEN LIFE OF TREES, in English and German with English subtitles, opens Friday, July 16, at Landmark’s Plaza Frontenac Cinema and other theaters nationally.

RATING: 4 out of 4 stars

THE LONELIEST WHALE: THE SEARCH FOR 52 – Review

A shot from the documentary THE LONELIEST WHALE: THE SEARCH FOR 52. Courtesy of Bleecker Street

A whale, apparently the only one of its kind, wandering the Pacific and persistently calling with no answer, is the subject of Joshua Zeman’s documentary THE LONELIEST WHALE: THE SEARCH FOR 52, or more precisely, a search for the whale no one had ever seen. That search of the seas aboard a ship named Truth is the framing devise, but director Zeman also examines at the human response to the whale’s plight, anthropomorphized reaction reflecting at a time when people were talking about social media and loneliness, as well as a brief exploration of humankind’s history with whales. Aboard a ship named Truth It adds up to a mix of sea-going adventure,

In 2004, the New Times posted an article about a whale that struck a chord with many people. “For many years, a whale had been cruising the Pacific from central California to the Aleutians, calling out with a voice unlike any other whale’s, and getting no response,” Andrew Revkin wrote in his New York Times article. The story was based on a scientific research article, “Twelve Years of Tracking 52-Hz Whale Calls From a Unique Source in the North Pacific,” in which Dr. William Watkins and other scientists detailed their 12-year study of the whale as it roamed the Pacific Ocean. The sound was first picked up in 1989 by a naval surveillance sound array, a unique repeating 52 Hertz sound like no other, just above a tuba’s lowest note but well above the range of other whale calls. Whales are highly social animals who communicate largely through sound, and this seemed to be a single whale, unable to communicate with other whales, perhaps the first of its species – or the last.

By the time filmmaker Josh Zeman heard about the 52 Hertz Whale from scientist Dr. Vint Virga, there were memes, poems, paintings, songs, sculptures, even a play about the loneliest whale. Clearly it had tapped into a deep well of feeling in the era of social media’s physical isolation and virtual connection. The heartbreaking story had quickly spread through social media, the sad story of the loneliest whale and his persistent unanswered calls resonating with so many.

Zeman was hooked, and began to wonder, naively, if he could find the 52 Hertz Whale, known to scientists as Watkin’s Whale or just 52. The documentary THE LONELIEST WHALE: THE SEARCH FOR 52 follows Zeman’s search. offering is a mix of mystery tale and high seas adventure, with a nice science slant, as the director enlists the help of a team of scientists to find 52. While the scientists hunt for the 52 Whale, the documentary serves up details on whale biology, whale songs and whale behavior, the history of underwater sound detection, a musicologist’s look at whale songs, a bit of meditation on the psycho-social meaning of the world wide response to this haunting tale of the lonely whale, and mankind’s long bloody history of whale hunting.

Tracking of the 52 Whale stopped in 2004 with the death of researcher Bill Watkins, and no one knew where the whale was now. Whales are long lived but more than a decade had passed, so no one even knew if the whale was still alive. Zeman approach several scientists about searching for 52, and got the same response: “a needle in a haystack.” Whales may be large but the ocean is vast, and finding a single whale was an impossible task.. Some scientists laughed when Zeman told them what he wanted to do, and when he said, “no, I’m serious,” laughed some more. Still, the idea intrigued some of the scientists, people who love a good puzzle and a challenge.

So Zeman turned the problem the other way. He asked several whale scientists to search their records for the sound of 52 – and gets a hit. The 52 Hertz sound had been recorded just a few years back and, conveniently, off the coast of California. The hunt was on, and it turned into a quest for Zeman, which he described as “Ahab-ian,” referencing obsessed captain of “Moby Dick” but without his bloody intent.

The documentary is packed with marvelous underwater photography, exciting footage of the search at rolling sea, and is filled with the infectious enthusiasm of the scientists Zeman recruited for the quest.

The search teamed Dr. John Hildebrand, a professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who specializes in whale sounds, with John Calambokidis, a research biologist and co-founder of Cascadia Research Collective in Olympia, Washington, who is an expert in the field work to identify whales. “In terms of a person who actually gets out in the field and does work with large whales, he’s the guy, ” Hildebrand said in the documentary. This scientific whale dream team and director Zeman embarked on a search for 52, starting with the last known location of the California coast, with Hildebrand’s team in tracking whales by sound and Calambokidis and his team chasing them by boat, taking skin samples and tagging them with tracking devices, so they would know when that particular whale would pass by that particular hydrophone singing.

Obviously, there is a lot of adventure in a seagoing quest, for a whale that many have heard but that no one has every seen. The hunt has the feel of adventure tale, and the scientists are all-in on the quest, heightening the documentary’s energy. There is plenty of excitement, gorgeous high seas photography, whale sightings and close encounters. Quest is full of tension and excitement but it does not follow the expected path. While there are startling discoveries but does not lead to a simple resolution.

Zeman mixes the sea-going search footage with wide-ranging background materials, including interviews and archival stills and footage. When not on the sea, the documentary presents a host of experts on whales ans whale song. When the Navy built its Sound Surveillance System ( SOSUS ) in the Cold War early 1950s, they were listening for Russian submarines. “No one knew there was whale sound underwater,” Dr David Rothenberg, musician, professor and author of “Thousand-Mile Song: Whale Music in a Sea of Sound.” While sailors long were aware of some whale sounds above the surface, no one knew the sounds traveled so far underwater. When a record of the haunting calls of humpback whales was released in 1970, it sparked the “save the whales” movement to end whale hunting, and a fascination with whales and their songs.

THE LONELIEST WHALE: THE SEARCH FOR 52 quest for 52 does not end as neatly as one might wish but what it does uncover is intriguing and raises new questions, in a coda at the film’s end. This is an enjoyable and well-made documentary with a wonderful underwater photography and satisfying scientific ocean adventure, and makes a fine pairing with another science-based whale documentary FATHOM released earlier this summer. Fans of whales, the ocean, or science will enjoy the adventure, for this is a whale of an outing.

RATING: 3 1/2 out of 4 stars

FATHOM – Review

Dr. Ellen Garland listens to a whale song near the islands of French Polynesia in the south Pacific, in the documentary FATHOM.
Courtesy of Apple TV+

Fathom is a word that can mean a measurement of sea depth or a struggle to understand a difficult or enigmatic subject. Both meanings apply in FATHOM, visually beautiful documentary about scientists trying to understand whales’ songs, filled with stunning images of rolling seas, rocky shores, and solitary scientists lit by the glow of a screen as they pour over their data.

There is a sense of being immersed in the scientists’ world of whale research, more like in a mystery film than a documentary. Director/cinematographer Drew Xanthopoulos’ FATHOM is shot in a style more typical of a narrative film, perhaps even mystery, with partially-shaded lighting, artistic framing and warm tones. This visual style gives the documentary a uniqueness, as well as immediately drawing us into the and work of the two women scientists, Dr. Ellen Garland and Dr. Michelle Fournet, who are the focus of the film. They are separately researching humpback whale sounds, but different aspects of them, and the film follows them out into the ocean where they are doing field research projects. Appropriately, haunting whale songs provide much of the soundtrack.

Fournet is researching humpback whale communication in Alaska while Garland is based in Scotland. These scenic locations are put to good use as we follow the two scientists, who are preparing for field research to test their hypotheses. Besides humpback whale songs, which carry over long distances, these behemoths make other sounds which seem to be for communication, although their meaning, like the purpose of their songs, are still unknown. Fournet is researching those other sounds, trying to “start a conversation” with a humpback whale as a way to tease out their meaning. Garland studies whale songs and is tracking the progress of one song as it is passed along through humpback whale groups across the Pacific.

Fournet is planning to do her field research off the Alaskan shore, using a sound called a “whup,” which may be a kind of whale “hello, my name is/” Garland is traveling from Scotland to the south Pacific, to French Polynesia, for her field research, to determine if the same song that started near Australia is turning up at this location further east.

The open ocean around French Polynesia provides director/cinematographer Drew Xanthopoulos with another very scenic location for the documentary’s lovely photography. The documentary alternates between the two scientists as they prepare for and then embark on their field research. One of the great strengths of this film, besides its gorgeous cinematography, is its thoughtful, accurate presentation of the scientists’ work, in a fashion that is clear and involving without dumbing it down.

Fournet and Garland narrate parts of the documentary, explaining their work and giving fascinating background on whales. At other times, we seems to tag along, following them as they prepare for their field work, interact with others assisting them, until we then go out into the field with them, the most bracing and thrilling part of the film, as well as its largest section. We also get glimpses into their personal lives and gain insights on the particular challenges faced by women scientists.

The documentary also gives just enough intriguing background on whales, delving into their evolution, big brains and social nature. It notes they evolved social brains and social culture before humans even walked upright, and have brains even more advanced for social life than our own. Among the intriguing facts noted is the merging of the senses of sight and sound in whales, adapting to communicate in their dim environment.

Part of the brilliance of this film is its choice of the two scientists. It was pure inspiration to choose two women scientists but Fournet and Garland are particularly good choices. Both are excellent at explaining their work clearly to a lay audience, as well as being charismatic and photogenic. That latter factor might sound odd, but film is a visual medium, and this is not the first time scientific nature documentaries have used that to hold audiences’ attention – think of the young Jane Goodall in early National Geographic documentaries.

Curiosity is an basic trait of all scientists, and this film gives us a sense of that, capturing the drive to uncover facts like solving a mystery. We also get a look at the difficulties of life in the field work, but also a taste of the kind of fun researchers might have in off-task time, blowing off steam.

The unexpected awaits in any field expedition, and Garland and Fournet encounter both dangers and research challenges once out on the sea with the whales. Fournet notes that she has had years when she sighted no whales but has the opposite condition this time, while Garland, accustomed to plentiful whales this time of year, finds herself searching for them. Both surprise conditions force them to adapt their research protocol and offer unforeseen new knowledge. There are moments of drama, tensions and hints of danger, framed by rolling seas, breaching whales, and misty shores.

FATHOM is an excellent documentary on humpback whales, a stand-out mix of science and nature documentary with the extra bonus of a showcase for women scientists. Featuring marvelous photography and a style that gives it the feel of a narrative adventure, this documentary works all levels. Although fellow scientists and science buffs might wish for a little more detail on the science and nature film buffs might want a little more whale footage, it gives enough of both to satisfy, while opening the door for the curious to learn more.

FATHOM opens Friday, June 25, streaming on Apple TV+.

RATING: 3 1/2 out of 4 stars

HUMAN NATURE – Review

Dr. Jennifer Doudna, in the documentary HUMAN NATURE, in her lab at the Innovative Genomics Institute in Berkeley, CA. Doudna has tried to call public attention to the ethical implications of the CRISPR technology she helped invent. Photo courtesy of Greenwich Entertainment.

The documentary HUMAN NATURE, which is available on Amazon Prime, offers an accessible, accurate explanation of CRISPR, the molecular biology discovery that gives scientists a way to correct and cure genetic diseases, among other potential uses, but acting like molecular scissors to cut out and replace defective genes. The beautifully shot, well-researched HUMAN NATURE presents a mostly balanced picture of this groundbreaking discovery.

CRISPR is often called “molecular scissors” for its ability to alter DNA sequences, even down to changing a single base pair, the “letters” of the DNA alphabet, a level of precision never before possible. HUMAN NATURE does an excellent job of covering the basics of DNA and describing what CRISPR is and why it is such a game-changer, with enormous potential for the treatment of genetic diseases and even cancer. But the documentary stumbles a bit into bias when it later discusses its potential for its misuse, not sufficiently clarifying what risks are specific to CRISPR and which are inherent in other genetic techniques such as in-vitro fertilization and genetically modification of organisms.

Director Adam Bolt presents the topic in a straight-forward way without oversimplifying. The topic was inherently of interest to me personally, as I have a degree in genetics, but this is an important topic that should interest everyone, because the discovery of CRISPR has the potential to change medicine and many things about our world is that great. The information is clearly and accurately presented and the presence of a great number of well-respected authorities adds to the depth of the information. Yet HUMAN NATURE is an engaging film, drawing the viewer in and presenting both the science and the historical context in an lively, visually strong fashion.

It does a good job of balancing interview sequences with other footage, keeping a brisk enough pace to keep the audience involved. The material it presents in describing the science and both the promise and questions it poses for society are well crafted and edited. Among the experts who speak are Jennifer Doudna, one of the developers of the CRISPR technology, and David Baltimore, a Nobel Prize winner and leader in the field of molecular biology. Unlike many documentaries about science, it is clear that scientists played a big part in creating this film, which is one greatest of its strengths.

Where HUMAN NATURE does best is in its first half, covering what CRISPR is and why it is so revolutionary. It does an outstanding job to conveying how remarkable and game-changing this new technique really is. The documentary has just the right amount of information to give audiences an understanding of genetics and DNA without getting too sidetracked into detail to take the focus off the central topic. It describes how CRISPR works in a clear but scientific manner, letting scientists and doctors speak, but also focusing on patients with genetic diseases, the people it has the potential to help. It does an outstanding job to conveying how remarkable and game-changing this new technique really is.

HUMAN NATURE does an excellent job in this first portion where it examines what CRISPR is and its great promise for humankind. One of the strongest voices in this first segment, and actually throughout the documentary, is a teen suffering from Sickle Cell Disease. He is a well spoken, well-grounded and personable young man who is both likable and wise beyond his years. The documentary uses the sickle cell as a example for many of the points it makes about the potential good in CRISPR and some of the questions it raises. When someone inherits two copies of the gene, the result is Sickle Cell Disease, in which misshapened red blood cells cause painful and sometimes life-threatening symptoms, but when an individual inherits a single copy of the gene, there is evidence that it confers some resistance to malaria. The genetic trait is common in Africa and some areas around the Mediterranean.

Where the documentary falters a bit is in the second portion where it turns to potential dangers. Like every tool, CRISPR has the potential for misuse in the wrong hands or if used without ethical or legal guidelines. The guiding principle here, for CRISPR or any powerful tools, is that old saying “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.”

However, what the documentary does not make clear is that most of the dangers it presents are already with us, largely from the already on-going use of in-vitro fertilization and the unknowns in genetic modification of organisms (a subject the documentary does not even touch on). The risk for unscrupulous use already exists with IVF, which can be used to select for one gender over the other, or for height or eye color, or eliminate embryos with genetic diseases or any trait the user might deem “undesirable.” While research scientists follow rules of ethical behavior that are enforced by peer-reviewed journals and some countries ban some actions, their is no international rule on this. A debate on it is underway in academic circles but less so in governmental ones. The risk comes less from academic research, which operates under ethical constraints, but from private companies, where the profit motive drives decisions and the ultimate constraints are legal. While most scientists agree on what is ethical use, the legal rules vary country to country, with some things banned in some countries but allowed in others. With or without CRISPR, the documentary is right to call for some international rules for ethical use of the genetic manipulation, particularly when a powerful technique like CRISPR moves from a pure-research setting to a commercial one.

CRISPR is indeed a powerful advance, and there is one aspect to CRISPR that presents a unique risk: its potential to change the germ line. meaning its changes would be inherited by the next generation. CRISPR gives scientists the potential to not only cure someone with a genetic disease, such as the boy with sickle cell, but to ensure that the trait is not passed down to his offspring. The documentary is right to sound the alarm on this aspect, as the law of unintended consequences looms large when one begins to manipulate the evolution of humankind.

HUMAN NATURE presents a fairly good discussion of this danger, focusing on the fact that there is still much that is unknown about human genetics. While eliminating human suffering by getting rid of a genetic disease like Huntington’s or a cancer is enormous appealing, there is considerable risk of long-term unknown results. We do not know if we might accidentally eliminate another trait, such as musical talent, at the same time we eliminate a defective gene, because there are too many unknowns about the influence of one gene on another.

That danger argues for a go-slow approach and much more research. The documentary presents an informative and engaging discussion on this double-edged sword aspect of CRISPR, although it makes some strange choices on what the filmmakers see as risky. For example, it focuses with alarm on a researcher with an interest recreating Ice Age mammoths, which might be possible, and repopulating the steppe with them, which seems unlikely to happen. On the other hand, the film shows us a start-up company already trying to use CRISPR to grow organs for human transplants in pigs, by replacing large sections of pig DNA with human DNA to create a pig-human hybrid organism. The filmmakers seems less worried about this commercial operation, despite the many more red flags it seems to raise.

Overall, HUMAN NATURE is a polished, well-researched and informative film about a groundbreaking discovery that has enormous promise for the human species, but viewers need to give careful consideration to the questions raised about it so as to neither “throw the baby out with the bathwater” nor plunge ahead into a brave new world of unintended consequences. As in most things, the middle way is best.

Although it is not a flawless film, HUMAN NATURE is a lively, visually colorful, engaging documentary that respects the audience’s intelligence. It is a breathe of fresh air in a world where reporters rarely cover science well and too many anti-science voices dominate.

RATING: 3 1/2 out of 4 stars

THE BOY WHO HARNESSED THE WIND – Review

Every few weeks, a “feel good” story will get scooped up by news outlets, usually in an effort to combat the notion that the “Nightly News’ is full of “downer” depressing tales of despair. Such was the case of the young man at the center of this new film, as his story almost exploded a dozen or so years ago (he was eventually interviewed by Jon Stewart on “The Daily Show”). Many who heard him, may have thought “Hey, this should be a movie!’, and some who could make that happen shared the idea. Unfortunately, many movies “inspired by true events” will “movie-fy” true tales, smoothing out the “rough edges”, cleaning it up for general audience consumption, perhaps making it indistinguishable from regular TV fare, making it a “spruced-up” Lifetime or Hallmark uplifting flick of the week. Though this film is premiering on a streaming service, it was the passion project of one of our most gifted actors who has decided to make his feature directing debut with THE BOY WHO HARNESSED THE WIND.

The story begins at the turn of the century outside the dusty city of Kasungu in Malawi in the village of Wimbe. After the sudden death of the Kamkwamba patriarch, his farmland is split between sons Jeremiah and Trywell (Chiwetel Ejiofor). Jeremiah sells his land to local tobacco growers, but Trywell is determined to work the land for and with his family: wife Agnes (Aissa Maiga), teen daughter Annie (Lily Banda), pre-teen William (Maxwell Simba) and his adorable baby brother Tiyamike. William tries to help out with family finances by scouring nearby trash dumps in order to get parts for his radio repair business. It pays off when he finally gets to go to school. He devours his lessons and makes the school’s meager library a second home. But due to the harsh seasons (floods and then long droughts), the tuition can’t be paid and William is expelled. As things become more desperate, Williams sneaks back into the library (with the aid of a teacher who is Annie’s secret boyfriend), where he pours over a battered copy of “Using Electricity”. He also becomes fascinated with that teacher’s bicycle headlamp, which uses the front wheel to power and light the bulb. As the family faces possible starvation (along with most of the village) William hatches the plans for a machine that will use the wind to irrigate the crops. But he’ll need to use parts from the family bicycle. Can he convince his proud, determined father to allow him to build this device, risking all they have left?

Ejiofor provides a solid performance as the formidable family patriarch, anchoring what could be a fairy tale into a story of courage and survival. His Trywell (there’s an apt moniker) is determined to keep his household together, adhering to traditional work values, while striving to provide a better future for his children (they all must attend school). We see his efforts to achieve his goals constantly thwarted by greed (his brother sells out) and by political upheaval (a visit from the president results in ugly violence), and Ejiofor shows us how frustration can lead to the depths of despair. Finally, pride takes hold, as he resists and rejects the helping hand from his son. Fortunately, he has great chemistry with Simba as the title character. His William is a scrappy underdog hero for the ages. We see that sense of childhood wonder and curiosity channeled and focused on a way to save all those he loves, especially his pappa. Along with his bursts of invention and creativity (scouring the landfills and studying well into the night), he struggles to connect with his father while not chipping away at what’s left of his spirit. The bond between the two is strengthened by the solid performance of Maiga who provides the emotional glue that binds the family as it strains and, in one case, snaps. While fiercely supportive of her husband, she takes him to task for heading off to political rallies leaving them to fend off the destitute. Plus she must encourage William while never disparaging her husband in front of him.

Not only does Ejiofor delivers a superb acting job as Trywell, but he’s also balancing several jobs behind the camera. This is his feature directing debut (after making a couple of shorts) and he wrote the screenplay based on the book by Bryan Mealer and William. Kudos to Ejiofor for making no attempt to romanticize nor “sugar-coat’ the tough, grueling task of working the land. The extreme weather is almost another character in the film, turning from torrential downpours to searing heat almost “on a dime”. Plus the film gives us an intimate look at the community, a small town with strong ties whether they’re meeting with Chief (from tribal days) Wembe, racing to buy government grain, or gathering around a barely functioning radio to listen to the big game. We’re given a sense of how valued education is to them, as William smiles with joy at the school uniform (slacks, crisp dress shirt, and tie) waiting for him, neatly folded on top his bed (like toys under the Christmas tree). Plus Ejiofor really pulls at the heartstrings especially in a frightening moment when desperate neighbors turn on each other to survive. Even the sweet bond of boy and dog (William has a frisky sandy-haired mutt that follows him faithfully) is not safe from the cruelties of life. The story does stumble a bit when devoting too much time to a wandering band of costumed tribal performers (wearing masks and using stilts) that reek of heavy-handed symbolism. And the scenes of starvation and sun-baked misery feel too drawn out (a ten minute trim may have helped), while the actual “harnessing” is very rapid, almost a montage of building and “results”. Still, it’s a story worth telling once more, full of triumph and a celebration of the unbreakable human spirit while advocating accessible education for all. THE BOY WHO HARNESSED THE WIND is an “inspired by true events” film that is itself is very inspiring.

3.5 out 5

THE BOY WHO HARNESSED THE WIND is in theatres and is streaming now on Netflix

THE WAVE Review

thewave_image

If we were to take a little field trip 40 years or so back in time, we’d see a different type of blockbuster film dominating the big screen. Superheroes had not yet conquered Hollywood. Back then, Mother Nature was the big box office darling. From earthquakes and tsunamis to disastrous fires and devastating accidents, we wanted to see massive amounts of Avenger-scale destruction that only the elements could concoct.

Fast forward to present day and we now watch Thor and Hulk destroy cities in the name of the good fight. Even Godzilla has returned to the cinema to continue his rapturous reptilian rampage. Monsters and heroes are what we seek today, but what of the good ole days when Planet Earth herself was what we feared most? There have been the occasional attempts to bring back that old school tale of man versus nature. THE PERFECT STORM was a memorable outing and who can forget TWISTER?

Herein lies the dilemma. As an audience, we’ve become so desensitized to large-scale disasters on screen that they don’t feel real anymore. As we lose our taste, Hollywood feels the need to add more and more CGI and more insanely preposterous circumstances [a la THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW] in an effort to up the ante and draw us back into the mindless, adrenaline-fueled chaos. How far will our suspension of disbelief bend before breaking under the pressure of prolonged exposure to ridiculous premises?

I’ve said it once if not a hundred times. Regardless of the genre, a good film must have a decent story. I like my schlocky genre flicks as much, and likely more, that the next guy. There’s something to be said for movies so bad they’re good. On the other hand, that’s not a diet one can thrive on exclusively. So I ask, where are the fun genre films with story and character?

I would argue that THE WAVE is a prime example of a return to quality, story-driven disaster genre filmmaking. This Norwegian film (natively titled Bølgen) was directed by Roar Uthaug and combined the thrill of films like INTO THE STORM with a cautionary tale perspective more susceptible to storytelling techniques that keep the audience engaged in story and character, rather that what fantastical effects some talented nerd can conjure up in a computer suite.

thewave_image3

THE WAVE touts all the intensity we’ve come to expect from a natural disaster film, but backs that up with a refreshingly unexpected level of scientific authenticity that makes the film more than just a popcorn-munching thrill ride. Uthaug slowly develops suspense based on a simple question in the viewer’s mind… when will the wave hit? At no point is the audience wondering if the wave will strike. The marketing and the title of the film itself assure us of the ultimate payoff.

No, what Uthaug delivers is the promise of the money shot, but only after we sit willingly through the first hour of he film. With this committed attention Uthaug provides a slow-burn drama, focused around one man amongst a small clutch of geologists responsible for monitoring and studying the mountain standing high above the tourist town of Geiranger, Norway. THE WAVE actually relies heavily on and even features scientific details both to enhance the drama and realism, but also in turn [like it or not] even educates us somewhat. Oh, God! Not that!

Get over it. Uthaug actually does a remarkable job with taking what many of us would otherwise probably write-off as another boring PBS science special and crafts an engaging commentary and how we can get too comfortable sitting at the top of the food chain and feel a bit invincible, all the while forgetting that our one natural predator is Mother Nature herself. Uthaug tells a story that has human and family drama, but that also calls us out on our tendency to get lazy and apathetic in the face of how much we know versus how much we admit to not knowing.

Kristoffer Joner plays Kristian, a geologist on his way out of his current position as he and his family prepare to relocate. During their preparation, he finds himself drawn back into the mountains hold as he struggles to shake an uneasy feeling that something is not right. Joner is in the drive’s seat of this film, as his persistence and conviction nudge the plot along amidst countless skeptics and naysayers until the boy who called wolf turns out to have telling the truth all along.

thewave_image2

Ane Dahl Torp plays Idun, Kristian’s wife who works in the popular hotel on the water’s edge of the fjord that lies within the mountain’s shadow. Idun is eager for her family to move on and finds herself slightly impatient with Kristian’s reluctance to move on, but his gut tells him he’s needed in order to prevent a terrible disaster. While his efforts are valiant, once again, we know what the pay off is to be in THE WAVE, and it’s not watching it from a safe, dry distance. Seriously, I’m not spoiling anything.

While the first act of THE WAVE does take a bit of patience, it also develops some strong characters and introduces us to some basic science that is interesting, if not theoretically practical. It’s this attention to detail that adds to the film’s realism and believability. There are a few moments that scream typical genre fare, such as when they determine the large crevice in the mountain is contracting instead of expanding as they’d expected. Two of the geologists took this as an invitation to physically venture into the crevice for a closer inspection.

If this had been a horror movie, it would equate to the teenage jock responding to the blonde cheerleader hearing a strange noise by volunteering to go into the dark basement alone to check it out… and, we all know how that ends. Otherwise, the handful of other minimally questionable genre moments come during the catastrophic wave action in the final act of the film, but at this point we’ve delayed gratification so long that the payoff stands on it’s own, pleasantly underplayed CGI magnificence.

When it’s all over the the waters have cleared, THE WAVE stands tall amongst it’s predecessors, quite literally as the film’s antagonist is a massive 85-meter tall wall of rapidly-moving water propelled by the collapse of a mountainside into the fjord. If you’re a fan of the disaster genre, do yourself a solid and check out this very fluid, fresh take on a natural nightmare.

Overall Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

THE WAVE opens in St. Louis on Friday, March 4th, 2016 exclusively at Landmark’s Tivoli Theatre.

thewave_poster