Iron Man opens this week, and thus the summer movie season has officially arrived. I love a good summer movie as much a the next guy, but this morning I found myself looking back at some of the little films that cropped up during the summer; some of them managed to get a "summer" feel on a much lower budget and without all the advertisement and hype. My absolute favorite summer art house movie has to be Tom Tykwer's Run Lola Run (1999). I saw it three times that summer, and each time I clutched my seat, my heart pounding. I was amazed at how brilliantly Tywker had mapped out his three possible storylines and how lovely the small, quiet interludes were. I loved Franka Potente, and I loved his throbbing score, which practically entered into your bloodstream and pumped up your adrenaline by hand. Every color, movement and cut was designed for maximum effect (I've always been puzzled how Tykwer's movies since have seemed so long and sluggish.)

Also that same summer, John Sayles delivered his baffling adventure/suspense film Limbo, which had several people trapped on an island awaiting rescue and stalked by bad guys. The ending had everybody in an uproar and caused the film to die a quick death. The summer before that one, Darren Aronofsky's debut feature Pi gave me a good dose of sci-fi thrills, as well as a few head-scratching puzzles (which were actually real). 2000 was a particularly bad summer, but John Waters' Cecil B. DeMented provided a mischievous little oasis in the middle of it all. In that film, renegade filmmakers kidnap a Hollywood starlet and force her to be in their indie production; each team member has a tattoo of a maverick filmmaker's name. (I've often wondered which filmmaker's name I would pick for a tattoo? Maybe David Cronenberg...)

With Transformers coming to DVD next week, I was thinking about science fiction -- how it plays on-screen, how it works as a genre and, most importantly, how a big-number budget doesn't mean a high-quality film. But there are plenty of movies to check out if you want a few examples of how a lack of funds doesn't automatically translate to a lack of ideas. For this list, I wanted to concentrate on a more modern set of films - no '50s Ed Wood-style cheapies, nothing deliberately camp (with one exception), nothing that was more concerned with set design and irony than story and ideas (The American Astronaut, Forbidden Zone) and nothing that played more as horror than science fiction. I wasn't able to track down budget numbers for one of the films (The Quiet Earth), but the rest add up to a fairly modest $3 million -- total; even if you assume that The Quiet Earth cost a million dollars, you're still looking at seven amazing films for a very reasonable $4 million. Or, more bluntly, less than Michael Bay spent on slow-mo spray-on-sweat shots of Megan Fox and a urinating robot gag. And, finally, I'm sure there are some great low-budget sci-films I've missed or overlooked or just not seen ... and I'd love to hear about your picks in the comments selection below.

The Quiet Earth (1985)

Striking, unsettling and beautiful, this New Zealand indie takes the basic plot of the '50s end-of-the-world film The World, the Flesh and the Devil and puts a glowing, gorgeous spin on it -- more contemplative than tense, more philosophical than plot-driven. A scientist (Bruno Lawrence) who's been working on an experimental energy source finds that he's ... the last man on Earth. And while he does find two other people wandering the desolate world, he's still forced to try and find himself. Lawrence is impressive -- essentially carrying the first third of the movie -- and Geoff Murphy's direction is full of haunting images and fascinating ideas. Most importantly, The Quiet Earth doesn't come wrapped up with a bow -- you have to actually think about it, and it invites contemplation as firmly as it resists easy conclusions.


Primer (2004)

Made for a reported $7,000, Primer is that rarest of all science fiction films -- a low-budget brain-bender that both demands and rewards repeat viewings. Friends and fellow engineers Shane Carruth (also director, writer, editor, composer, etc, etc. ...) and David Sullivan are working on their own business in their off-hours, and one of their experiments results in a weird statistical anomaly they can't explain -- and, the more they explore it, leads the two to develop a bizarre sort of time machine. The machine is dangerous, it's risky, it's barely understood ... and it works. And pretty soon, you're watching the film as the characters live it -- is what's happening really what's happening now, or is someone else messing with the time stream? And is one of our characters that 'someone else'? Primer takes a simple, tired cliché and extrapolates that idea to every logical illogical conclusion with riveting, dizzying effect.

Were you lucky enough to catch The Fountain over the weekend? It seems like everyone else was shuffling their Happy Feet or playing at the Casino Royale, but I slipped into a half empty (what a shame) theater and caught this beautiful film. I was pretty glad I missed Tenacious D in the Pick of Destiny, because I was in the mood for something a little more somber. But don't worry, later this week after a couple of beers, I'll be getting my fill of Jack Black and Kyle Gass.

Darren Aronofsky's 1998 film Pi was one of those movies that hit me in the stomach and made me actually think about the world, and stayed with me for years afterwards. Movies like that are extremely rare these days, and when one comes along you want to latch onto it and encourage everyone to go see it. Unfortunately, when I told my friends that I was going to see The Fountain this weekend, they all responded with a collective: "Huh?" Most of them hadn't heard about the film, and after I mentioned that Hugh Jackman was in it, others said, "Oh right, is that the movie about magic?"

This is what happens when advertising for quality films are choked out of the public eye by zillions of previews for Van Wilder 2: The Rise of Taj and posters reminding you that American Idol will be back on the airwaves soon. Chances are that you never saw the poster for The Fountain as a result. Thanks to FirstShowing.net, you can actually own one to frame and hang on your wall. They are giving away 15 copies of the poster, and all you have to do is answer three very simple questions about the film. Enter now, and then rush off to see this movie before it vanishes from the theaters forever. This one needs to be seen on a big screen with a great sound system.

I'll admit that I haven't seen director Darren Aronofsky's film The Fountain ... yet. I am, however, very excited about seeing it because of his previous work on films like Pi and Requiem for a Dream, and because all the buzz seems to indicate this film is definitely worth seeing. That said, some of you may have already seen it and might have questions or are otherwise confused about the film in some way. Or, you may want a little primer to aid in your understanding when you do eventually see it.

No matter if you already saw The Fountain or plan to do so in the future, a recent article form the New York Times will hopefully help you interpret, comprehend or answer some of your questions about the film. The biggest problem with The Fountain, according to the article, is how to understand a film, which is sort of a love story about time travel and a man's eternal quest to save his wife's life, that even its writer/director describes as a puzzle? "You have to pay attention; everything is a clue for later," said Aronofsky in the article, "You always hear that people want to see something different. Then you give them something different, and they don't know how to deal with it.

The article then goes on to explain that in an unusual move, Aronofsky sent his screenplay to a group of artists, many known for their work in comic books and graphic novels, for their help in interpreting his film and explaining it to audiences. He did this because, according to the director, The Fountain is similar in many ways to the structure of a graphic novel. "The first 60 pages, you don't really know what's going on, but then it starts to focus. I think a lot of the artists responded to that," said Aronofsky in the article.

So, what was the result when these artists attempted to interpret and explain his film? Eleven different visions of what the movie is all about. The studio will use the illustrations created by these artists to promote The Fountain on the film's official website until its release on November 22. But thanks to me (and the New York Times) you can see them now. To be honest, I looked at them and I don't know if they helped me or not. They were definitely unusual and well done but as an aid in understanding the film -- I just don't know. Maybe they'll do better for some of you. Either way, do you think this kind of thing helps when promoting a film or is it pretty much a waste of time?

Under the terms of a new agreement with Universal, Darren Aronofsky and Eric Watson (his partner in Protozoa Pictures) will "develop and produce" projects for Universal and its sister companies, Rogue Pictures and Focus Features. Interestingly, based on a quick look at the IMDB, the pair have never worked with Universal before, but the studio's production head claims that they have "wanted to be in business with these guys for a long time," and are predictably thrilled about the agreement.

The amount of money involved here must just be epic, but maybe Aronofsky is worth it. Though I personally have never been able to completely forgive the man for that horrible noise in Pi, he's undeniably a source of great creativity and individuality in what today is often a depressingly bland industry. And, with five movie projects currently in various stages of development, as well as an HBO pilot in the works, he shows no signs of slowing down - by this time next year, Universal will probably be buried under a mountain of Aronofsky ideas.