Return to the Planet of the Apes (1975)
I recently found a DVD boxset of Return to the Planet of the Apes in a charity shop which I bought for £4, which is a ridiculously cheap price. I considered it an interesting find because it was a Region 1, US copy. However, that is not so unusual these days as most DVD players are now region free and Amazon (UK) sells media from all over the world. As for the show in question, I vaguely remember Return to the Planet of the Apes being shown on UK network TV when I was a child, probably circa 1976. Back then it would usually take a year or so before US shows made it onto UK television. From a commercial perspective, the entire Planet of the Apes franchise was beginning to run out of steam. I was 8 years old at the time so had missed most of the film releases. However, I enjoyed the live action TV show hence an animated follow up had obvious appeal to a child of my age.
I recently found a DVD boxset of Return to the Planet of the Apes in a charity shop which I bought for £4, which is a ridiculously cheap price. I considered it an interesting find because it was a Region 1, US copy. However, that is not so unusual these days as most DVD players are now region free and Amazon (UK) sells media from all over the world. As for the show in question, I vaguely remember Return to the Planet of the Apes being shown on UK network TV when I was a child, probably circa 1976. Back then it would usually take a year or so before US shows made it onto UK television. From a commercial perspective, the entire Planet of the Apes franchise was beginning to run out of steam. I was 8 years old at the time so had missed most of the film releases. However, I enjoyed the live action TV show hence an animated follow up had obvious appeal to a child of my age.
50 years on and I could recollect very little of Return to the Planet of the Apes. Usually specific episodes stand out from the various TV shows of my youth. Yesteryear from Star Trek: The Animated Series being a prime example of this. Yet after wracking my brain I could not recall much from this show beyond superficial details. Upon watching Return to the Planet of the Apes again, the reason for this became immediately clear. Instead of favouring just a story of the week approach, as so many shows did back then, this animated production attempted to sustain a wider continuous story arc spread across all 13 episodes as well. Something that makes the show quite unusual. After watching all episodes, it became quite clear that Return to the Planet of the Apes is quite a different beast from other animated shows from this era. I suspect that is why it may have struggled to find an audience with its target demographic.
Produced by DePatie–Freleng Enterprises, Return to the Planet of the Apes was creatively overseen by Doug Wildey. Wildey was a comic artist and had been involved in the creation of numerous popular animated TV shows. With regard to the plot, Return to the Planet of the Apes draws heavily from themes from the original Planet of the Apes feature film and its sequel Beneath the Planet of the Apes. Being an animated production, the scope of the ape dominated world is greatly expanded. The feature films depicted ape society as being predominantly agrarian and their culture having grown in a limited way from a wider world decline. Here, ape society is more advanced and is depicted as being comparable to post WWII America. There are automobiles, radio and television, modern weapons and a broadly democratic society. Ape City is exactly that. All of which is much closer to author Pierre Boulle’s original source text.
The animated style is interesting. Backgrounds are detailed and often depict notable vistas. The camera often pans across these to substantiate plot points. Character animation is minimal, even by TV standards of the time. In many ways watching the show is more akin to reading a graphic novel or watching flash animations from the early days of the internet. However, this works well within the scope of the show. Thematically Return to the Planet of the Apes explores some interesting ideas and although accessible to children, has some quite dark and cerebral ideas contained with the ongoing plot. There are hints of a policy of genocide, driven by the Gorilla Military towards the residual human population. The Underdwellers, the cult of mutants who live in the Forbidden Zone, are depicted as religious zealots and it implied that the US was indeed the belligerent party that started the nuclear war that devastated the world.
The voice acting is adequate as is the musical score. A lot of the criticisms of Return to the Planet of the Apes at the time stemmed from the show’s modest budget, which imposed a great many restrictions upon the production. At first glance many viewers may simply see Return to the Planet of the Apes as being a cheap and cynical animated show, designed to squeeze whatever financial gain was left from a declining franchise. If you look a little harder, there is some creativity and innovation to be found over the 13 episodes. Sadly, the show was cancelled and the planned conclusion to the story arc was never produced. It allegedly explored the idea of rights being extended to humans within ape society which is a bold and somewhat adult concept to have in a children’s TV show. As it stands Return to the Planet of the Apes is an interesting curiosity and as such will appeal to those who find such things appealing.
It is not unusual for Disney to change film titles when marketing them outside of the US. In 2016 they renamed the animated feature film Zootopia to Zootropolis in the UK and Europe to avoid trademark conflicts with other existing businesses. For example there is a Danish zoo which already holds the “Zootopia” name. Similarly, in Germany there is a children’s book which caused copyright conflict, which led to the film being released under the title Zoomania. Such changes, although practical for legal reasons, can sometimes cause a degree of confusion. Especially as there are numerous, low budget productions companies that go out of their way to produce similarly titled “mockbusters” whenever there are big, tentpole, releases. So for clarity, Zootopia 2 has been released in the UK as Zootropolis 2.
With the proliferation of lore driven, franchise movies in recent years, a culture of analysis has developed online. Hence you will find a lot of YouTube videos that claim to “explain” the ending of specific films or provide clarification of their respective themes and subtexts. While critical debate and discussion about cinema is welcome, I think it is a mistake to always look for a specific meaning in cinema. Even clearly narrative films can be ambiguous. Art is ultimately a very subjective field of expression open to personal interpretation. Which brings me neatly to Flow, an animated feature film which tells a compelling story but raises more questions than it answers. It leaves the viewer to fill in a lot of the blanks themselves and the film is all the better for this approach. Flow is an extraordinary example of animation and a fascinating example of innovative, thought provoking filmmaking. Quite the rarity these days.
For those unfamiliar with Dav Pilkey’s graphic novel character Dog Man, he’s a half-dog, half-human police officer. This comic chimaera is the result of a surgical procedure carried out after Officer Knight and his trusty dog Greg are blown up while defusing a bomb. Greg’s head is grafted to Officer Knight's body. Post surgery, Dog Man (Peter Hastings) remains an officer of the law and continues to track his nemesis, Petey (Pete Davidson), an orange cat and criminal genius. However, despite positive media coverage and a high arrest rate, Dog Man incurs the ire of his Chief (Lil Rel Howery) who is jealous of his success. Furthermore, Dog Man becomes depressed due to the loss of his owner, girlfriend and former home. Meanwhile, Petey decides to clone himself in an attempt to find a worthy assistant and also plots to resurrect a deceased super villain, Flippy, who is an evil telekinetic fish.
I have always found it curious that there haven't been more feature films set in Middle-earth, after the success of Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy. However, a little research shows a very complex set of rights regarding Tolkien’s work, with different material being controlled and administered by different bodies. Hence, the market has not been saturated with officially licensed material. Thus, when The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim was announced to be in production, it aroused a great deal of curiosity both among fans and those with an interest in the wider film industry. To base an entire feature film on something that is effectively just a few paragraphs in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings is quite intriguing. The producers claimed it afforded them greater artistic freedom not to be constrained by an excess of lore. Industry pundits theorised that the film was being produced solely to ensure that wider rights were retained.
Whenever I feel that mainstream filmmaking is becoming increasingly bland and I grow despondent with it, along comes an animated film to prove that there is still greatness and art to be found through the medium of cinema. Robot Dreams begins as a tale of loneliness and then quickly becomes a eulogy to friendship and participating in life. The story then turns things on its head as it explores loss and finally concludes with a profoundly beautiful resolution, as it muses upon accepting change and new friends. Robot Dreams succeeds where so many other films fail by being honest, candid and sincere. Hence the emotions expressed by what is essentially a simple story are genuine and palpable. The film’s lack of dialogue is a blessing, with music doing a great deal of the narrative heavy lifting. This allows audiences to focus on the main characters without unnecessary distraction. The animation is uncomplicated but very specific in its style and setting. It utterly suits the tale being told.
Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio is a bold and inventive take on Carlo Collodi's classic story of the puppet that aspires to be a “real boy”. As you would expect from the director, it is a far cry from Disney’s 1940 version, taking a more bleak and sinister tone. Despite songs and exuberant set pieces, Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio is an exploration of grief, death and even fascism. The screenplay by Guillermo del Toro and Patrick McHale also tackles the complexities of the relationship between parent and child. It is a remarkable example of stop motion animation and is visually very striking. However, it is a somewhat niche market adaptation and is not exactly easily accessible to children or the furiously hard of thinking. It comes as no surprise that this cinematic venture was green lit by Netflix, which appears to be the new home of the experimental, rather than a mainstream studio.
George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead is a true genre milestone that is praised not only by horror film fans but mainstream critics alike. If you are interested in watching an intelligent, well researched and entertaining documentary about the film’s provenance and cultural impact then I thoroughly recommend Birth of the Living Dead (2013) by Rob Kuhn. It tells you pretty much all you need to know about why this classic film is so important. As for Night of the Living Dead itself, it still holds up well after 53 years. It is the immediacy and relatability of the premise and overall story that still makes the film relevant. The zombies are purely a “MacGuffin” and the real focus of the plot is how people behave under pressure in life threatening situations. It’s a film about how we can react to the same situation differently and how cultural baggage and the need for people to be “right”, hinders co-operation and thwarts progress.
It would appear that there is a Minions 2, although it’s release around the world has been staggered due to the pandemic. So I thought I’d revisit the original movie for a second viewing. Spin-off movies can be a risky venture. Side characters may work well in a supporting role within a successful movie but may not necessarily find an audience in their own vehicle. However this is most definitely not the case with Minions. The movie is ninety one minutes of exquisitely crafted cinema. From the opening Universal fanfare (which the Minions sing-a-long to) to the post credit rendition of Revolution, the film is consistently funny and perfectly paced. The production design and overall aesthetic is beautifully realised and the central characters of Kevin, Stuart and Bob are thoroughly engaging. Actually, forget "engaging ''. They are genuinely loveable. Directors Pierre Coffin and Kyle Balda barely put a foot wrong.
Although I have a passing interest in the franchise per se, I'm not a consummate fan of all things Batman. Hence a lot of content passes me by or I catch up with it years later. So it came as a great surprise when I discovered Batman: Return of the Caped Crusaders; a 2016 release in the ever growing catalogue of DC themed direct to DVD animated films. The movie is a de facto continuation of the sixties TV series, with the original actors reprising their roles (where possible). The cast includes Adam West as Batman, Burt Ward as Robin and Julie Newmar as Catwoman. Due to the death of actors Cesar Romero, Burgess Meredith and Frank Gorshin the voices for The Joker, The Penguin and The Riddler have been provided by Jeff Bergman, William Salyers and Wally Wingert. All of whom do their best to recreate the tone and idiom of the original artists.
There are three key elements to Disney’s 2009 3D computer-animated adaptation of A Christmas Carol. Firstly, director Robert Zemeckis clearly seeks authenticity and hence includes a lot of original dialogue from the novel, as well as a bleaker depiction of the period. Secondly, he uses the digital production tools at his disposal to create sweeping vistas of 19th century London as well as highly stylised caricatures of the central characters. Thirdly, as this is a Disney production, there is an occasional lapse visual humour and levity that is required by their business model. Sadly all of these aspects of the production make for strange bedfellows that are at odds with each other. The result is a visually sumptuous film that loses its way as it lurches between bleak drama, odd humour and CGI driven spectacle.
Upon its theatrical release, Mickey’s Christmas Carol was the first animated film to star Mickey Mouse for thirty years. It was therefore accompanied with a large amount of hype and a wave of nostalgia. The US marketing stated “He’s Back. Mickey Mouse in his first new motion picture” which was somewhat misleading, as the actual animated film was just 26 minutes long. It was shown theatrically along with a re-release of The Rescuers in the US and The Jungle Book in the UK and other territories, in late December 1983. And despite his name being in the title, Mickey doesn’t have a lot of screen time as he plays Bob Cratchit. This is very much a vehicle for Scrooge McDuck as Ebenezer Scrooge. Overall, it’s a succinct distillation of the plot of Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, filled with cameo appearances by classic Disney characters. Naturally it is replete with the humour and sentiment that is inherent in the process known colloquially as Disneyfication. However, does this mitigate the book’s message?
At first glance, there is not much to distinguish this low budget production by Burbank Films Australia, from any of the other adaptations that were ubiquitous during the seventies and eighties. However, attentive viewers will discover a few details that lift this particular version above the mundane. Firstly, this is the second animated adaptation to feature the voice acting of Ron Haddrick as Ebenezer Scrooge. He had previously voiced the character in Air Programs International's shorter version of A Christmas Carol in 1969, thirteen years earlier. Secondly, despite the modest production values, there are a few additional scenes taken from the source text by Dickens, that don’t usually make it most film and TV adaptations. It is these minor embellishments that compensate for the simplicity of the animation (during the opening scene, some background characters do not move).
Scoob! is one of several movies that was slated for a theatrical release this summer but ended up being premiering on VOD instead due to the global pandemic. As a result, it is difficult to ascertain exactly how successful this animated film has been. A lot of trade newspapers have indicated that rentals have been high and that the film has proven more popular than Tom Hardy’s new movie Capone. Some industry sources have estimated a gross of $100,000,000 in a two week period. I suspect that the current lockdown has provided a market of children craving new entertainment and parents happy to pay for 90 minutes of peace and quiet. Hence Scoob! appears to have been in the right place at the right time. Whether that popular success would have happened if the movie had been released theatrically is another matter.
The first I found out about Top Cat: The Movie was when I received an email from an events company that was handling promotional screenings, prior to the film’s UK release in the summer of 2012. For some reason I missed the usual pre-production publicity that comes with the rebooting of a popular franchise. One of the benefits of this was that I didn't have time to fret or fuss about this reimagining of an integral part of my childhood. I must admit I was flummoxed that this 50-year-old franchise was subject to a makeover and was even more discombobulated to find out that the original show was a massive hit in Mexico and had garnered a huge cult following. This was why Warner Bros. subcontracted this production to Mexico's Anima and Argentina's Illusion studios. Subsequently Don Gato y Su Pandilla (Top Cat and His Gang) opened on 16th September 2011 in Mexico to weekend box office returns of 41m pesos ($2.9m). It subsequently became the highest-grossing independent animated films released in the United States that year.
It’s interesting that so many adaptations of Charles Dickens’ iconic seasonal story are brought to us via the medium of animation. Naturally, this is a far more economical means of depicting the story with its period detail and supernatural elements, compared to a live action production. However, for an animated version of A Christmas Carol to work successfully, it needs three things. An innovative and striking production design, robust voice acting and a screenplay that keeps the core themes while offering significance difference compared to prior adaptations. You’ll find all of these elements in Richard Williams’ 1971 animated short. Sadly they’re conspicuously absent from the 1997 version. Despite the presence such talents as Tim Curry, Ed Asner and Whoopi Goldberg, this is a distinctly arbitrary animated film. Considering that the screenplay was written by Jymn Magon who has years of experience working for Disney, I had hoped this would be better endeavour.
There’s a degree of hubris implicit in such a definitive title. At the very least the inference is that this is a notable adaptation of Charles Dickens’ classic book. And at first glance, it is perfectly reasonable to assume just that. Jimmy Murakami was an animator of note with such unique movies as The Snowman and When the Wind Blows to his credit. Hence it is reasonable to expect a similar quirky and experimental treatment of this well know yuletide story. However, what audiences actually get is a rather bold adaptation that substantially embellishes upon the established narrative. Veering between sinister and borderline psychedelic imagery, this is a very inconsistent version that tries to be too many things at once. Just as you think you’ve got a handle on the film approach it takes an abrupt turn in the opposite direction. Comedy, drama and even power ballads are thrown into the mix. Sadly, all these elements do not hang well together.
The Hobbit (1977) is a curious beast. It’s a made for television animated film, which despite its budgetary constraints, strives to comprehensively adapted one of the most beloved children’s books of the last century. I remember reading an article about this television adaptation of The Hobbit, in Starburst Magazine during the late seventies. There were rumours that this Rankin/Bass production, which had already premièred on US network television, would gain a European cinema release. This was presumably to cash in on the success of Ralph Bakshi's animated feature film adaptation of The Lord of The Rings. However, this never happened to my knowledge. In fact, The Hobbit was not commercially available in the UK until 2001, when Warner Bros. released it on DVD to capitalise on the success of Peter Jackson’s The Fellowship of the Ring.
Over the last few years I’ve reviewed several adaptations of Charles Dickens seasonal story A Christmas Carol. As I stated previously one of the stories greatest strength is that it lends itself perfectly to multiple interpretations. I recently had the good fortune to rediscover the animated version from 1969 by Air Programs International. I remember seeing this animated short as a child but could not recollect sufficient details to allow me to track it down via the IMDB. Then by complete chance, I stumbled across it again on You Tube while doing some research.
I have a great deal of affection for Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, not only because it’s a fine piece of literature but because it lends itself so well to dramatisation. I therefore have a keen interests in all the respective adaptation, of which there are many. Over the years there has been a trend to focus excessively on the sentimental aspect of the plot, resulting in a rather nauseating Disneyfication of the story. Although the redemption of the main protagonist is central to the narrative, the poverty and deprivations of the time are still very pertinent themes, especially in today's economic climate. I was therefore very gratified to rediscover the 1971 version of Charles Dickens' classic story which was originally shown on ABC. This short 25 minute animated feature realises the story superbly, capturing the tone of the book and accurately reflecting the darker aspects. Remember that A Christmas Carol is fundamentally a ghost story.
War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)
There are times when watching the third instalment of the contemporary Planet of the Apes franchise that you feel like your experiencing something akin to Terrence Malick's The Thin Red Line. There is a narrative depth and an intelligence to the screenplay that you seldom see these days coming from a major studio production. As with the original movies, the story makes multiple subtle points about the nature of humanity and our self-destructive tendencies. Yet it’s all done in a thought full and measured fashion. If you wish to treat War for the Planet of the Apes as simply a science fiction action movie then you will certainly be provided with such a film. However, if you choose to engage your intellect and ponder some of the deeper aspects of the story you’ll be rewarded with much more.
There are times when watching the third instalment of the contemporary Planet of the Apes franchise that you feel like your experiencing something akin to Terrence Malick's The Thin Red Line. There is a narrative depth and an intelligence to the screenplay that you seldom see these days coming from a major studio production. As with the original movies, the story makes multiple subtle points about the nature of humanity and our self-destructive tendencies. Yet it’s all done in a thought full and measured fashion. If you wish to treat War for the Planet of the Apes as simply a science fiction action movie then you will certainly be provided with such a film. However, if you choose to engage your intellect and ponder some of the deeper aspects of the story you’ll be rewarded with much more.
Set two years on from events of the previous film the battle between humans and apes, instigated by the traitorous Koba (Toby Kebbell), has rendered the world a wasteland. Primate protagonist Caesar (once again an extraordinary Andy Serkis) is intent on protecting his species with as little further bloodshed possible. "I didn't start this war," he rhetorically states, while reflecting on the immense loss of ape life. Yet fate leads him to an inevitable encounter with Woody Harrelson's Colonel McCullough when his wife and child are killed, sending him on a potentially self-destructive journey. Director Matt Reeves steers the proceedings at a steady pace, focusing on character over action and spectacle. Sharing a writing credit with Mark Bomback, Reeves does not stray from the central story. Unlike other big budget movies, despite the underlying technology that dominates such productions, there is little self-indulgence and excess. This is a story driven by characters and their choices and struggles.
Once again, creativity is the key to exploring the boundaries of the PG-13 rating. The scenes in the prison camp are grim and worryingly plausible. There are nods to both past and contemporary despotism. The action scenes are large in scope but lack the modern trend for frenetic editing. There is violence, but it’s shot in such a way where it is powerful, yet not inherently graphic. Tonally, the movie has a very dour and prophetic ambience. It is also clear exactly which side the audience should be rooting for. There are again further nods to other classic war movies. Anti-ape rhetoric adorns soldiers’ helmets with phrase such as "Monkey killer" and "Ape-ocalypse Now". It’s not too difficult to see hints of Colonel Kilgore in Woody Harrelson's despotic military leader.
There is also a subtle expansion of the world that makes War for the Planet of the Apes feel wider in scope than its predecessor. Overgrown decaying cities, disused railway tracks and abandoned Coca-Cola lorries hammer home the point that this is the near future and not the ancient wasteland that Charlton Heston endured in the original. Yet despite the broad canvas in which events take place, the plot rarely stray from Caesar, orangutan Maurice (Karin Konoval) and Bad Ape (Steve Zahn), who provides a reprieve from the otherwise sombre events. As for the ending of War for the Planet of the Apes, it is the only credible outcome, establishing the narrative that Caesar is the messianic saviour of his people. The audience is left to reflect upon the future of both human and ape society and whether they can coexist or not. However, that is a story for another day but considering the ground that has already been covered by the Planet of the Apes trilogy, possibly a superfluous one.
David Koepp is no stranger to genre cinema, having written the screenplay for such films as Jurassic Park, Spider-man and War of the Worlds. Where these titles are big budget, major studio productions, Cold Storage is a far more modest production with a smaller scope. Adapted from his own novel, the screenplay is by David Koepp and the film is directed by British film-maker Jonny Campbell. At first glance, Cold Storage seems a somewhat derivative science fiction horror film with a relatively modest budget, financed through a convoluted US and French co-production. Lurid green and red colours feature heavily in the marketing artwork and it is easy, after a cursory look, to write the film off as cheap, generic, direct-to-streaming filler. However, Cold Storage is prime example of why you should not judge a book by it’s cover, or in this case, a film by its posters and online advertising. It is in fact an amusing and fun endeavour that can fill an evening.
Treasure Island In Outer Space is a curious Italian television production from 1987 starring Anthony Quinn and Ernest Borgnine. It also features numerous international actors better known for their work in cult and exploitation films, such as Bobby Rhodes, David Warbeck and John Morghan. Directed by Antonio Margheriti (AKA Anthony Dawson), famous for such films as Killer Fish (a cash in on Piranha) and The Last Hunter (a Vietnam exploitation epic), Treasure Island In Outer Space is a faithful adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s classic novel. The screenplay by Renato Castellani and Lucio De Caro draws heavily from the source text, maintaining character names and original dialogue. However in updating the material to a futuristic setting, the script is littered with the worst kind of eighties sci-fi clichés. We are subjected to sonic trains, anti-gravity rays and the usual buzzword driven faux science.
After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, filmmakers scrambled to find existing intellectual properties that they could use for similar films. Hence archaic heroes such as Alan Quatermain were hastily given a modern makeover and thrust into generic movies, in a vague attempt to replicate Steven Spielberg’s successful formula. Which brings us neatly on to James Charles Bigglesworth AKA “Biggles”, a fictional pilot and adventurer from a series of books written by W. E. Johns between 1932 and 1968. Several attempts had been made in the past to bring this character to the silver screen, including one by Disney but they all failed. However, the commercial and critical success of Indiana Jones provided sufficient impetus to greenlight a new film. However, due to some curious production choices, when Biggles was finally released it was far from just a period set, action movie.
The seventies was an interesting time for UK genre television. Despite small budgets and often low key visual effects, there was no shortage of good ideas and creativity. Sapphire & Steel is a prime example of a show couched in a high concept, produced on a shoestring. It also credits its audiences with some degree of intelligence. Rather than spoon feeding the narrative in a didactic manner, it hints and implies, then leaves the rest to its viewers imagination. Created by Peter J. Hammond, a veteran TV writer, Sapphire & Steel centres on a pair of interdimensional operatives named Sapphire and Steel. They are two of a number of elements that assume human form. Over the course of three seasons little is revealed about the pair but they appear whenever there is any anomalous temporal activity. Time itself is portrayed as a sentient and malignant force that seeks to make incursions into the present reality, through weaknesses in the fabric of space.
The Humanoid is one of many international Star Wars knock-offs that flooded cinemas in the late seventies and early eighties. Like so many others, it is derivative (even to the extent of replicating specific scenes from George Lucas’ movie), replete with awful dialogue and has somewhat basic production values. However, it does have an interesting cast including Richard Kiel, Barbara Bach, Arthur Kennedy and Corinne Cléry. Kiel gained a lot of media attention after his appearance as the steel-toothed villain Jaws in the 1977 Bond film, The Spy Who Loved Me. His stature made him the perfect fit for the titular character in this Italian science fiction production. Sadly, beyond a curious lineup of actors, The Humanoid has little to distinguish it from so many similar movies. For example, if you’ve seen Starcrash then you’ll be adequately prepared for this film.
Some films are made with the intention of starting a franchise, others evolve into one after a surprise box office success and lucrative sequels. Alien (1979) falls into the latter category. A mid-budget science fiction horror film that was well crafted and then benefited immensely by being released at just the right time. Sadly, many franchises become derailed and enter into a death spiral due to competing artistic visions, cynical studio politics and cinematic ignorance. This has certainly afflicted all subsequent Alien films after James Cameron’s magnificent Aliens (1986). Sometimes, a franchise can correct its course and do something fresh with the source material. Prey (2022) is a fine example of this with director Dan Trachtenberg bringing fresh vigour and intelligence back to the Predator movies. I believe that was the intention with Alien Romulus (2024). Sadly, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Event Horizon is a curious movie hybrid, mixing plot elements from classic sci-fi and horror genres. It has been labelled “Hellraiser in Space” by some lazy critics, although I think there's far more to it than that. Perhaps a more apt description would be a Gothic horror story set in space. The movie has garnered a cult reputation since its release in 1997, mainly due to its graphic imagery and troubled production history. It does indeed have some quite shocking sequences but the lightning editing does not show as much as some would think. Paramount forced director Paul W S Anderson to reduce the original one hundred and thirty minute running time down to a more manageable ninety, after unfavourable test screenings. Much of the violence was allegedly removed as a result of that process. Sadly nothing survives of the removed material other than a VHS workprint. Hence a restored director’s cut is therefore unlikely.
I recently watched the first trailer for the new Obi-Wan Kenobi television show that is premiering on Disney + in May. I am interested in this latest instalment in the Star Wars franchise and curious as to whether Liam Neeson will make an appearance. I also watched a 20 minute fan video in which they “analysed” the entire trailer. They discussed the content of this 2 minute preview and then did a great deal of speculating about potential themes and characters that may feature in the show. They were clearly enthusiastic about what they had seen and were very knowledgeable about the subject. This resonated with me, as I like to be well versed about the things I enjoy. However, it is worth remembering that fandom can tip into obsession and gatekeeping. Hence I feel there is a subject to explore here.
On paper Finch has little originality. The moment I read the plot synopsis and saw the first trailer I instantly thought of other such films as Silent Running, Short Circuit and Chappie. However, irrespective of its derivative concept and the fact it channels many of the major tropes of the genre, it does have three cards to play. Namely strong performances by Tom Hanks, Caleb Landry Jones and canine actor Seamus. Although not a genre milestone, Finch is a curiously pleasant post apocalyptic road movie. Despite travelling through the sun bleached vistas of a ravaged America, the story focuses on the three protagonists and their relationship. It is no small feat to find genuine sentiment in such a harsh environment and indeed in such a genre but Finch proves to be an engaging emotional journey. Once again the most effective explorations of the human condition are often through characters who are conspicuously not.
I wanted to watch Source Code for a second time before I wrote about it. This is because numerous internet debates have arisen regarding the plausibility of the film’s ending. I find this a somewhat curious stance considering that the story, written by Ben Ripley, deals with temporal travel and multiple timelines. All of which are purely theoretical and not currently subject to singular, definitive interpretations. I would further add that the science of the film is simply a plot device and is not its raison d'être. But that’s movies for you. People love to discuss them and more recently we have seen the rise of “explanation” videos on YouTube. However, the latter is a separate debate and something I may write about in the future. As for Source Code, I enjoyed it even more the second time round, as I had the time to focus on the minor details rather than trying to stay abreast with the main plot, as I did on my first viewing.
I revisited M Night Shyamalan's The Happening recently to try and determine whether he is indeed suffering from Orson Welles syndrome. IE that he has made all his best work at the beginning of his career. Because he’s never quite recaptured the critical or artistic success of The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs. I was one of the few that actually liked The Lady in The water but I could see why viewers would assume that he had become a victim of his own style and technique with that particular movie. Casting yourself as an author whose work will reshape society and change the course of history is at the very least, a little egotistical and at worst an act of immense hubris. Then in recent years we have had The Last Airbender and After Earth, both of which have performed poorly. However I thought I'd give The Happening another chance as it remains the directors only R rated movie to date.
I wrote an article back in 2009 as to why I felt a remake of The Thing was a bad idea. At that time, the project was in development hell and didn’t look like getting off the ground. Subsequently, the production evolved into a prequel and managed to find financial support, culminating in a theatrical release in late 2011. Like many interested parties, I watched the initial teaser trailer with a mixture of curiosity and trepidation. Then when the red band trailer arrived I felt that the shark was well and truly jumped. Too much was shown (a common problem with modern trailers) and there the internet was awash with discontented mutterings from John Carpenter purists. Hence I refrained from watching this movie for several years. When I finally got round to doing so, I was not well disposed towards it. However, over the Christmas holidays, I decide to give this prequel a second viewing and see if I could approach it with a less partisan mindset.
Cloverfield (2008) was a surprise hit, earning $172 million worldwide at the box office against a $25 million budget. Paramount Pictures naturally wanted a sequel but director Matt Reeves and writer Drew Goddard struggled to find a suitable narrative means to progress the original story. Both eventually left the project and the production descended into development hell. The subsequent success of Godzilla and Pacific Rim saw the Kaiju genre becoming oversaturated and so the decision to make a direct sequel was re-evaluated. Eventually a “speculative screenplay” called The Cellar was purchased and repurposed to include some additional science fiction elements and became 10 Cloverfield Lane. Despite being a curious genre hybrid which only tenuously links to the original movie, this too fared well at the box office. Therefore it was inevitable that a third movie in the so-called “Cloververse” would follow.
In many ways the story behind The McPherson Tape is a lot more interesting than the film itself. This early found footage movie from 1989, was shot on home video on a virtually non-existent budget. The director Dean Alioto eventually found a distributor but on the eve of the movie’s home video release, the warehouse burned down and allegedly destroyed the master tape and all the promotional artwork. Yet this was not the end of the story. It was common practice in the eighties for small distributors to send advance copies to local independent video stores. Hence The McPherson Tape found its way into the pirate video ecosystem. It then migrated to the UFO community where it was circulated as being a video of a legitimate alien abduction. Dean found himself in the unusual position of having to debunk his own work. Three decades later due to the intriguing tale associated with The McPherson Tape, it has been remastered from the newly rediscovered 3/4" tape and re-released.
Last month, I tried a 30 day free trial of the streaming service BritBox. One of the main selling points was that the platform has an extensive back catalogue of Classic Doctor Who. Although I initially tried to keep up with the reboot of the franchise in 2005 my interest waned after several seasons. I am not opposed to any of the changes made and I am very pleased that the show has found a new audience. However, it doesn’t resonate with me so much anymore and I find that there is too much human drama for my liking. So I decided to revisit my youth and watch some classic Doctor Who; episodes that I haven’t seen in over forty years (yes, I’m that old). Now I’m fully aware of the potential issues that can come from returning to things that you enjoyed in one’s youth, so I believe I did my best in managing my expectations. However, the results of my nostalgia trip were interesting. The things I thought would be a problem nowadays weren’t so and the things I expected to hold up well despite the passage of time, didn’t always succeed. It’s been a curious experience.
I was 12 years old when I first saw Battle Beyond the Stars during its UK theatrical release. I remember that I enjoyed it and thought it was an action packed movie. Being young, lacking the critical faculties that come with age and exposure to a wider variety of cinematic material, a lot of the films plus points were lost on me. I recollect that I did pick up on the fact that this film was more ghoulish than the other “Space Operas” that flooded theatres at the time. But beyond that, all I saw was a fun and enjoyable science fiction movie. I cheered when the Malmori were defeated and was saddened when Space Cowboy died. It is only after subsequent viewing over the years, that I’ve realised that this film is a microcosm of all the things that made Roger Corman productions so successful and unique. Despite its low budget, the visual effects were good and innovative for the times. There was more sex and violence present, than in comparable productions. And the crew is a veritable who’s who of talent that went on to wider success.
Contrary to the endorsement on the above poster, Riddick was not "the most entertaining action movie of the year" in 2013. It was just an adequate third instalment in a rather ambitious franchise, that has failed to grab the wider public's attention. That’s not to say that they didn’t make money. This is after all the third movie. Writer and Director David Twohy has done his best to try and make the character of Riddick (Vin Diesel) more than the sum of his parts and I admire both of them for their persistence. Unfortunately, Riddick just isn't engaging or complicated enough a protagonist to sustain a franchise of this nature. The anti-hero was sufficient to drive the original Pitch Black back in 2000 which had some good ideas but just couldn't sustain the overarching and overblown Chronicles of Riddick in 2004. This instalment is competently made but ultimately superfluous.
Sequels and reboots are hardly a new concept and have been a part of Hollywood culture since the 1930s. The success of the Universal Horror movies from that era being a prime example of direct follow ups and retconned movies. However, there is one fundamental rule that distinguishes a good sequel from a bad one. You should never mitigate, undermine or make irrelevant the events of the previous movie, just to provide your new film with a raison d'être. For example, the events of Aliens do not contradict or trivialise those that happened in Alien. In fact with that franchise there is a very clear logical progression between the two movies. The same is true for Mad Max and Mad Max 2 or Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. The key is to progress a story, enhance it or explore things from an alternative angle and bring something new to the cinematic table. Sadly this philosophy is all too often lost on corporate film making. Which means that many sequels are just tedious replays of prior films. Terminator: Dark Fate falls squarely into this category.
In the near future, a series of mysterious power surges strike the Solar System, endangering all human life. Astronaut Major Roy McBride, is selected by U.S. Space Command (SpaceCom) to investigate their source near Neptune. The surges are linked to the "Lima Project", a failed experiment from 26 years earlier, that was intended to search for intelligent life outside of our solar system. The ship’s antimatter drive is potentially malfunctioning and responsible for the energy surges. Roy’s investigation is further complicated by the fact his Father H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones), led the "Lima Project" and has not been heard from for 16 years after reaching Neptune. Having been told that Clifford may still be alive, Roy is joined by his father's old associate Colonel Pruitt (Donald Sutherland) whose loyalties remain ambiguous. Roy, who is noted for remaining calm under pressure, shows little emotional reaction to the news about his Father. As he and Pruitt travel covertly from Earth, to the moon and then onto Mars, it becomes clear that there is more to the mission than meets the eye. Will Roy remain emotionally detached or will old wounds impair his judgement?
I was very surprised when I saw a trailer for a fourth instalment on the MiB franchise, based on Lowell Cunningham’s 1990 comic book series about secret government agents battling alien infiltration of earth. The third movie from 2012 managed to keep its head above water despite a very troubled production. At the time of its release, I like everyone else, pretty much thought that the series had run its course. Yet we live in the age of belated sequels as well as hard and soft reboots. And although Will Smith’s star may well be waning, Chris Hemsworth is still box office gold. Hence, we saw the release of Men in Black: International this summer. The basic concept of the franchise remains the same but this time the action begins in the London Office and then takes a more international journey with such locations as Marrakesh and Naples. Emma Thompson returns as Agent O and Liam Neeson joins the cast as agent High T.
The original Men in Black movie hit our screens back in 1997. It was a box office success and was therefore followed by a mediocre sequel in 2002. It took a decade before we got a third instalment in the franchise. However, the popularity of the two lead actors contributed greatly to the success of this series and so despite well documented production problems Men in Black III was released in 2012. However, the delay between movies did have consequences. Will Smith, despite being an Oscar winner and box office star, had lost his way during this time and was not as popular with audiences. Men in Black III was a timely opportunity to reconnect with his core fans. So to ensure that the film hit all the required beats and stand a better chance of being a success, the Columbia Pictures brought back previous director Barry Sonnenfeld, in hopes of warding off the Hollywood curse of third movie instalments.
Fellow blogger and all round good guy Murf, posted an ode to Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure today. It is clearly a movie that he enjoys (Go read his review). He references how due to this movie (along with others), as well as being a decent person in real life, that actor Keanu Reeves enjoys a great deal of goodwill from fans and pop culture cognoscenti. Which is a good thing for Mr Reeves, because goodwill often means that folk are prepared to overlook past transgressions and misdemeanours. And in cinematic terms, Keanu has had a few. The Day the Earth Stood Still is definitely one of them. Now I’ve questioned before the wisdom and merits of writing a predominantly negative film review and believe me my thoughts on The Day the Earth Stood Still are most definitely so. However, I think that something positive can still be gained from scrutinising this film. It can be held up as a textbook example of how not to remake a classic.
Every now and then, a mainstream film studio employs an artisan director to helm some sort of experimental or vanity project. The studio executives often have very little understanding of the film maker or their body of work, beyond that their artistically respected by their peers. Hence there is the corporate hope that the resulting production will be both critically acclaimed and financially successful. However, what all too often happens is that the said director goes off and indulges themselves, or simply does what they’re hired to do and delivers a finished picture that is beyond the intellectual horizons of the studio. Sphincter’s subsequently tighten among executives; the director is denied final cut and the film is taken a way and re-edited in the hope of rendering it more commercially viable. In the worse cases, a second director is brought onboard and new material shot in the hope of “saving” the picture. The net result is usually acrimony among all involved parties and a film that fails to make its money back at the box office.
For anyone with a passing interest in literary science fiction, Arthur C. Clarke’s Childhood’s End is a seminal novel and considered an essential read. The story of humanity being shepherded into a utopian golden age by allegedly benevolent alien Overlords and the consequences it has upon society, was a radical departure from prevailing science fiction norms of the time. Over the years several film makers have expressed interest in adapting the story, but it has proven difficult to come to grips with. Stanley Kubrick initially wished to develop the novel but his subsequent collaboration with the author eventually lead to the making of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Since then there have been radio adaptations and audiobook versions, all of which seem to be a better medium for this episodic and contemplative tale. In late 2015 US cable and satellite channel Syfy broadcast a three-part miniseries based upon the 1953 story; something that past me by at the time. I recently caught up with this adaptation which seems to have provoked very mixed reactions among viewers. As ever, the controversy seems to stem from purists who favour a more slavish interpretation of the book.
I always cringe when I hear the phrase re-imagining. It's yet another contrived expression created by marketing bodies to justify the somewhat arbitrary process of remaking an established title. Often the re-imagined product has little to do with the source material and was chosen simply because of brand awareness. If you want a textbook example of a recent example of this somewhat cynical process then look no further than last year’s Death Wish reboot. It had nothing new to say on the subject and simply trotted out a generic and bland revenge thriller. So, when I discovered that Robert Wise's classic science fiction film, The Andromeda Strain had been remade as a TV miniseries (that had completely passed me by), I had great reservations as to whether this would be worth watching. However, the involvement of Tony and Ridley Scott piqued my interest, so I decided to take a calculated risk and give this 2008 A&E Network production a go.
Time is quite literally money in the movie In Time, starring Amanda Seyfried and Justin Timberlake. Written and directed by Andrew Niccol, who previously wrote Gattaca and S1m0ne which both had similar dystopian themes, we are presented with a chilling scenario. What if you had to spend minutes or hours or perhaps days of your life in the same way you spend money? The movie offers a future where the population is genetically programmed to stop aging at twenty-five. If you're rich enough, you can purchase and trade this commodity, adding time to your life, making you effectively immortal. For the poor, the future is a far bleaker with most dying within a year of this hardcoded end date. Every transaction comes with a price in minutes and seconds.
Many years ago, I use to rush home from school to watch Project UFO. Based loosely on the real-life Project Blue Book, this show from 1978 featured two U.S. Air Force investigators, Maj. Jake Gatlin (William Jordan) and Staff Sgt. Harry Fitz (Caskey Swaim) and their subsequent investigation into alleged UFO sightings. Sometimes there would be rational explanations and on other occasions, there was clearly extraterrestrial involvement. By the second season out protagonists experienced a close encounter of their own. It wasn’t the most densely plotted of dramas and was produced and presented in the idiom of mainstream television of the time. However, for a ten-year-old boy it had some excellent miniature work (Brick Price Movie Miniatures) and anything about UFOs was always a source of interest. There was also a great and very seventies theme tune by Nelson Riddle. So when I discovered that History (formerly The History Channel) had produced a science fiction drama series called Project Blue Book, I became somewhat nostalgic and equally intrigued.
Director Steven Soderbergh is no stranger to complex narratives, shot in a near documentary style. And this is exactly this approach that he brings to bear upon Contagion. A movie that beneath its contemporary trappings, still has the air of an all-star disaster movie. Unlike so many current films which suffer from underdeveloped characters due to poor writing, Soderbergh makes conscious decision to focus more upon the mechanics and nature of a global pandemic than the main protagonists. This somewhat detached approach may not be to all viewers liking. But the format starkly scrutinises and catalogues events in an honest fashion and doesn’t shy away from the realities of the situation or get side tracked by the emotional aspects of the ongoing human tragedy.
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)
Unlike so many other blockbusters Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is not just peddling a vacuous spectacle lacking any substance. The sequel to the 2011 reboot embraces both political and social concepts and attempts to explore them in a meaningful fashion. It is absorbing and intelligent, making its point without being too heavy handed. The motion captured performances and visual effects are outstanding, yet do not swamp the story or the subtleties of the actor’s performances. It is also surprising to see a mainstream Hollywood movie cultivate such a bleak and melancholic tone.
Unlike so many other blockbusters Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is not just peddling a vacuous spectacle lacking any substance. The sequel to the 2011 reboot embraces both political and social concepts and attempts to explore them in a meaningful fashion. It is absorbing and intelligent, making its point without being too heavy handed. The motion captured performances and visual effects are outstanding, yet do not swamp the story or the subtleties of the actor’s performances. It is also surprising to see a mainstream Hollywood movie cultivate such a bleak and melancholic tone.
I was not expecting great things from Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. I was raised on reruns of the original Planet of the Apes franchise and was frankly reticent to invest time in movies that were simply going to revisits old ground. However, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes has a greater depth to its narrative than I anticipated and is surprising critical of many contemporary political issues. The story not only explores the concept of institutionalised racism but wider societal inequality and the abuse of power that so often arises in all forms of politics. The thorny issue of gun control is alluded to, although obliquely.
Plot wise, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes takes a familiar story and simply tells it form a different perspective. Since the outbreak of the ALZ-113 virus, Caesar (Andy Serkis) and his genetically modified apes have been living peacefully in Muir Woods. When a band of wandering human survivors encounters them, both parties are equally surprised. After a violent incident, Caesar orders them to leave. However, the matter causes divisions in both human and ape societies. Koba (Toby Kebbell) wishes the apes to strike against humans while they still have the upper hand and likewise Dreyfus (Gary Oldman) wants the humans to deal with the simian threat, once and for all. However, not all humans takes such a hawkish stance. Malcolm (Jason Clarke) is curious about Caesar and feels an affinity towards him as both are struggling fathers.
Director Matt Reeves and screenwriters Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver and Mark Bomback embellish the narrative with a great deal of thought and creativity. The apes use of sign language is innovative and appropriate. The sophisticated CGI does not impede the actor’s performance. Many of the apes have clear personalities and are strongly defined. The lack of dialogue in many scenes works very well, allowing cinematic art and the physical skill of the actors to tell the story. It's quite astonishing how far the motion capture technology has advanced when it comes to creating tangible characters that audiences can genuinely empathise with. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a superior movie to its predecessor, which although enjoyable, still felt very much like a prologue rather than a story in its own right.
However, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes does have a few inconsistencies. Gary Oldman is once again under used and liberal human leader Malcolm is a little bland. As ever with movies, it is the bad guys who are potentially the most interesting character. Yet I was left somewhat underwhelmed by the chimp Koba. It would have been interesting to see a greater exploration of his back story. I get the impression that the editing process left actor Toby Kebbell's performance somewhat choppy.
Overall, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is an above average blockbuster movie that requires audiences to think and reflect, rather than just passively view. It moves the long-term story arc of the franchise forward into interesting new territory. It is quite hard hitting within the confines of its broad PG-13 rating and is surprisingly not afraid to pursue a sombre tone. The technical achievements of the production are prodigious and prove that motion capture performances are as relevant and meaningful as any other form of acting.
David Koepp is no stranger to genre cinema, having written the screenplay for such films as Jurassic Park, Spider-man and War of the Worlds. Where these titles are big budget, major studio productions, Cold Storage is a far more modest production with a smaller scope. Adapted from his own novel, the screenplay is by David Koepp and the film is directed by British film-maker Jonny Campbell. At first glance, Cold Storage seems a somewhat derivative science fiction horror film with a relatively modest budget, financed through a convoluted US and French co-production. Lurid green and red colours feature heavily in the marketing artwork and it is easy, after a cursory look, to write the film off as cheap, generic, direct-to-streaming filler. However, Cold Storage is prime example of why you should not judge a book by it’s cover, or in this case, a film by its posters and online advertising. It is in fact an amusing and fun endeavour that can fill an evening.
Treasure Island In Outer Space is a curious Italian television production from 1987 starring Anthony Quinn and Ernest Borgnine. It also features numerous international actors better known for their work in cult and exploitation films, such as Bobby Rhodes, David Warbeck and John Morghan. Directed by Antonio Margheriti (AKA Anthony Dawson), famous for such films as Killer Fish (a cash in on Piranha) and The Last Hunter (a Vietnam exploitation epic), Treasure Island In Outer Space is a faithful adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s classic novel. The screenplay by Renato Castellani and Lucio De Caro draws heavily from the source text, maintaining character names and original dialogue. However in updating the material to a futuristic setting, the script is littered with the worst kind of eighties sci-fi clichés. We are subjected to sonic trains, anti-gravity rays and the usual buzzword driven faux science.
After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, filmmakers scrambled to find existing intellectual properties that they could use for similar films. Hence archaic heroes such as Alan Quatermain were hastily given a modern makeover and thrust into generic movies, in a vague attempt to replicate Steven Spielberg’s successful formula. Which brings us neatly on to James Charles Bigglesworth AKA “Biggles”, a fictional pilot and adventurer from a series of books written by W. E. Johns between 1932 and 1968. Several attempts had been made in the past to bring this character to the silver screen, including one by Disney but they all failed. However, the commercial and critical success of Indiana Jones provided sufficient impetus to greenlight a new film. However, due to some curious production choices, when Biggles was finally released it was far from just a period set, action movie.
The seventies was an interesting time for UK genre television. Despite small budgets and often low key visual effects, there was no shortage of good ideas and creativity. Sapphire & Steel is a prime example of a show couched in a high concept, produced on a shoestring. It also credits its audiences with some degree of intelligence. Rather than spoon feeding the narrative in a didactic manner, it hints and implies, then leaves the rest to its viewers imagination. Created by Peter J. Hammond, a veteran TV writer, Sapphire & Steel centres on a pair of interdimensional operatives named Sapphire and Steel. They are two of a number of elements that assume human form. Over the course of three seasons little is revealed about the pair but they appear whenever there is any anomalous temporal activity. Time itself is portrayed as a sentient and malignant force that seeks to make incursions into the present reality, through weaknesses in the fabric of space.
The Humanoid is one of many international Star Wars knock-offs that flooded cinemas in the late seventies and early eighties. Like so many others, it is derivative (even to the extent of replicating specific scenes from George Lucas’ movie), replete with awful dialogue and has somewhat basic production values. However, it does have an interesting cast including Richard Kiel, Barbara Bach, Arthur Kennedy and Corinne Cléry. Kiel gained a lot of media attention after his appearance as the steel-toothed villain Jaws in the 1977 Bond film, The Spy Who Loved Me. His stature made him the perfect fit for the titular character in this Italian science fiction production. Sadly, beyond a curious lineup of actors, The Humanoid has little to distinguish it from so many similar movies. For example, if you’ve seen Starcrash then you’ll be adequately prepared for this film.
Some films are made with the intention of starting a franchise, others evolve into one after a surprise box office success and lucrative sequels. Alien (1979) falls into the latter category. A mid-budget science fiction horror film that was well crafted and then benefited immensely by being released at just the right time. Sadly, many franchises become derailed and enter into a death spiral due to competing artistic visions, cynical studio politics and cinematic ignorance. This has certainly afflicted all subsequent Alien films after James Cameron’s magnificent Aliens (1986). Sometimes, a franchise can correct its course and do something fresh with the source material. Prey (2022) is a fine example of this with director Dan Trachtenberg bringing fresh vigour and intelligence back to the Predator movies. I believe that was the intention with Alien Romulus (2024). Sadly, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Event Horizon is a curious movie hybrid, mixing plot elements from classic sci-fi and horror genres. It has been labelled “Hellraiser in Space” by some lazy critics, although I think there's far more to it than that. Perhaps a more apt description would be a Gothic horror story set in space. The movie has garnered a cult reputation since its release in 1997, mainly due to its graphic imagery and troubled production history. It does indeed have some quite shocking sequences but the lightning editing does not show as much as some would think. Paramount forced director Paul W S Anderson to reduce the original one hundred and thirty minute running time down to a more manageable ninety, after unfavourable test screenings. Much of the violence was allegedly removed as a result of that process. Sadly nothing survives of the removed material other than a VHS workprint. Hence a restored director’s cut is therefore unlikely.
I recently watched the first trailer for the new Obi-Wan Kenobi television show that is premiering on Disney + in May. I am interested in this latest instalment in the Star Wars franchise and curious as to whether Liam Neeson will make an appearance. I also watched a 20 minute fan video in which they “analysed” the entire trailer. They discussed the content of this 2 minute preview and then did a great deal of speculating about potential themes and characters that may feature in the show. They were clearly enthusiastic about what they had seen and were very knowledgeable about the subject. This resonated with me, as I like to be well versed about the things I enjoy. However, it is worth remembering that fandom can tip into obsession and gatekeeping. Hence I feel there is a subject to explore here.
On paper Finch has little originality. The moment I read the plot synopsis and saw the first trailer I instantly thought of other such films as Silent Running, Short Circuit and Chappie. However, irrespective of its derivative concept and the fact it channels many of the major tropes of the genre, it does have three cards to play. Namely strong performances by Tom Hanks, Caleb Landry Jones and canine actor Seamus. Although not a genre milestone, Finch is a curiously pleasant post apocalyptic road movie. Despite travelling through the sun bleached vistas of a ravaged America, the story focuses on the three protagonists and their relationship. It is no small feat to find genuine sentiment in such a harsh environment and indeed in such a genre but Finch proves to be an engaging emotional journey. Once again the most effective explorations of the human condition are often through characters who are conspicuously not.
I wanted to watch Source Code for a second time before I wrote about it. This is because numerous internet debates have arisen regarding the plausibility of the film’s ending. I find this a somewhat curious stance considering that the story, written by Ben Ripley, deals with temporal travel and multiple timelines. All of which are purely theoretical and not currently subject to singular, definitive interpretations. I would further add that the science of the film is simply a plot device and is not its raison d'être. But that’s movies for you. People love to discuss them and more recently we have seen the rise of “explanation” videos on YouTube. However, the latter is a separate debate and something I may write about in the future. As for Source Code, I enjoyed it even more the second time round, as I had the time to focus on the minor details rather than trying to stay abreast with the main plot, as I did on my first viewing.
I revisited M Night Shyamalan's The Happening recently to try and determine whether he is indeed suffering from Orson Welles syndrome. IE that he has made all his best work at the beginning of his career. Because he’s never quite recaptured the critical or artistic success of The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs. I was one of the few that actually liked The Lady in The water but I could see why viewers would assume that he had become a victim of his own style and technique with that particular movie. Casting yourself as an author whose work will reshape society and change the course of history is at the very least, a little egotistical and at worst an act of immense hubris. Then in recent years we have had The Last Airbender and After Earth, both of which have performed poorly. However I thought I'd give The Happening another chance as it remains the directors only R rated movie to date.
I wrote an article back in 2009 as to why I felt a remake of The Thing was a bad idea. At that time, the project was in development hell and didn’t look like getting off the ground. Subsequently, the production evolved into a prequel and managed to find financial support, culminating in a theatrical release in late 2011. Like many interested parties, I watched the initial teaser trailer with a mixture of curiosity and trepidation. Then when the red band trailer arrived I felt that the shark was well and truly jumped. Too much was shown (a common problem with modern trailers) and there the internet was awash with discontented mutterings from John Carpenter purists. Hence I refrained from watching this movie for several years. When I finally got round to doing so, I was not well disposed towards it. However, over the Christmas holidays, I decide to give this prequel a second viewing and see if I could approach it with a less partisan mindset.
Cloverfield (2008) was a surprise hit, earning $172 million worldwide at the box office against a $25 million budget. Paramount Pictures naturally wanted a sequel but director Matt Reeves and writer Drew Goddard struggled to find a suitable narrative means to progress the original story. Both eventually left the project and the production descended into development hell. The subsequent success of Godzilla and Pacific Rim saw the Kaiju genre becoming oversaturated and so the decision to make a direct sequel was re-evaluated. Eventually a “speculative screenplay” called The Cellar was purchased and repurposed to include some additional science fiction elements and became 10 Cloverfield Lane. Despite being a curious genre hybrid which only tenuously links to the original movie, this too fared well at the box office. Therefore it was inevitable that a third movie in the so-called “Cloververse” would follow.
In many ways the story behind The McPherson Tape is a lot more interesting than the film itself. This early found footage movie from 1989, was shot on home video on a virtually non-existent budget. The director Dean Alioto eventually found a distributor but on the eve of the movie’s home video release, the warehouse burned down and allegedly destroyed the master tape and all the promotional artwork. Yet this was not the end of the story. It was common practice in the eighties for small distributors to send advance copies to local independent video stores. Hence The McPherson Tape found its way into the pirate video ecosystem. It then migrated to the UFO community where it was circulated as being a video of a legitimate alien abduction. Dean found himself in the unusual position of having to debunk his own work. Three decades later due to the intriguing tale associated with The McPherson Tape, it has been remastered from the newly rediscovered 3/4" tape and re-released.
Last month, I tried a 30 day free trial of the streaming service BritBox. One of the main selling points was that the platform has an extensive back catalogue of Classic Doctor Who. Although I initially tried to keep up with the reboot of the franchise in 2005 my interest waned after several seasons. I am not opposed to any of the changes made and I am very pleased that the show has found a new audience. However, it doesn’t resonate with me so much anymore and I find that there is too much human drama for my liking. So I decided to revisit my youth and watch some classic Doctor Who; episodes that I haven’t seen in over forty years (yes, I’m that old). Now I’m fully aware of the potential issues that can come from returning to things that you enjoyed in one’s youth, so I believe I did my best in managing my expectations. However, the results of my nostalgia trip were interesting. The things I thought would be a problem nowadays weren’t so and the things I expected to hold up well despite the passage of time, didn’t always succeed. It’s been a curious experience.
I was 12 years old when I first saw Battle Beyond the Stars during its UK theatrical release. I remember that I enjoyed it and thought it was an action packed movie. Being young, lacking the critical faculties that come with age and exposure to a wider variety of cinematic material, a lot of the films plus points were lost on me. I recollect that I did pick up on the fact that this film was more ghoulish than the other “Space Operas” that flooded theatres at the time. But beyond that, all I saw was a fun and enjoyable science fiction movie. I cheered when the Malmori were defeated and was saddened when Space Cowboy died. It is only after subsequent viewing over the years, that I’ve realised that this film is a microcosm of all the things that made Roger Corman productions so successful and unique. Despite its low budget, the visual effects were good and innovative for the times. There was more sex and violence present, than in comparable productions. And the crew is a veritable who’s who of talent that went on to wider success.
Contrary to the endorsement on the above poster, Riddick was not "the most entertaining action movie of the year" in 2013. It was just an adequate third instalment in a rather ambitious franchise, that has failed to grab the wider public's attention. That’s not to say that they didn’t make money. This is after all the third movie. Writer and Director David Twohy has done his best to try and make the character of Riddick (Vin Diesel) more than the sum of his parts and I admire both of them for their persistence. Unfortunately, Riddick just isn't engaging or complicated enough a protagonist to sustain a franchise of this nature. The anti-hero was sufficient to drive the original Pitch Black back in 2000 which had some good ideas but just couldn't sustain the overarching and overblown Chronicles of Riddick in 2004. This instalment is competently made but ultimately superfluous.
Sequels and reboots are hardly a new concept and have been a part of Hollywood culture since the 1930s. The success of the Universal Horror movies from that era being a prime example of direct follow ups and retconned movies. However, there is one fundamental rule that distinguishes a good sequel from a bad one. You should never mitigate, undermine or make irrelevant the events of the previous movie, just to provide your new film with a raison d'être. For example, the events of Aliens do not contradict or trivialise those that happened in Alien. In fact with that franchise there is a very clear logical progression between the two movies. The same is true for Mad Max and Mad Max 2 or Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. The key is to progress a story, enhance it or explore things from an alternative angle and bring something new to the cinematic table. Sadly this philosophy is all too often lost on corporate film making. Which means that many sequels are just tedious replays of prior films. Terminator: Dark Fate falls squarely into this category.
In the near future, a series of mysterious power surges strike the Solar System, endangering all human life. Astronaut Major Roy McBride, is selected by U.S. Space Command (SpaceCom) to investigate their source near Neptune. The surges are linked to the "Lima Project", a failed experiment from 26 years earlier, that was intended to search for intelligent life outside of our solar system. The ship’s antimatter drive is potentially malfunctioning and responsible for the energy surges. Roy’s investigation is further complicated by the fact his Father H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones), led the "Lima Project" and has not been heard from for 16 years after reaching Neptune. Having been told that Clifford may still be alive, Roy is joined by his father's old associate Colonel Pruitt (Donald Sutherland) whose loyalties remain ambiguous. Roy, who is noted for remaining calm under pressure, shows little emotional reaction to the news about his Father. As he and Pruitt travel covertly from Earth, to the moon and then onto Mars, it becomes clear that there is more to the mission than meets the eye. Will Roy remain emotionally detached or will old wounds impair his judgement?
I was very surprised when I saw a trailer for a fourth instalment on the MiB franchise, based on Lowell Cunningham’s 1990 comic book series about secret government agents battling alien infiltration of earth. The third movie from 2012 managed to keep its head above water despite a very troubled production. At the time of its release, I like everyone else, pretty much thought that the series had run its course. Yet we live in the age of belated sequels as well as hard and soft reboots. And although Will Smith’s star may well be waning, Chris Hemsworth is still box office gold. Hence, we saw the release of Men in Black: International this summer. The basic concept of the franchise remains the same but this time the action begins in the London Office and then takes a more international journey with such locations as Marrakesh and Naples. Emma Thompson returns as Agent O and Liam Neeson joins the cast as agent High T.
The original Men in Black movie hit our screens back in 1997. It was a box office success and was therefore followed by a mediocre sequel in 2002. It took a decade before we got a third instalment in the franchise. However, the popularity of the two lead actors contributed greatly to the success of this series and so despite well documented production problems Men in Black III was released in 2012. However, the delay between movies did have consequences. Will Smith, despite being an Oscar winner and box office star, had lost his way during this time and was not as popular with audiences. Men in Black III was a timely opportunity to reconnect with his core fans. So to ensure that the film hit all the required beats and stand a better chance of being a success, the Columbia Pictures brought back previous director Barry Sonnenfeld, in hopes of warding off the Hollywood curse of third movie instalments.
Fellow blogger and all round good guy Murf, posted an ode to Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure today. It is clearly a movie that he enjoys (Go read his review). He references how due to this movie (along with others), as well as being a decent person in real life, that actor Keanu Reeves enjoys a great deal of goodwill from fans and pop culture cognoscenti. Which is a good thing for Mr Reeves, because goodwill often means that folk are prepared to overlook past transgressions and misdemeanours. And in cinematic terms, Keanu has had a few. The Day the Earth Stood Still is definitely one of them. Now I’ve questioned before the wisdom and merits of writing a predominantly negative film review and believe me my thoughts on The Day the Earth Stood Still are most definitely so. However, I think that something positive can still be gained from scrutinising this film. It can be held up as a textbook example of how not to remake a classic.
Every now and then, a mainstream film studio employs an artisan director to helm some sort of experimental or vanity project. The studio executives often have very little understanding of the film maker or their body of work, beyond that their artistically respected by their peers. Hence there is the corporate hope that the resulting production will be both critically acclaimed and financially successful. However, what all too often happens is that the said director goes off and indulges themselves, or simply does what they’re hired to do and delivers a finished picture that is beyond the intellectual horizons of the studio. Sphincter’s subsequently tighten among executives; the director is denied final cut and the film is taken a way and re-edited in the hope of rendering it more commercially viable. In the worse cases, a second director is brought onboard and new material shot in the hope of “saving” the picture. The net result is usually acrimony among all involved parties and a film that fails to make its money back at the box office.
For anyone with a passing interest in literary science fiction, Arthur C. Clarke’s Childhood’s End is a seminal novel and considered an essential read. The story of humanity being shepherded into a utopian golden age by allegedly benevolent alien Overlords and the consequences it has upon society, was a radical departure from prevailing science fiction norms of the time. Over the years several film makers have expressed interest in adapting the story, but it has proven difficult to come to grips with. Stanley Kubrick initially wished to develop the novel but his subsequent collaboration with the author eventually lead to the making of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Since then there have been radio adaptations and audiobook versions, all of which seem to be a better medium for this episodic and contemplative tale. In late 2015 US cable and satellite channel Syfy broadcast a three-part miniseries based upon the 1953 story; something that past me by at the time. I recently caught up with this adaptation which seems to have provoked very mixed reactions among viewers. As ever, the controversy seems to stem from purists who favour a more slavish interpretation of the book.
I always cringe when I hear the phrase re-imagining. It's yet another contrived expression created by marketing bodies to justify the somewhat arbitrary process of remaking an established title. Often the re-imagined product has little to do with the source material and was chosen simply because of brand awareness. If you want a textbook example of a recent example of this somewhat cynical process then look no further than last year’s Death Wish reboot. It had nothing new to say on the subject and simply trotted out a generic and bland revenge thriller. So, when I discovered that Robert Wise's classic science fiction film, The Andromeda Strain had been remade as a TV miniseries (that had completely passed me by), I had great reservations as to whether this would be worth watching. However, the involvement of Tony and Ridley Scott piqued my interest, so I decided to take a calculated risk and give this 2008 A&E Network production a go.
Time is quite literally money in the movie In Time, starring Amanda Seyfried and Justin Timberlake. Written and directed by Andrew Niccol, who previously wrote Gattaca and S1m0ne which both had similar dystopian themes, we are presented with a chilling scenario. What if you had to spend minutes or hours or perhaps days of your life in the same way you spend money? The movie offers a future where the population is genetically programmed to stop aging at twenty-five. If you're rich enough, you can purchase and trade this commodity, adding time to your life, making you effectively immortal. For the poor, the future is a far bleaker with most dying within a year of this hardcoded end date. Every transaction comes with a price in minutes and seconds.
Many years ago, I use to rush home from school to watch Project UFO. Based loosely on the real-life Project Blue Book, this show from 1978 featured two U.S. Air Force investigators, Maj. Jake Gatlin (William Jordan) and Staff Sgt. Harry Fitz (Caskey Swaim) and their subsequent investigation into alleged UFO sightings. Sometimes there would be rational explanations and on other occasions, there was clearly extraterrestrial involvement. By the second season out protagonists experienced a close encounter of their own. It wasn’t the most densely plotted of dramas and was produced and presented in the idiom of mainstream television of the time. However, for a ten-year-old boy it had some excellent miniature work (Brick Price Movie Miniatures) and anything about UFOs was always a source of interest. There was also a great and very seventies theme tune by Nelson Riddle. So when I discovered that History (formerly The History Channel) had produced a science fiction drama series called Project Blue Book, I became somewhat nostalgic and equally intrigued.
Director Steven Soderbergh is no stranger to complex narratives, shot in a near documentary style. And this is exactly this approach that he brings to bear upon Contagion. A movie that beneath its contemporary trappings, still has the air of an all-star disaster movie. Unlike so many current films which suffer from underdeveloped characters due to poor writing, Soderbergh makes conscious decision to focus more upon the mechanics and nature of a global pandemic than the main protagonists. This somewhat detached approach may not be to all viewers liking. But the format starkly scrutinises and catalogues events in an honest fashion and doesn’t shy away from the realities of the situation or get side tracked by the emotional aspects of the ongoing human tragedy.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)
The greatest asset of Rise of The Planet of the Apes is the CGI chimpanzee, Caesar, played by Andy Serkis. It is also the films greatest hindrance. Too much focus is spent on the titular character at the expensive of the remainder of the cast. The pace is also purposely pedestrian to accommodate a list of cinematic pre-requisites that the producers felt must be included. These include moral dilemmas, relationship issues and contemporary ethical themes. If you were hoping that Rupert Wyatt’s Rise of The Planet of The Apes would be a more cerebral spectacle, then you may well be a little disappointed. It is functional and efficient entertainment, but no more than that.
The greatest asset of Rise of The Planet of the Apes is the CGI chimpanzee, Caesar, played by Andy Serkis. It is also the films greatest hindrance. Too much focus is spent on the titular character at the expensive of the remainder of the cast. The pace is also purposely pedestrian to accommodate a list of cinematic pre-requisites that the producers felt must be included. These include moral dilemmas, relationship issues and contemporary ethical themes. If you were hoping that Rupert Wyatt’s Rise of The Planet of The Apes would be a more cerebral spectacle, then you may well be a little disappointed. It is functional and efficient entertainment, but no more than that.
The CGI action scenes of rampaging apes, as shown in the trailer, are well executed but far smaller in scale than you would expect. They also arrive quite near to the films climax and are not as a substantial part of the movie as suggested. There are a few nods to the original series of films during the course of this reboot. But by and large this movie feels that it has been hemmed in and restrained by the need to establish a starting point for a new franchise. Once again, I suspect studio meddling and a continuous stream of memo’s suggesting adjustments based on focus groups and market research.
John Lithgow is good, but there again he is seldom bad. It is also nice to see humanity toppled from its pedestal. I have an inclination for any film that eschews the tired notion that the human race is the summit of evolution and somehow the metaphorical centre of the universe. It cannot be denied that the motion capture techniques certainly do set new standards. But ultimately, if Fox had spent more time focusing on a more even narrative, rather than being pleased with itself by all boxes they were ticking, this would be a better film. Let us hope that the next entry in the series will have a stronger director and a finely-honed screenplay.
David Koepp is no stranger to genre cinema, having written the screenplay for such films as Jurassic Park, Spider-man and War of the Worlds. Where these titles are big budget, major studio productions, Cold Storage is a far more modest production with a smaller scope. Adapted from his own novel, the screenplay is by David Koepp and the film is directed by British film-maker Jonny Campbell. At first glance, Cold Storage seems a somewhat derivative science fiction horror film with a relatively modest budget, financed through a convoluted US and French co-production. Lurid green and red colours feature heavily in the marketing artwork and it is easy, after a cursory look, to write the film off as cheap, generic, direct-to-streaming filler. However, Cold Storage is prime example of why you should not judge a book by it’s cover, or in this case, a film by its posters and online advertising. It is in fact an amusing and fun endeavour that can fill an evening.
Treasure Island In Outer Space is a curious Italian television production from 1987 starring Anthony Quinn and Ernest Borgnine. It also features numerous international actors better known for their work in cult and exploitation films, such as Bobby Rhodes, David Warbeck and John Morghan. Directed by Antonio Margheriti (AKA Anthony Dawson), famous for such films as Killer Fish (a cash in on Piranha) and The Last Hunter (a Vietnam exploitation epic), Treasure Island In Outer Space is a faithful adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s classic novel. The screenplay by Renato Castellani and Lucio De Caro draws heavily from the source text, maintaining character names and original dialogue. However in updating the material to a futuristic setting, the script is littered with the worst kind of eighties sci-fi clichés. We are subjected to sonic trains, anti-gravity rays and the usual buzzword driven faux science.
After the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, filmmakers scrambled to find existing intellectual properties that they could use for similar films. Hence archaic heroes such as Alan Quatermain were hastily given a modern makeover and thrust into generic movies, in a vague attempt to replicate Steven Spielberg’s successful formula. Which brings us neatly on to James Charles Bigglesworth AKA “Biggles”, a fictional pilot and adventurer from a series of books written by W. E. Johns between 1932 and 1968. Several attempts had been made in the past to bring this character to the silver screen, including one by Disney but they all failed. However, the commercial and critical success of Indiana Jones provided sufficient impetus to greenlight a new film. However, due to some curious production choices, when Biggles was finally released it was far from just a period set, action movie.
The seventies was an interesting time for UK genre television. Despite small budgets and often low key visual effects, there was no shortage of good ideas and creativity. Sapphire & Steel is a prime example of a show couched in a high concept, produced on a shoestring. It also credits its audiences with some degree of intelligence. Rather than spoon feeding the narrative in a didactic manner, it hints and implies, then leaves the rest to its viewers imagination. Created by Peter J. Hammond, a veteran TV writer, Sapphire & Steel centres on a pair of interdimensional operatives named Sapphire and Steel. They are two of a number of elements that assume human form. Over the course of three seasons little is revealed about the pair but they appear whenever there is any anomalous temporal activity. Time itself is portrayed as a sentient and malignant force that seeks to make incursions into the present reality, through weaknesses in the fabric of space.
The Humanoid is one of many international Star Wars knock-offs that flooded cinemas in the late seventies and early eighties. Like so many others, it is derivative (even to the extent of replicating specific scenes from George Lucas’ movie), replete with awful dialogue and has somewhat basic production values. However, it does have an interesting cast including Richard Kiel, Barbara Bach, Arthur Kennedy and Corinne Cléry. Kiel gained a lot of media attention after his appearance as the steel-toothed villain Jaws in the 1977 Bond film, The Spy Who Loved Me. His stature made him the perfect fit for the titular character in this Italian science fiction production. Sadly, beyond a curious lineup of actors, The Humanoid has little to distinguish it from so many similar movies. For example, if you’ve seen Starcrash then you’ll be adequately prepared for this film.
Some films are made with the intention of starting a franchise, others evolve into one after a surprise box office success and lucrative sequels. Alien (1979) falls into the latter category. A mid-budget science fiction horror film that was well crafted and then benefited immensely by being released at just the right time. Sadly, many franchises become derailed and enter into a death spiral due to competing artistic visions, cynical studio politics and cinematic ignorance. This has certainly afflicted all subsequent Alien films after James Cameron’s magnificent Aliens (1986). Sometimes, a franchise can correct its course and do something fresh with the source material. Prey (2022) is a fine example of this with director Dan Trachtenberg bringing fresh vigour and intelligence back to the Predator movies. I believe that was the intention with Alien Romulus (2024). Sadly, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Event Horizon is a curious movie hybrid, mixing plot elements from classic sci-fi and horror genres. It has been labelled “Hellraiser in Space” by some lazy critics, although I think there's far more to it than that. Perhaps a more apt description would be a Gothic horror story set in space. The movie has garnered a cult reputation since its release in 1997, mainly due to its graphic imagery and troubled production history. It does indeed have some quite shocking sequences but the lightning editing does not show as much as some would think. Paramount forced director Paul W S Anderson to reduce the original one hundred and thirty minute running time down to a more manageable ninety, after unfavourable test screenings. Much of the violence was allegedly removed as a result of that process. Sadly nothing survives of the removed material other than a VHS workprint. Hence a restored director’s cut is therefore unlikely.
I recently watched the first trailer for the new Obi-Wan Kenobi television show that is premiering on Disney + in May. I am interested in this latest instalment in the Star Wars franchise and curious as to whether Liam Neeson will make an appearance. I also watched a 20 minute fan video in which they “analysed” the entire trailer. They discussed the content of this 2 minute preview and then did a great deal of speculating about potential themes and characters that may feature in the show. They were clearly enthusiastic about what they had seen and were very knowledgeable about the subject. This resonated with me, as I like to be well versed about the things I enjoy. However, it is worth remembering that fandom can tip into obsession and gatekeeping. Hence I feel there is a subject to explore here.
On paper Finch has little originality. The moment I read the plot synopsis and saw the first trailer I instantly thought of other such films as Silent Running, Short Circuit and Chappie. However, irrespective of its derivative concept and the fact it channels many of the major tropes of the genre, it does have three cards to play. Namely strong performances by Tom Hanks, Caleb Landry Jones and canine actor Seamus. Although not a genre milestone, Finch is a curiously pleasant post apocalyptic road movie. Despite travelling through the sun bleached vistas of a ravaged America, the story focuses on the three protagonists and their relationship. It is no small feat to find genuine sentiment in such a harsh environment and indeed in such a genre but Finch proves to be an engaging emotional journey. Once again the most effective explorations of the human condition are often through characters who are conspicuously not.
I wanted to watch Source Code for a second time before I wrote about it. This is because numerous internet debates have arisen regarding the plausibility of the film’s ending. I find this a somewhat curious stance considering that the story, written by Ben Ripley, deals with temporal travel and multiple timelines. All of which are purely theoretical and not currently subject to singular, definitive interpretations. I would further add that the science of the film is simply a plot device and is not its raison d'être. But that’s movies for you. People love to discuss them and more recently we have seen the rise of “explanation” videos on YouTube. However, the latter is a separate debate and something I may write about in the future. As for Source Code, I enjoyed it even more the second time round, as I had the time to focus on the minor details rather than trying to stay abreast with the main plot, as I did on my first viewing.
I revisited M Night Shyamalan's The Happening recently to try and determine whether he is indeed suffering from Orson Welles syndrome. IE that he has made all his best work at the beginning of his career. Because he’s never quite recaptured the critical or artistic success of The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs. I was one of the few that actually liked The Lady in The water but I could see why viewers would assume that he had become a victim of his own style and technique with that particular movie. Casting yourself as an author whose work will reshape society and change the course of history is at the very least, a little egotistical and at worst an act of immense hubris. Then in recent years we have had The Last Airbender and After Earth, both of which have performed poorly. However I thought I'd give The Happening another chance as it remains the directors only R rated movie to date.
I wrote an article back in 2009 as to why I felt a remake of The Thing was a bad idea. At that time, the project was in development hell and didn’t look like getting off the ground. Subsequently, the production evolved into a prequel and managed to find financial support, culminating in a theatrical release in late 2011. Like many interested parties, I watched the initial teaser trailer with a mixture of curiosity and trepidation. Then when the red band trailer arrived I felt that the shark was well and truly jumped. Too much was shown (a common problem with modern trailers) and there the internet was awash with discontented mutterings from John Carpenter purists. Hence I refrained from watching this movie for several years. When I finally got round to doing so, I was not well disposed towards it. However, over the Christmas holidays, I decide to give this prequel a second viewing and see if I could approach it with a less partisan mindset.
Cloverfield (2008) was a surprise hit, earning $172 million worldwide at the box office against a $25 million budget. Paramount Pictures naturally wanted a sequel but director Matt Reeves and writer Drew Goddard struggled to find a suitable narrative means to progress the original story. Both eventually left the project and the production descended into development hell. The subsequent success of Godzilla and Pacific Rim saw the Kaiju genre becoming oversaturated and so the decision to make a direct sequel was re-evaluated. Eventually a “speculative screenplay” called The Cellar was purchased and repurposed to include some additional science fiction elements and became 10 Cloverfield Lane. Despite being a curious genre hybrid which only tenuously links to the original movie, this too fared well at the box office. Therefore it was inevitable that a third movie in the so-called “Cloververse” would follow.
In many ways the story behind The McPherson Tape is a lot more interesting than the film itself. This early found footage movie from 1989, was shot on home video on a virtually non-existent budget. The director Dean Alioto eventually found a distributor but on the eve of the movie’s home video release, the warehouse burned down and allegedly destroyed the master tape and all the promotional artwork. Yet this was not the end of the story. It was common practice in the eighties for small distributors to send advance copies to local independent video stores. Hence The McPherson Tape found its way into the pirate video ecosystem. It then migrated to the UFO community where it was circulated as being a video of a legitimate alien abduction. Dean found himself in the unusual position of having to debunk his own work. Three decades later due to the intriguing tale associated with The McPherson Tape, it has been remastered from the newly rediscovered 3/4" tape and re-released.
Last month, I tried a 30 day free trial of the streaming service BritBox. One of the main selling points was that the platform has an extensive back catalogue of Classic Doctor Who. Although I initially tried to keep up with the reboot of the franchise in 2005 my interest waned after several seasons. I am not opposed to any of the changes made and I am very pleased that the show has found a new audience. However, it doesn’t resonate with me so much anymore and I find that there is too much human drama for my liking. So I decided to revisit my youth and watch some classic Doctor Who; episodes that I haven’t seen in over forty years (yes, I’m that old). Now I’m fully aware of the potential issues that can come from returning to things that you enjoyed in one’s youth, so I believe I did my best in managing my expectations. However, the results of my nostalgia trip were interesting. The things I thought would be a problem nowadays weren’t so and the things I expected to hold up well despite the passage of time, didn’t always succeed. It’s been a curious experience.
I was 12 years old when I first saw Battle Beyond the Stars during its UK theatrical release. I remember that I enjoyed it and thought it was an action packed movie. Being young, lacking the critical faculties that come with age and exposure to a wider variety of cinematic material, a lot of the films plus points were lost on me. I recollect that I did pick up on the fact that this film was more ghoulish than the other “Space Operas” that flooded theatres at the time. But beyond that, all I saw was a fun and enjoyable science fiction movie. I cheered when the Malmori were defeated and was saddened when Space Cowboy died. It is only after subsequent viewing over the years, that I’ve realised that this film is a microcosm of all the things that made Roger Corman productions so successful and unique. Despite its low budget, the visual effects were good and innovative for the times. There was more sex and violence present, than in comparable productions. And the crew is a veritable who’s who of talent that went on to wider success.
Contrary to the endorsement on the above poster, Riddick was not "the most entertaining action movie of the year" in 2013. It was just an adequate third instalment in a rather ambitious franchise, that has failed to grab the wider public's attention. That’s not to say that they didn’t make money. This is after all the third movie. Writer and Director David Twohy has done his best to try and make the character of Riddick (Vin Diesel) more than the sum of his parts and I admire both of them for their persistence. Unfortunately, Riddick just isn't engaging or complicated enough a protagonist to sustain a franchise of this nature. The anti-hero was sufficient to drive the original Pitch Black back in 2000 which had some good ideas but just couldn't sustain the overarching and overblown Chronicles of Riddick in 2004. This instalment is competently made but ultimately superfluous.
Sequels and reboots are hardly a new concept and have been a part of Hollywood culture since the 1930s. The success of the Universal Horror movies from that era being a prime example of direct follow ups and retconned movies. However, there is one fundamental rule that distinguishes a good sequel from a bad one. You should never mitigate, undermine or make irrelevant the events of the previous movie, just to provide your new film with a raison d'être. For example, the events of Aliens do not contradict or trivialise those that happened in Alien. In fact with that franchise there is a very clear logical progression between the two movies. The same is true for Mad Max and Mad Max 2 or Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. The key is to progress a story, enhance it or explore things from an alternative angle and bring something new to the cinematic table. Sadly this philosophy is all too often lost on corporate film making. Which means that many sequels are just tedious replays of prior films. Terminator: Dark Fate falls squarely into this category.
In the near future, a series of mysterious power surges strike the Solar System, endangering all human life. Astronaut Major Roy McBride, is selected by U.S. Space Command (SpaceCom) to investigate their source near Neptune. The surges are linked to the "Lima Project", a failed experiment from 26 years earlier, that was intended to search for intelligent life outside of our solar system. The ship’s antimatter drive is potentially malfunctioning and responsible for the energy surges. Roy’s investigation is further complicated by the fact his Father H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones), led the "Lima Project" and has not been heard from for 16 years after reaching Neptune. Having been told that Clifford may still be alive, Roy is joined by his father's old associate Colonel Pruitt (Donald Sutherland) whose loyalties remain ambiguous. Roy, who is noted for remaining calm under pressure, shows little emotional reaction to the news about his Father. As he and Pruitt travel covertly from Earth, to the moon and then onto Mars, it becomes clear that there is more to the mission than meets the eye. Will Roy remain emotionally detached or will old wounds impair his judgement?
I was very surprised when I saw a trailer for a fourth instalment on the MiB franchise, based on Lowell Cunningham’s 1990 comic book series about secret government agents battling alien infiltration of earth. The third movie from 2012 managed to keep its head above water despite a very troubled production. At the time of its release, I like everyone else, pretty much thought that the series had run its course. Yet we live in the age of belated sequels as well as hard and soft reboots. And although Will Smith’s star may well be waning, Chris Hemsworth is still box office gold. Hence, we saw the release of Men in Black: International this summer. The basic concept of the franchise remains the same but this time the action begins in the London Office and then takes a more international journey with such locations as Marrakesh and Naples. Emma Thompson returns as Agent O and Liam Neeson joins the cast as agent High T.
The original Men in Black movie hit our screens back in 1997. It was a box office success and was therefore followed by a mediocre sequel in 2002. It took a decade before we got a third instalment in the franchise. However, the popularity of the two lead actors contributed greatly to the success of this series and so despite well documented production problems Men in Black III was released in 2012. However, the delay between movies did have consequences. Will Smith, despite being an Oscar winner and box office star, had lost his way during this time and was not as popular with audiences. Men in Black III was a timely opportunity to reconnect with his core fans. So to ensure that the film hit all the required beats and stand a better chance of being a success, the Columbia Pictures brought back previous director Barry Sonnenfeld, in hopes of warding off the Hollywood curse of third movie instalments.
Fellow blogger and all round good guy Murf, posted an ode to Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure today. It is clearly a movie that he enjoys (Go read his review). He references how due to this movie (along with others), as well as being a decent person in real life, that actor Keanu Reeves enjoys a great deal of goodwill from fans and pop culture cognoscenti. Which is a good thing for Mr Reeves, because goodwill often means that folk are prepared to overlook past transgressions and misdemeanours. And in cinematic terms, Keanu has had a few. The Day the Earth Stood Still is definitely one of them. Now I’ve questioned before the wisdom and merits of writing a predominantly negative film review and believe me my thoughts on The Day the Earth Stood Still are most definitely so. However, I think that something positive can still be gained from scrutinising this film. It can be held up as a textbook example of how not to remake a classic.
Every now and then, a mainstream film studio employs an artisan director to helm some sort of experimental or vanity project. The studio executives often have very little understanding of the film maker or their body of work, beyond that their artistically respected by their peers. Hence there is the corporate hope that the resulting production will be both critically acclaimed and financially successful. However, what all too often happens is that the said director goes off and indulges themselves, or simply does what they’re hired to do and delivers a finished picture that is beyond the intellectual horizons of the studio. Sphincter’s subsequently tighten among executives; the director is denied final cut and the film is taken a way and re-edited in the hope of rendering it more commercially viable. In the worse cases, a second director is brought onboard and new material shot in the hope of “saving” the picture. The net result is usually acrimony among all involved parties and a film that fails to make its money back at the box office.
For anyone with a passing interest in literary science fiction, Arthur C. Clarke’s Childhood’s End is a seminal novel and considered an essential read. The story of humanity being shepherded into a utopian golden age by allegedly benevolent alien Overlords and the consequences it has upon society, was a radical departure from prevailing science fiction norms of the time. Over the years several film makers have expressed interest in adapting the story, but it has proven difficult to come to grips with. Stanley Kubrick initially wished to develop the novel but his subsequent collaboration with the author eventually lead to the making of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Since then there have been radio adaptations and audiobook versions, all of which seem to be a better medium for this episodic and contemplative tale. In late 2015 US cable and satellite channel Syfy broadcast a three-part miniseries based upon the 1953 story; something that past me by at the time. I recently caught up with this adaptation which seems to have provoked very mixed reactions among viewers. As ever, the controversy seems to stem from purists who favour a more slavish interpretation of the book.
I always cringe when I hear the phrase re-imagining. It's yet another contrived expression created by marketing bodies to justify the somewhat arbitrary process of remaking an established title. Often the re-imagined product has little to do with the source material and was chosen simply because of brand awareness. If you want a textbook example of a recent example of this somewhat cynical process then look no further than last year’s Death Wish reboot. It had nothing new to say on the subject and simply trotted out a generic and bland revenge thriller. So, when I discovered that Robert Wise's classic science fiction film, The Andromeda Strain had been remade as a TV miniseries (that had completely passed me by), I had great reservations as to whether this would be worth watching. However, the involvement of Tony and Ridley Scott piqued my interest, so I decided to take a calculated risk and give this 2008 A&E Network production a go.
Time is quite literally money in the movie In Time, starring Amanda Seyfried and Justin Timberlake. Written and directed by Andrew Niccol, who previously wrote Gattaca and S1m0ne which both had similar dystopian themes, we are presented with a chilling scenario. What if you had to spend minutes or hours or perhaps days of your life in the same way you spend money? The movie offers a future where the population is genetically programmed to stop aging at twenty-five. If you're rich enough, you can purchase and trade this commodity, adding time to your life, making you effectively immortal. For the poor, the future is a far bleaker with most dying within a year of this hardcoded end date. Every transaction comes with a price in minutes and seconds.
Many years ago, I use to rush home from school to watch Project UFO. Based loosely on the real-life Project Blue Book, this show from 1978 featured two U.S. Air Force investigators, Maj. Jake Gatlin (William Jordan) and Staff Sgt. Harry Fitz (Caskey Swaim) and their subsequent investigation into alleged UFO sightings. Sometimes there would be rational explanations and on other occasions, there was clearly extraterrestrial involvement. By the second season out protagonists experienced a close encounter of their own. It wasn’t the most densely plotted of dramas and was produced and presented in the idiom of mainstream television of the time. However, for a ten-year-old boy it had some excellent miniature work (Brick Price Movie Miniatures) and anything about UFOs was always a source of interest. There was also a great and very seventies theme tune by Nelson Riddle. So when I discovered that History (formerly The History Channel) had produced a science fiction drama series called Project Blue Book, I became somewhat nostalgic and equally intrigued.
Director Steven Soderbergh is no stranger to complex narratives, shot in a near documentary style. And this is exactly this approach that he brings to bear upon Contagion. A movie that beneath its contemporary trappings, still has the air of an all-star disaster movie. Unlike so many current films which suffer from underdeveloped characters due to poor writing, Soderbergh makes conscious decision to focus more upon the mechanics and nature of a global pandemic than the main protagonists. This somewhat detached approach may not be to all viewers liking. But the format starkly scrutinises and catalogues events in an honest fashion and doesn’t shy away from the realities of the situation or get side tracked by the emotional aspects of the ongoing human tragedy.
Conquest of the Planet of the Apes - Unrated Version (1972)
I have always been a fan of the Planet of the Apes films since I saw them on TV as a child. At the time I enjoyed them on a very superficial level, where upon later viewing I became aware of their political and sociological subtext. I recently caught up with the alternative version of Conquest of the Planet of the Apes that is available on Blu-ray. Director J. Lee Thompson's original cut of the film was considered too bleak and was re-edited into the theatrical version that most viewers are familiar with. The differences were mainly substitutions hence both versions have the same running time.
I have always been a fan of the Planet of the Apes films since I saw them on TV as a child. At the time I enjoyed them on a very superficial level, where upon later viewing I became aware of their political and sociological subtext. I recently caught up with the alternative version of Conquest of the Planet of the Apes that is available on Blu-ray. Director J. Lee Thompson's original cut of the film was considered too bleak and was re-edited into the theatrical version that most viewers are familiar with. The differences were mainly substitutions hence both versions have the same running time.
The 2008 Blu-ray release includes both the theatrical version and an Unrated version with an alternate opening credits sequence as well as an alternate ending sequence. These were both re-edited and re-shot due to a poor test audience reaction. The studio also wished to secure a lower theatrical rating and thus maximize the potential box office returns. The subsequent changes make substantial impact upon the tone of the film and certainly take the narrative in a different direction.
In the opening, a police patrol tracks and kills a gorilla, which is shown to have numerous cuts and welts through maltreatment. Governor Breck later refers to a gorilla who turned on his master and was killed. In the ending, Caesar allows the apes to beat Breck and the other human’s prisoners to death. Breck does not cower, but faces his executioners. The Chimpanzee Lisa does not say "No" and Caesar makes no speech counselling compassion. There are also additional shots of apes and humans bleeding from gunshots, and apes stacking bodies of dead riot police.
Such violent material and a downbeat ending where not uncommon to seventies cinema. In fact you only have to look back three years prior to Beneath the Planet of the Apes for a prime example. However, Twentieth Century Fox were aware of the diminishing box office returns of the franchise and did not want to further harm profits with excessive political content that could further alienate an audience. In some respects this entry in the series is perhaps the most cerebral. Certainly this alternate version makes quite a powerful statement, has greater credibility and is Roddy Mc Dowall's best performance in the series.
Yet this cut of the film cannot stand as the definitive version as it effectively contradicts the premise for the next instalment. Battle for the Planet of the Apes begins with both apes and the human survivors attempting to live in peace. Something that could have hardly take place if there had been a massacre as depicted in the unrated version of Conquest of the Planet of the Apes. Therefore, this alternative version remains an interesting companion piece, rather than a replacement for the established theatrical
I recently found a DVD boxset of Return to the Planet of the Apes in a charity shop which I bought for £4, which is a ridiculously cheap price. I considered it an interesting find because it was a Region 1, US copy. However, that is not so unusual these days as most DVD players are now region free and Amazon (UK) sells media from all over the world. As for the show in question, I vaguely remember Return to the Planet of the Apes being shown on UK network TV when I was a child, probably circa 1976. Back then it would usually take a year or so before US shows made it onto UK television. From a commercial perspective, the entire Planet of the Apes franchise was beginning to run out of steam. I was 8 years old at the time so had missed most of the film releases. However, I enjoyed the live action TV show hence an animated follow up had obvious appeal to a child of my age.