60 Years of Star Trek

View fullsize

Star Trek is slightly older than me by 14 months. I was born on December 18th 1967. Star Trek was first broadcast in the US on 8th September 1966. Hence this show has always been part of the prevailing pop culture that surrounded me, as I grew up. I first began watching Star Trek as a young child in the early seventies. It would be repeated on the BBC in the early evening on Fridays and it became a family ritual to sit down together and watch it. As a seven or eight year old, it left a great impression upon me and was in many ways, the television highlight of the week. Star Trek along with Doctor Who certainly started my interest in science fiction. Star Trek was also one of the first shows that introduced me to tie-in marketing. I remember seeing in a toy shop, near to my school at the time, a Dinky Klingon Battle Cruiser and was flabbergasted that such a thing existed. I immediately coveted it but sadly never obtained one.

When Star Wars proved a box office success, the major Hollywood studios rushed to produce films that could satisfy the public’s need for more science fiction. I can remember getting very excited when Star Trek: The Motion Picture was announced and the classic cast reassembled. Yet the film’s hard science fiction story which focused on ideas rather than action, left me somewhat underwhelmed when I finally saw it. I have subsequently revised my opinion of it as an adult but it is a somewhat incongruous entry into the Trek canon, being far more cerebral than the show it proceeded. I enjoyed immensely, it’s sequel, Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan, although Spock’s death at the time, broke me. It is curious the parasocial attachments you can form with fictional characters.

When Star Trek: the Next Generation was announced, I can remember my Mother adopting a very scorched earth policy towards it, before she had even seen the show. She just thought the idea was heretical. I remember that the UK papers gave a lot of coverage to this story, mainly due to a British actor being cast in the lead role. Like most TV shows in the seventies and eighties, it took a while for TNG to be shown in the UK. Released in the US in the autumn of 1987, it was show on the BBC in 1990. However, the first season or two had been released on VHS tape which had two episodes. We rented these from Blockbuster and was disappointed by the extremely poor picture quality. TNG was shot on 35m film but then transferred to NTSC video format for editing. This when combined with a further transfer to PAL video format resulted in a terrible fluorescent picture with a soft image quality. This combined with the overall weak scripts of the first few season left me somewhat indifferent to TNG. However, the subsequent feature films rekindled my interest and I have revisited the show since and now think far better of it.

View fullsize

By the time Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was shown, I was an adult of 23. This was for me the era of peak Trek and this show epitomised why I liked the franchise. In many ways it was the first show to stray furthest from Gene Roddenberry’s original formula with a stand alone episode of the day and the unequivocal optimism about the rectitude of Starfleet and the future overall. DS9 dealt in ambiguity, politics versus ethics and the human cost of war. It had some great characters and it clealry define the franchise as being for grown ups in so far as what it was exploring. Due to adult life and real world commitments, I caught up with Star Trek: Voyager and Star Trek: Enterprise after their initial broadcasts. I liked them both and thought they did a good job or expanding the lore yet remaining true to the central themes of Trek.

Which brings me to what we shall call modern Trek which I think has been a varied endeavour. I actually didn’t have a problem with the new feature films from this era. The Kelvin Timeline by its very nature is a separate entity and as such can be totally ignored if its not found to your liking. I quite liked it and found it sufficiently entertaining in a big spectacle sort of way. Star Trek: Discovery was a much harder experience to adjust to. Characters like Saru were and remain great but lots of other elements of the show were wanting. I felt that DISCO leaned too far into modern sensibilities and rather than casually referencing them focused too muc upon them in a performative fashion. Hence I christened the show “Hug Trek”. However by season 3 the show got more interesting once it went into the 32nd century. Star Trek: Picard was a very enjoyable fan service that tied up some interesting loose ends. Star Trek: Strange New Worlds started with a lot of promise but for me, peaked in the third season and has dropped in quality recently. The writers seem to be a little too experimental and some of the idea are too off the wall and there’s not enough respect for cannon.

View fullsize

I have always enjoyed Star Trek as a franchise and like its themes of a collaborative exploration with Starfleet striving to be a benign quasi-military body. When compared to another popular sci-fi franchise (you can guess which one), I consider this far more cerebral. It deals with all the problems we have faced with modernity and real life from the sixties to the present, via the medium of genre fiction and it has consistently done it well. Trek has also done much to make pop culture and fandom mainstream. There was a time in the seventies where Trek was very much the face of fandom. As for what it has done for pop culture, well pretty much everyone knows who Captain Kirk is. I also consider Spock to be one of the finest fictional characters ever created, especially in his later years. You can write another blog post about how Trek has impacted upon technology. So many people who now work in such industries grew up watching the show.

Let us take a moment to be realistic. If history teaches us anything, it is that the future that we see in Star Trek is not going to happen, anytime soon. However, that does not mitigate the shows central themes. The merit of Star Trek resides in its message and how that message impacts upon people. Because Trek inspires hope and considers the possibility of humans at their best. When we watch the show in all its incarnations, we briefly feel positive about ourselves as a species. That makes viewers feel good about themselves at time when the wider world is the absolute opposite of Gene Roddenberry’s vision. I think that is important and something we should reflect upon now that the franchise is entering yet another new era now that its corporate ownership has changed. I sincerely hope that people will be celebrating Star Trek in another sixty years. Assuming we’re still here. Human, I mean. In the meantime, we will always have Galaxy Quest. “Never give up, never surrender”.

Cold Storage (2026)

View fullsize

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.

In 1979, Skylab burns up in the atmosphere but an oxygen tank survives and is found by a farmer in Western Australia. 28 years later, biochemist Dr. Hero Martins (Sosie Bacons) accompanies Pentagon operatives Robert Quinn (Liam Neeson) and Trini Romano (Lesley Manville) to the an isolated Australian town, where they find it overrun by an infectious fungus. Martin becomes contaminated and the fungus starts to control her actions. However, she commits suicide. The military subsequently incinerate the town and take a sample to an underground cold storage vault in Kansas. In the intervening years, the government seals the vault and the facility is bought by a self storage company. In the present day, Travis (Joe Keery) and Naomi (Georgina Campbell), who work the night shift at “Atchison Storage”, hear an intermittent alarm behind a false wall. They soon find the former government vault and discover a new fungal outbreak. The military, aware of the situation, send Robert Quinn to investigate.

View fullsize

Cold Storage draws heavily from The Andromeda Strain and The Return of the Living Dead. It certainly leans into the light heartened tone of the latter film. However, two things lift Cold Storage above the average. The dialogue between the main characters is amusing as they trade quips and ironic remarks. This isn’t a complete horror comedy but the humour does give the story an engaging tone and trajectory. The presence of Liam Neeson and Lesley Manville also does much to bolster the proceedings from the standard to the wryly entertaining. There is an effortless chemistry between these two actors which is aided by Koepp’s plausible bickering dialogue. The next, notable aspect of the film is the targetted use of VFX. The budget obviously kept the visual scope focused but what digital and practical effects there are throughout the 100 minute running time, are done well.

View fullsize

At a time when the US film industry is beginning to learn that audiences are fast becoming tired with bloated, soulless, multimillion dollar budget films, Cold Storage provides an object lesson in “less is more” and how to work within some fairly tight parameters. The cast of characters is minimal, the action scenes and visual effects are efficient and the film tells its tale in the right amount of time. It does not outstay its welcome. Although not a genre milestone by any shake, it does take several familiar tropes and presents them in an engaging manner and with a new spin. Cold Storage is entertaining in that “Friday night, back from the pub” way and also manages to captures the creativity and humour that can be found in similar movies from the eighties and nineties. Like I Come in Peace (1990), which is hardly surprising as David Koepp wrote that as well.

Treasure Island in Outer Space (1987)

View fullsize

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. 

As in most of Antonio Margheriti’s films, there are a lot of traditional visual effects. The miniatures are efficiently realised, given the budgetary restrictions, by the late Emilio Ruiz del Rio (Pan’s Labyrinth, Dune, Conan The Barbarian). There are also some solid matte paintings, in-camera visual effects and simple composite shots. However, not all the visual effects are up to the standards of the time. The most obvious explanations for this are possibly the budget running out of the strictures of the shooting schedule. The quality of the set designs are also variable. Some are again somewhat obvious, leaning into standard tropes of the decade. Hence we see random arrays of flashing lights and banks of switches and dials that serve no particular purpose. Others, such as the bone graveyard at the film’s climax, are quite striking visually and have clearly been given some thought.

View fullsize

The lead performances from both Quinn and Borgnine are acceptable, delivering measured interpretations of their characters. Both avoid the standard cliched tropes associated with the depiction of pirates on film. Quinn attempts a more paternalistic approach to the character of Long John Silver. Itaco Nardulli is a somewhat generic Jim Hawkins. Like most Italian productions, the actors speak their lines in their native language while filming and are dubbed accordingly in post production. The main cast have subsequently re-recorded their own dialogue but some of the Italian cast have been dubbed in a somewhat incongruous fashion. Treasure Island In Outer Space features a traditional musical score by composer Gianfranco Plenizio, avoiding the usual synthesizer based approach to the science fiction genre, which was common at the time.

View fullsize

What makes Treasure Island In Outer Space a somewhat frustrating experience to watch is the ways that some aspects of the production have been given attention and others have been handled poorly. The cinematography by Sandro Messina is quite creative by television standards, with some scenes being shot from low angles or behind objects. Sadly the action scenes and fight choreography is somewhat theatrical and lacks any sense of momentum or kinetic energy. At seven episodes, each with a running time of 50 minutes, the English language version of Treasure Island In Outer Space is a somewhat lengthy adaptation. Perhaps a little too long. These deficiencies highlight the fact that this show is very much a product of its time and as such should be judged accordingly. There are better adaptations of Treasure Island and there are worse. For those who are curious, Treasure Island in Outer Space can be found on YouTube.

NB. Treasure Island in Outer Space was shown in 5 episodes, each running 75 minutes on Italian television in 1987. There are no major differences between this and the English language version which ran for 7 episodes of 50 minutes. However, there was also a theatrical version of the show, which was common practice at the time. This has a running time of 150 minutes and was released under the title Space Island.

Biggles (1986)

View fullsize

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.

Catering salesman Jim Ferguson (Alex Hyde-White), is unexpectedly transported from New York City to 1917 France, where he saves the life of Royal Flying Corps pilot James "Biggles" Bigglesworth (Neil Dickson) after he is shot down on a reconnaissance mission. Immediately afterwards, Jim is transported back to 1986, where his fiance Debbie (Fiona Hutchinson) struggles to believe his explanation as to what happened to him. However, Jim is subsequently visited by Biggles’ former commanding officer, Air Commodore William Raymond. Raymond tells him about his theory that Ferguson and Biggles are "time twins", spontaneously transported through time when the other is in mortal danger. Shortly after Jim is reunited with Biggles, along with Debbie who held onto Jim when he was transported across time. They discover that the Germans are working on a sonic weapon that  could change the outcome of The Great War.

View fullsize

Yellowbill Productions acquired the rights to the Biggles books in 1981 and the initial aspirations of producer Kent Walwin were high. The plan was to produce a series of period set films, in the James Bond idiom, featuring action and drama. Both Jeremy Irons and Oliver Reed were originally associated with the production. Initial drafts of the screenplay were set in WWI and were faithful to W. E. Johns’ original novels. However, the producers subsequently decided to add a science fiction spin to the main story, possibly due to the imminent release of Back to the Future. Whatever the reason, the film morphed into a curious hybrid which didn’t really do justice to either the science fiction or period action genres. Furthermore, the production schedule was expedited so it could take advantage of UK tax breaks that were due to expire. As a result the screenplay was still being rewritten when director John Hough began filming.

View fullsize

As a result, Biggles (retitled Biggles: Adventures in Time in the US) is somewhat narratively and tonally inconsistent. Neil Dickson is well cast as James Charles Bigglesworth but has to compete for screen time with Jim Ferguson, his somewhat uninteresting time twin. The film briefly improves when Peter Cushing appears, in what was to be this iconic actor’s last role. But overall Biggles just doesn’t know what it wants to be. It feels like the writers have added multiple cinematic tropes to the screenplay out of desperation. Sadly, the romance and occasional slapstick humour fall flat. The action scenes, although well conceived, betray their low budget, featuring old tricks such as a plane flying behind a hill before exploding. Plus there’s a somewhat gory scene involving a soldier who is killed by the sonic weapon, which seems out of place.

View fullsize

Biggles failed at the UK box office and was equally unsuccessful when released later in the US. However, all things considered, a flawed film can still be an entertaining one. Biggles is all over the place but it does raise a wry smile from time to time. There’s plenty of the old “British stiff upper lip” with our hero telling his nemesis, Hauptmann Erich von Stalhein (Marcus Gilbert) “I'll not put a bullet in your head, old boy, because that’s not how we do business”. The flying scenes have a sense of momentum and are well shot by second unit director Terry Coles, who had done similar work on Battle of Britain. The soundtrack is also peppered with several very eighties songs from Mötley Crüe, Queen and Jon Anderson from Yes. Hence, if you’re looking for some undemanding entertainment or have an interest in the various films that tried to cash in on Indiana Jones, then you may wish to give Biggles a go.

Sapphire & Steel (1979-1982)

View fullsize

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.

Shot on video like many UK TV productions at the time, the main appeal of Sapphire & Steel lies in the thought provoking scripts and the relationship between its two lead characters. Sapphire (Joanna Lumley) is graceful, empathetic and flirtatious in her relationship with Steel (David McCallum). He in turn is somewhat curt and focused. Both can communicate telepathically. Sapphire can discern data from objects such as their age and can also manipulate time, usually backwards for short periods. Steel can lower his body temperature and freeze “ghosts” and any other rogue fragments of time. He also has telekinetic abilities, such as opening locked doors or paralysing people with a look. All these powers are never depicted in a bravura manner, mainly due to the technical limitations of the production. Like so many other aspects of the show, they are done in a subtle manner.

View fullsize

Although most of Peter J. Hammond’s stories are effectively science fiction, many of the recurring plot devices, such as old objects and locations being temporal triggers, imbue the proceedings with a supernatural feel. There are often ghosts which turn out to be time related echoes. Several of the protagonists throughout the three seasons are beings that exist outside of our reality “at the beginning and end of time”. There’s a faceless entity that exists in all photographs and a non-corporeal force called “Darkness” that feeds on human resentment and other negative emotions. Like other shows from this TV era, Sapphire & Steel is often quite sinister and somewhat bleak. Unlike modern shows that frequently feel disposed to champion modern idealistic sensibilities, this one does no such things. Characters die, sometimes unjustly.

The main weakness of Sapphire & Steel is its pacing. TV productions from the seventies and eighties ran at a much slower pace. Each episode is 25 minutes long and the first 2 to 3 minutes of each instalment is a recap of the previous cliffhanger ending. Some of the stories are 8 episodes long and it does feel somewhat dragged out. The fourth story is a near perfect 4 episodes long and it’s a shame more weren’t written so economically. The acting from the support cast is very much of its time. Although it seems a little unfair to criticise the chroma key driven visual effects, they are a weakness when viewed with a contemporary eye. The production both then and now relies heavily on the charisma of its two leads, especially Joanna Lumley who has a natural screen presence. It is interesting to see David McCallum play such a dour character.

View fullsize

Sapphire & Steel has some very interesting recurring themes. It clearly champions modernity and through its various stories, strongly implies metaphorically that clinging to the past is potentially dangerous. This certainly was a subject of wider debate in the UK in the late seventies when the country was in economic decline due to outdated socioeconomic practices. The science fiction elements of the various plots also share themes with those common in the works of writer Nigel Kneale, with malign, energy based, cosmic entities and ghosts that are in fact a curious form of recording, held within the fabric of an environment. The show also shares a similar dark tone to that of Doctor Who from the same era. A sense of decay and a fear of old institutions is present in the scripts.

Despite gaining a loyal audience, Sapphire & Steel was beset with issues that impacted upon its production. Its two main stars’ existing film and TV commitments made the shooting schedule erratic and the commissioning TV company, ATV, was acquired and became Central Independent Television. There was also industrial action during the show’s original run which disrupted its broadcasting. Hence Sapphire & Steel was eventually cancelled, leaving the final story on a cliffhanger ending that has yet to be canonically resolved. It’s a shame because the show had great promise, due to its interesting premise and refusal to simplify itself to gain a wider audience. Sapphire & Steel may still prove entertaining to those who are at ease with material from the same time, such as classic Doctor Who or Blake’s Seven. The original three seasons are currently available on Amazon Prime and on the ITV Retro YouTube channel.

The Humanoid (1979)

View fullsize

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.

In the future, the planet Metropolis (formerly Earth) is a utopia led by a leader called The Great Brother. Peace is threatened when Lord Graal (Ivan Rassimov) escapes from a prison satellite in a stolen warship. He attacks the Grovan Institute on Metropolis and steals a rare and powerful element called Kapitron. The only survivor of the raid is a scientist, Barbara Gibson (Corinne Cléry), who is warned of the imminent danger by her mysterious pupil Tom Tom (Marco Yeh). Meanwhile, Lord Graal travels to his hidden base on the planet Noxon where he is joined by Lady Agatha (Barbara Bach), the world's tyrannical queen. She has enlisted the help of a mad scientist Dr. Kraspin (Arthur Kennedy) who plans to make an army of unstoppable supersoldiers called “Humanoids”, using the stolen Kapitron. He targets a passing spaceship, piloted by Golob (Richard Kiel), as his first test subject.

View fullsize

The Humanoid being an Italian exploitation movie, is a prime example of “what you see is what you get”. If you are expecting a film with comparable production values to Star Wars, then more fool you. The visual effects are mainly miniatures by industry stalwart, Anthonio Margheriti. Rather than optical compositing there are a lot of  “in camera” techniques used. There are a few matte paintings and some rather good foreground models by the legendary Emilio Ruiz del Río. The score is by Ennio Morricone. The costume design, like so many Italian films from this era, is striking. Lord Graal’s troops have a S&M vibe to them. However, Kip, the film’s novelty robot dog is somewhat clunky and lacks credibility. There is also a lot of low level violence, with endless laser shootings and high falls. During a torture scene where a nameless victim has their life essence drained by a fiendish machine, there’s some nudity thrown in for “reasons”.

View fullsize

If you enjoy the curious subgenre that is Italian ripoff movies or flirt with the spurious notion that some films are so bad, they’re good, then you may well enjoy The Humanoid. The dialogue added in post production is ripe and performances are all turned up to eleven. Richard Kiel amiably lumbers through his role and the film does not overstay its welcome. The curious subplot regarding Tom Tom has a surprising resolution, which may elicit a cry of “what the hell has that got to do with the price of Brussel Sprouts?” from viewers. Or you may not give a shit. Director Aldo Lado doesn’t exactly distinguish himself with this movie although he had previously filmed several gallos that were well received. The Humanoid is very much a niche product and should be watched accordingly. Casual viewers may be better off watching Battle Beyond the Stars instead.

Alien: Romulus (2024)

View fullsize

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.

Rain Carradine (Cailee Spaeny) works and lives with her adoptive brother Andy (David Jonsson), a malfunctioning, reprogrammed android at the Jackson's Star colony on LV-410. After her work contract is forcibly extended by the Weyland-Yutani company, Rain's ex-boyfriend Tyler (Archie Renaux) persuades her to join an expedition with his pregnant sister Kay (Isabela Merced), their cousin Bjorn (Spike Fearn) and adoptive sister Navarro (Aileen Wu). They intend to loot a derelict spacecraft and retrieve cryostasis chambers so they can escape to the planet Yvaga. Andy's ability to interface with the onboard computer system is crucial for the expedition. Using an ageing hauler, the Corbelan IV, they dock with the space derelict to find it is a Weyland-Yutani research station. However, restoring the station’s gravity and power have unforeseen consequences, as the company has been experimenting with xenomorph biology. When they repair a damaged android called Rook, they learn the true nature of the danger they face.

View fullsize

I shall keep both my praise and criticisms for Alien Romulus short. This is a handsome production with good visual effects. The budget has been spent well. The film quickly sets out its stall, introducing the characters and setting up the plot. For the first forty minutes or so, Alien Romulus keeps the viewer onboard and focused. And then it sidelines all the ideas it briefly alluded to in the first act and just lapses into a rather trite fan service. It constantly refers to or tries to recreate classic scenes, tropes and dialogue from all previous Alien movies. It also tries to tie in numerous plot ideas from previous films, regardless of whether they’re a good fit with what is actually going on. Alien Romulus should have been able to stand on its own two feet and the only reason it was not allowed to do so is because it was decided by the studio that it was less risky if they just gave the audience a film version of a “greatest hits” album.

View fullsize

I won’t waste my breath or time discussing the failings of the existing film studio system or the way they treat the intellectual properties they hold. No film director sets out to make a bad film, so I see no reason to lambast director Fede Álvarez. I’m sure he did not have a free hand and had many constraints placed upon him. Sadly, Alien Romulus is a classic example of the “cakeism” mindset that blights Hollywood at present. Where a director or writer is brought in to allegedly shake things up but at heart the studio is far too risk averse to really do anything radical. Hence, they constantly interfere and mitigate any originality that is proposed, resulting in stupefying mediocrity. Perhaps the most egregious aspect of this business philosophy is the utter contempt it has for the audience. If you’ve never seen an Alien film before, you may find Alien Romulus mildly diverting. Fans of quality cinema and integrity in film making, will roll their eyes and be unsurprisingly disappointed.

Event Horizon (1997)

View fullsize

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.

Event Horizon is an experimental spaceship which went missing on its maiden voyage. When the ship mysteriously reappears in orbit above Neptune, a rescue mission is launched by the authorities. The ship's designer Dr. Weir (Sam Neil) is assigned to the rescue vessel Lewis and Clark, commanded by Captain Miller (Laurence Fishburne). The crew consists of Lieutenant Starck (Joely Richardson), pilot Smith (Sean Pertwee), Medical Technician Peters (Kathleen Quinlan), Engineer Ensign Justin (Jack Noseworthy), Rescue Technician Cooper (Richard T. Jones), and Trauma Doctor D.J. (Jason Isaacs). Upon arrival they find that the Event Horizon is empty and the crew dead or missing. The ship's last transmission contains human screams and a cryptic message in Latin. Subsequently the rescue party starts experiencing horrific hallucinations along with a growing sense that unease.

View fullsize

There are many positive aspects to Event Horizon. The cast of character actors are more than competent and the production values are very high. The sets are opulent and the production design conveys the required hi-tech aesthetic. The visual effects have not dated too much although some of the CGI is a little primitive. The prosthetics and animatronics are exceedingly good (and unpleasant). Bob Keen and his creative team were involved in the production although much of their work unfortunately didn't make it into the theatrical version. The movie also manages to maintain a disquieting atmosphere, punctuated by some effective jumps. Sadly the screenplay lurches from the good to the bad and is somewhat inconsistent. The denouement does succeed in explaining the evil entity that is linked to the ship but I would have preferred some further insight. However these narrative inconsistencies may be due to the last minute re-edit that took place prior to release.

View fullsize

However despite these issues, Event Horizon is sustained by its ambition, tone and grotesque visuals. Director Paul W S Anderson has produced a tense and atmospheric blend of genres, despite the studio's interference in post-production. The mixing of advanced technology with Hieronymus Bosch style visions of Hell are quite compelling. Certainly the movie deserves more critical praise than it gained upon release in 1997. It’s a shame that a restored cut of the film is off the table. It would be most interesting to see the gaps in the narrative filled, as well as the visual effects restored to their full glory. Clive Barker managed to achieve a comparable restoration of his movie Nightbreed, which was similarly “butchered” upon release. However, unless the missing material can be miraculously sourced from elsewhere, the theatrical edition of Event Horizon will remain the only version available.

Complex Lore and Enigmatic Themes

View fullsize

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.

Fantasy, science fiction and similar hybrid genres thrive on world building and lore. These facets give them credibility and breathe life into fictional worlds and people. They also provide parallels with our own lives which provides a means for us to connect to them. Star Wars, despite all the technology, offers a universe that looks used and lived in. Middle-earth is steeped in history and complex societies. Again despite obvious differences there are commonalities in the hierarchies, rituals and personal aspirations of the protagonists. And as well as lore, there are also enigmas. Fantasy and science fiction are often rife with things that are strange and ill defined. Often these are mystical and symbolic. The Force, Tom Bombadil and Jason Voorhees are prime examples of this. Successful fantasy and science fiction find the right balance between detailed lore and enigmatic themes.

View fullsize

Achieving this balance is very difficult. The original Star Wars trilogy handled the arcane and esoteric nature of the Force well. It was broadly defined as an energy field created by all life that connected everything in the universe. However, the specifics of this were vague and nebulous which played well with the concept that the Jedi were more of a religious and philosophical order than a paramilitary organisation. However, when the prequels introduced the concept of Midi-chlorians it somewhat diminished the enigma surrounding the Force and it suddenly just became yet more technobabble. It is interesting to note that this addition to the franchise’s lore was not well received by fans. It was subsequently not alluded to in later films and television shows, indicating that the producers and writers felt it was a mistake.

Another genre example of lore versus enigma is the difference in Klingon anatomy between the original series and the revival shows. The main reason is simple. There wasn’t a budget for complex prosthetics in the sixties show. However, from Star Trek: The Motion Picture onwards, Klingons acquired their forehead ridges as a way to make them more alien. This however left a lore contradiction, which was beautifully alluded to in the episode “Trials and Tribble-ations” of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Several crew members from the 24th century including Worf, find themselves on Deep Space Station K7 in the 23rd century, during the events of “Trouble with Tribbles”. Upon seeing the Klingons from the previous era, one of the crew asks Worf why there’s a physical difference. He enigmatically replies “We do not discuss it with outsiders”. This beautifully vague but droll answer works perfectly. Sadly it was ruined a few years later when an episode of Star Trek: Enterprise explained away the difference as a genetic experiment that went wrong.

View fullsize

However, it is not always an excess of lore that can quash the soul from a popular show or film. Sometimes being deliberately too vague, refusing to expedite the plot and simply replacing one mystery with two others can be very frustrating. It may also be due to the writers being out of their depth or making things up as they go along. Lost encapsulated this for me and the show’s manipulative narrative quickly killed my interest. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like to be spoon fed stories and explanations and I don’t mind thinking when watching. The ending of John Carpenter’s The Thing is enigmatic and quite bleak but I consider it a perfect conclusion to the film.  However, perhaps the television show that really stepped over the line for not making any real effort to explain itself and turning the enigma “up to 11” is The Prisoner. It’s still a great show to watch and is very thought provoking but the final episode doesn’t deliver a stone cold conclusion. Something that people who watched it originally still seethe over.

We live in a culture of binge watching TV shows which some viewers dissect and analyse. The interconnected nature of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is a prime example of this and it does it extremely well. But not all television shows and films are like this and do not require such scrutiny. I worry that some viewers are so invested in searching for what they think may be hidden or trying to pre-empt an unfolding narrative, that they miss being in the moment and simply enjoying the show as it happens. Excessive analysis often leads to disappointment. It is important to remember that what you’re watching is a writer(s) thoughts on how a narrative should move forward. They are not obliged to try to make what’s in your or my head. Therefore I see both lore and enigmatic themes as an embellishment to a good fantasy or science fiction show or film. Things to be enjoyed but not the “be-all and end-all” of the production. If either becomes the major focus of either the writers or fans then it will end up undermining the central narrative and themes.

Finch (2021)

View fullsize

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.

After a solar flare has destroyed the ozone layer, the planet Earth is a largely-uninhabitable wasteland scorched by ultraviolet radiation and subject to extreme weather events. Robotics engineer Finch Weinberg (Tom Hanks), lives with his dog Goodyear and a drone-robot Dewey in an underground laboratory in St. Louis. Whenever he ventures outside to search for supplies he is forced to wear an environment suit. Dying of radiation sickness, Finch builds an advanced humanoid robot to take care of his dog Goodyear once he dies. When a massive storm approaches St. Louis and threatens their safety, Finch, Jeff (as the robot name’s itself) Goodyear and Dewey head for San Francisco in a campervan. Due to their hasty departure, Jeff has only assimilated 72 percent of the data uploaded to him, leaving him with the mental capacity of a child. Despite his deteriorating health, Finch tries to teach Jeff about life and how to protect Goodyear. He also emphasises the dangers of the world that they live in.

View fullsize

Finch has solid production values and presents a credible vision of a world blighted by climate change. The CGI FX are at times understated, focusing on extreme weather and sun baked environments. Jo Willems cinematography and is both sweeping when dealing with the landscape and intimate when focusing on Finch and Jeff’s relationship. The screenplay by Craig Luck and Ivor Powell alludes to numerous big ideas and themes and is intelligent in subtle ways. The storm that drives Finch and his companions from his home is scheduled to last 40 days; a suitably biblical period of time. Yet despite the scope of the setting, Finch is content to think small in so far as characters and motivation. This is a story of a man with his own Father issues, struggling to become one himself. At the heart of the film is the perennial notion that when we come close to losing our own humanity, we find it again from the most unlikely sources. Performances are spot on and Hanks manages to smooth out some of the screenplays rough edges by the sheer weight of his on screen personality .

Some critics have focused upon what they see is a lack of jeopardy in the story. The fundamentals of survival are not focused upon as an ongoing problem. Food, water and power are not used to incur a sense of threat for the sake of the plot. The one encounter with humans is kept remote and we never directly see them. We hear their movement and finally they manifest themselves as the drivers of a car pursuing Finch. The film prefers to dwell on Finch’s fear of his fellow man, rather than the direct danger of his pursuers. The only time we get a wider understanding of man’s inhumanity to man is during a flashback sequence and that is mitigated to a degree by the idea that people do terrible things when hungry. What I believe that some reviews have overlooked is the fact that Jeff and Goodyear will be left alone when Finch dies and that is the central narrative source of concern.

View fullsize

I have no problems with sentiment in films if it is handled well. Too often it is not and US cinema has a penchant for mawkish, contrived, button pushing pathos rather than the more difficult, organically generated type. Fortunately director Miguel Sapochnik manages to avoid such pitfalls and when emotions come to a head, they are sincere and heartwarming. It makes a change to see the depiction of an artificial lifeform as an eager and curious child, as opposed to a psychotic killer or minor deity sent to save us. Overall, Finch is quite a satisfying post apocalyptic adventure, driven by characters and performances, rather than action and spectacle. Although it draws upon many familiar ideas, it still manages to provide an entertaining two hours and ends on a suitably upbeat note. It may also serve as a suitable starting point for viewers seeking similar genre offerings.

Source Code (2011)

View fullsize

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.

Army Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes to find himself on a train, occupying the body of a teacher called Sean Fentress who is commuting to work in Chicago. Stevens is confused and disorientated as the last thing he remembers is being on a mission in Afghanistan. 8 minutes later the train explodes due to a terrorist bomb. He then awakes again to find himself in a dimly lit cockpit. Communicating via a video link, Air Force Captain Colleen Goodwin (Vera Farmiga) explains that he is on a covert mission to identify the terrorists that caused the attack before returning him back to the train to relive the 8 minutes again. Stevens is sceptical at first as he has no memory of events prior to the mission. However he surmises that he is being tested and continues to return to the train multiple times in an attempt to gain vital intelligence. As he observes the other passengers he forms a bond with his traveling companion Christina (Michelle Monaghan). Can he change the events that have happened or is he simply creating an alternative reality?

View fullsize

Source Code is an intelligent, well packaged film that manages to provide mainstream entertainment without the need to condescend to its audience. Director Duncan Jones, is cinematically literate and the film has clear nods to Groundhog Day, Rashomon and even Tony Scott's Deja View. He explores themes such as personal identity and the nature of existence, yet does not allow such philosophical musing to slow the action or bore the viewer. As science shatters traditional myths such as linear time, the film challenges our perceptions with some creative ideas. The central performances by Jake Gyllenhaal and Michelle Monaghan, are very strong. The concept of two strangers forming a strong bond under extreme circumstances reminded me of David Niven and Kim Hunter in A Matter Of Life And Death. There is an amusing homage to the cinematic cliché of the "evil scientist", with actor Jeffrey Wright sporting a walking stick. It should also be noted that the Source Code storyline unfolds in a tidy ninety plus minutes and does not suffer from the current Hollywood trend of out staying its welcome.

View fullsize

Christopher Nolan set the bar very high with Inception, proving that films with strong narratives and requiring the audience to think, can be financially successful. Source Code was similarly met with equally strong critical and public approval upon its release. Its narrative is not quite as complex as Nolan’s opus but it does require a degree of reflection by the viewer. Where Source Code compensates for its convoluted science fiction plotline is with its characters and the human drama they share. Captain Stevens isn’t just on a mission to identify a terrorist. He quickly becomes invested in trying to save the passengers on the train. His companion Christina is a very engaging foil and the romantic element of the plot is very much a hark back to the golden age of Hollywood. The film ends in quite a bold fashion with both good and bad events occurring in separate realities. Science fiction films seldom have this emotional depth, making Source Code far more accessible to wider audiences.

The Happening (2008)

View fullsize

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.  

Elliot (Mark Wahlberg) and Alma Moore (Zooey Deschanel) are a married couple caught up in a mass panic spreading across the East Coast of the US. A wave of inexplicable suicides has started among the general public. They flee from New York with work colleague Julian (John Leguizamo) and his young daughter Jess, only to find that the disaster is spreading further West across the country and becoming more accurate in targeting humans. What was initially assumed to be an act of bio-terrorism turns out to have a far more esoteric answer. Writer and director M Night Shyamalan focuses on the perennial theme of how humans deal with extreme situations and threats to their own mortality. There are also some interesting ideas about the environment and nature being a living entity that responds when the balance is drastically altered. The topical matter of the ongoing decline of the honey bee is also a facet of the plot.

View fullsize

Sadly, while the initial premise is intriguing, its execution adds further weight to the argument that Shyamalan should defer to more accomplished screenwriters capable of developing his ideas more effectively. Despite a reliable cast of character actors, the dialogue is obvious and at times crass, leaving all concerned with little to do except emote sincerely. There is also an air of sanctimony about the screenplay that rather spoils the interesting premise. Once the ecological plot twist is revealed the narrative takes a somewhat didactic tone. The central characters are also somewhat weak and not especially likeable. A rift in the main protagonist's relationship turns out to be only minor. It would have been far more challenging if one was actually an adulterer, thus making their redemption harder to achieve. A greater sense of societal panic is also absent. The film needs clearer examples of social disorder and breakdown to reinforce the magnitude of events

View fullsize

 Yet despite these criticisms, there are some sequences that show a great deal of creative flare. There's a shocking scene when construction workers start to hurl themselves from the roof of the building they're working on. A tracking shot following a Police officer's handgun as it is used in subsequent suicides, is also impressively realised. Once again, composer James Newton Howard embellishes Shyamalan's work with an exceptionally clever and subtle score. The two seem to have a very good creative relationship. Upon its initial release, the distributors made much of the film’s rating. Perhaps they saw this as it's only virtue. There is more violence compared to his other work. Given the subject matter this is understandable. Overall The Happening is a missed opportunity. Again I feel that Mr. Shyamalan's work would benefit from an additional writer to strengthen his weaknesses and curb his excesses. Sadly several movies on from The Happening and the same mistakes keep getting made.

The Thing (2011)

View fullsize

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.

Watching The Thing prequel and trying to maintain an open mind is an extremely difficult task. I have made no bones about the fact that I’m a greater admirer of the 1982 movie and that I consider it one of the best genre pieces of the decade. It is what I call a “blue print” movie as every aspect of its production is a textbook example of how to do things right in cinematic terms This is not simply fanboy adulation. Do some research and you’ll see that Carpenters film is very well respected by his peers and those that study the craft of filmmaking. So from my perspective, for this prequel to work, it needs to add something new to the themes and ideas established in the previous film. The story and ideas need to be advanced rather than just repeated. There are several good sequels and prequels that have done this successfully. Psycho II, Mad Max 2 (AKA The Road Warrior), Aliens and X-Men: First Class. Sadly, The Thing prequel struggles to do this.

View fullsize

The prequel explores the story of the ill-fated Thule Station in Antarctica. Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays an American Palaeontologist, Kate Lloyd, who is flown in to assist a Norwegians scientific team with a curious discovery. Specifically, a crashed alien spacecraft and a body frozen in the ice. As you would imagine, the narrative is rather constrained by the fact that we know the inevitable outcome, as seen in the opening scenes of John Carpenter’s original movie. Yet there are attempts to vary the direction of the story, within the limited confines. There is some exploration of gender politics of the period. Also the titular creature spends more time in transitional states rather than in human form. Another positive factor is the degree of continuity between both films. There is also a great deal of visual similarity in the creature design and the overall production design.

View fullsize

Director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. is unfortunately handicapped by a somewhat pedestrian script by Eric Heisserer, a writer with an uneven track record. He was responsible for the awful A Nightmare on Elm Street remake and the amusing Final Destination 5. The film is therefore somewhat perfunctory, rather than tense. Marco Beltrami’s score telegraphs forthcoming shocks, undermining any suspense. Yet the Norwegian actors and dialogue do lend a welcome difference to the proceedings and there is just enough levity for a picture of this kind. The film uses the language barrier effectively. The lack of any major “star” also keeps the attention focused on the proceedings. Sadly, although a great deal of the visual effects were created by Amalgamated Dynamics using traditional physical techniques, these were replaced with CGI in post production.

View fullsize

There are indeed things to like about The Thing Prequel and it is not a total disaster. It is well paced, shot on 35 millimeter film and edited in a comparable idiom to the original. There is a sense of continuity present. But it ultimately fails because it is essentially a redundant enterprise. It would also appear that studio interference was an issue, with the ending being reshot and the decision to replace the practical FX with computer animation. There simply isn’t enough variations on established themes or scope of vision to make this production stand out sufficiently as being different from the original. I am still at a loss as to why someone thought making a prequel to The Thing was a good idea to start with, let alone keeping the title identical. Overall, this film is similar to Gus Van Sant’s frame for frame remake of Psycho in so far as there simply isn’t any need for either of them.

The Cloverfield Paradox (2018)

View fullsize

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.

Due to an emerging energy crisis on Earth, a multinational crew on the Cloverfield Station test the Shepard particle accelerator in an attempt to produce clean and accessible power. The crew consists of English engineer Ava Hamilton (Gugu Mbatha-Raw), American Commander Kiel (David Oyelowo), German physicist Ernst Schmidt (Daniel Brühl), Brazilian medical doctor Monk Acosta (John Ortiz), Irish engineer Mundy (Chris O'Dowd), Russian engineer Volkov (Aksel Hennie), and Chinese engineer Tam (Zhang Ziyi). Ava worries about leaving her husband Michael, especially in light of the recent loss of their children in a house fire. After several years of failed attempts, the accelerator finally works but a subsequent power surge causes a series of strange events. Volkow becomes paranoid and potentially homicidal. A woman is found fused with wires behind a bulkhead. The crew learn that she comes from an identical Cloverfield Station in another dimension. Meanwhile on earth the interdimensional crossovers result in mass destruction. Can the crew of Cloverfield Station rectify the situation?

View fullsize

As Paramount Pictures were so successful in adapting an original script and transforming it into a tangential sequel with 10 Cloverfield Lane, it is understandable why they elected to try this a second time. Hence another spec script, this titled God Particle, was procured and retrofitted into a third edition to the “Cloververse”. The only difference this time is that that transition is far from seamless and results in a film that looks like it has been clearly assembled from separate elements. Many of the plot devices in The Cloverfield Paradox just don’t hang well together. The screenplay focuses on the particle accelerator experiments tearing the fabric of space time and opening portals to multiple parallel universes. Because these incursions can occur at any point in Earth’s timeline, this provides a convenient means to explain both previous sequels. Hence we have a Kaiju attack in 2008 and an alien invasion in 2016. But other elements of the story remain woefully underdeveloped. Michael Hamilton’s rescue of a young girl offers an opportunity to explore his own loss of his children. It is however neglected. The backstory and dynamics of the crew on the Cloverfield Space Station is also very thin.

View fullsize

Director Julius Onah does not manage to pull the elements together cohesively and so The Cloverfield Paradox often feels like a series of clever but ever so contrived CGI set pieces, linked by some clumsy and at times dull plot exposition. What makes it all the more frustrating is that there are some good ideas here and with more care and attention to the screenplay, this could have been a far better film. The final scene pretty much highlights everything that is wrong in the film, as it crassly crowbars in a reference to Cloverfield that couldn’t have been any less subtle if it tried. However, budget overruns and a lack of confidence in the finished product saw Paramount Pictures sell The Cloverfield Paradox to Netflix, rather than risk a theatrical release. Which means that this odd and vicarious trilogy of films, which grew into a franchise out of purely financial reasons, has more than likely run its course.

The McPherson Tape (1989)

View fullsize

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. 

On the evening of October 8, 1983, the Van Heese family gather in the Connecticut mountains to celebrate the birthday of 5-year-old Michelle. The family consists of Ma Van Heese (Shirly McCalla), her three sons Eric (Tommy Giavocchini), Jason (Patrick Kelley), and Michael (Dean Alioto), Eric’s wife Jamie (Christine Staples), his daughter Michelle (Laura Tomas) and Jason’s girlfriend Renee (Stacey Shulman). Michael uses his hand-held camera to record the night’s events, much to the amusement and irritation of his family. They chat and argue as families do as the evening progresses. However when a circuit breaker trips the brothers go outside to restore power. An unusual red light overhead arouses their curiosity so they walk to a neighbouring property, only to find a spacecraft has landed. They flee back to their own house when they are noticed by the extraterrestrial occupants. Armed with shotguns they nervously await pursuit. When something tries to enter via a window, Eric shoots it and brings the body into the house as “evidence”. Is this the end of the siege or do further perils await them?

View fullsize

There is the germ of a good idea in The McPherson Tape and first time writer and director Dean Alioto should be applauded for trying to do something so unusual and ambitious like this back in 1989, when this genre was still in its infancy. But the film struggles to sustain its relatively short hour running time. Despite all the logical concessions that you can make to both the production and cast, this is a ponderous undertaking and a tough watch. It genuinely does at times come across as exactly watching someone’s home videos. Despite restoration, the picture quality is poor however that does work in the films favour to a degree. The characters act in a relatively plausible fashion, arguing among themselves and generally acting impulsively and without any critical thinking. But events take too long to go anywhere and by the time we reach a point where things start to get “interesting” the film ends because it has achieved its purpose.

View fullsize

Hence, I cannot recommend The McPherson Tape to the casual viewer, as it doesn’t really meet mainstream entertainment standards. This is most definitely a niche market product that will best suit the genre completist and aficionado. The editing is minimal and cleverly disguised making The McPherson Tape look very much like a continuous piece of footage. The camera at times is out of focus or points at a plate or the floor. Keeping things simple in scope certainly helps the proceedings and therefore we only see a small amount of the UFO and the aliens themselves. The commentary track on the new Blu-ray release is by far the biggest selling point and it is fascinating to learn how a small budget film ended up fuelling alien abduction conspiracy theories. The director later went on to remake the film with a larger budget and studio backing in 1998, under the title Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County.

Revisiting Doctor Who: Part 1

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 chose to resume watching Doctor Who at the beginning of the John Pertwee era. I have vague memories of some of the later episodes so I thought it an appropriate place to begin. I decided to temporarily bypass the first and second incarnations of the Doctor, due to the number of missing episodes and my unfamiliarity with these actor’s portrayal of the iconic Timelord. Hence I began watching Spearhead from Space which provided some continuity for me as I was familiar with the UNIT storyline. Due to industrial action within the BBC at the time, this story was entirely shot on film which gives the four episodes a very unique aesthetic. It was customary at the time to film exterior scenes on 16mm stock and record on videotape all studio scenes. However, this exclusive use of film was deemed too costly and so was not maintained. It’s a shame as the look and feel of these episodes really adds something to the show and lends it a little more gravitas.

View fullsize

As for Pertwee himself, although a skilled actor with definite onscreen presence, I’m not sure if the new attributes he brought to the show improve the character overall. He is more suave and dynamic than his predecessors. But often the action sequences and hand to hand fight scenes feel a little incongruous. It seems like the production team were trying to straddle too many genres and this move into Bond territory feels a little forced. Another contrivance that ends up becoming counter productive is the plot line that sees the Doctor being stranded on earth as a form of punishment by the Timelords. Hence for the first few seasons the stories centre around his role at UNIT and it all gets a little too familiar. However, the appearance of Roger Delgado as the Master is a real asset. Delgado brings a great deal of charisma to the role and effortlessly switches from charming to sinister. He was an excellent foil for Pertwee and sadly his premature death robbed the show of a suitable climax to their ongoing story arc.

Despite attempts by the production team to broaden the scope and appeal of Doctor Who during Pertwee’s tenure, there are some fundamental issues to consider. Oddly enough I found the low budget production values quite endearing and the use of chroma key video compositing quite innovative. Pertwee often had fun during such cheap and cheerful VFX sequences and his gurning is now quite noticeable. For me the more important issue is the writing and the thematic shift which happened between 1970 and 1974. Clever and nuanced stories have always been the mainstay of Doctor Who. They’re still present in this era and they don’t shy away from difficult themes. The genocidal ending to The Silurians is a good example. However, there is a strong “Nigel Kneale-esque” tone to many of the stories and at times I felt that Bernard Quatermass would have been equally at home investigating them. Again I return to my point about the more action packed Doctor and trying to embrace too many genre tropes. The BBC just didn’t have the resources to do such things justice.

View fullsize

Sadly as an adult, I now see that even a BBC production such as Doctor Who did not escape the prevailing societal biases of its time. I appreciate that fans are immensely fond of many of the companions that have accompanied the Doctor in his travels over the years but Jo Grant (Katy Manning) is a terribly written character, enduring all the sexist stereotypes of the time. Her final appearance in The Green Death where she falls in love with a scientist and environmental activist (who is an equally contrived creation) is somewhat embarrassing as no cliche is left unturned. Another problem that I felt quite jarring is that a lot of the stories from this era are stretched out too long. What could be effectively handled in four installments is often expanded to six or seven episodes. Sometimes events and plot twists are not evenly spaced out throughout the story, resulting in occasional  dull episodes and then a narrative rush at the denouement.

I did not watch all four seasons featuring John Pertwee’s Doctor. I chose to view selected stories recommended by several fansites. However, I feel I watched sufficient to make an informed decision about his tenure. I think that this was a period of experimentation where the show tried to encompass other elements from popular entertainment of the time. Not all of it worked but I admire those involved for thinking outside the box. Certainly, when the writing hit the mark it was very good indeed. My personal favourite stories being The Daemons and The Terror of the Autons. The latter is especially creepy. However, my revisiting of Doctor Who did not end with John Pertwee. I decided to push on and jump straight into the adventures of the Fourth Doctor. I make no bones about the fact that the Tom Baker era is the one I am most familiar with. I was seven by the time he took on this iconic role and at an age where his unique persona and style left a marked impression upon me. I shall cover my thoughts on the Baker episodes that I’ve recently watched on BritBox in future blog post.

Battle Beyond the Stars (1980)

View fullsize

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.

For those who may have missed this movie, it’s premise is straightforward. Battle Beyond the Stars is The Magnificent Seven (and thus Seven Samurai) in space. Sador of the Malmori (John Saxon) and his army of mutants deliver an ultimatum to the peaceful planet of Akir. Surrender and become a vassal state, or he will use his Stellar Converter and destroy all life. He gives the planet seven days to prepare. Young farmer Shad (Richard Thomas) takes the last remaining Corsair Class ship and sets about trying to hire mercenaries to defend his home. He manages to find Space Cowboy (George Peppard), a space trader from Earth. Gelt (Robert Vaughn), a veteran assassin looking for a place to hide. Saint-Exmin (Cybil Danning), a Valkyrie warrior looking to prove herself in battle and Nanelia (Darlanne Fluegal), a young scientist. Shad is also joined by Nestor, five telepathic clones and Cayman (Morgan Woodward), the last surviving member of the Lazuli who has a score to settle with Sador. The seven ships return to Akir and prepare for a ground assault.

View fullsize

There are a combination of factors that make Battle Beyond the Stars superior to many of the low budget Star Wars knock offs that flooded the market in the late seventies and early eighties. First off, the screenplay by John Sayles is noticeably above average and it is clear that he has a solid grasp of such material. Sayles has a great deal of experience writing genre scripts for such movies as Piranha, Alligator, The Howling, and The Challenge. There is action, the right kind of humour and a sense of the theatrical and flamboyant. However, all these elements are tempered and do not undermine the audience’s investment in the central characters. And then there’s the casting, which apparently took the lion share of the budget. Robert Vaughn essentially reprises the same role he had in the original Magnificent Seven back in 1960. George Peppard effortlessly fills the shoes of Space Cowboy, exuding the cocky charm while smoking cigars and drinking Scotch.

View fullsize

Battle Beyond the Stars also boasts a surprisingly good production design and visual effects. Corman initially hired James Cameron as a model maker after being impressed with his short film Xenogenesis. When the original art director for the film was fired, Cameron became responsible for the majority of the film's special effects. There is also a great score by James Horner (which has subsequently been reused in numerous other Corman productions). It made an impression with the executives at Paramount Studios who hired him to write the score for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. But ultimately all these unique and positive aspects coalesce because of the guiding hands of Roger Corman, who knows exactly how to sell this sort of material. Battle Beyond the Stars is the epitome of low budget, exploitation fodder, done right. There’s action, romance, heaving cleavage, violence, explosions, pathos filled death scenes and a surprising amount of philosophy. What’s not to like?

Riddick (2013)

View fullsize

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.

After the epic scope of part two, Riddick is a far more minimalist movie and in some ways is a partial reboot of the original, following a broadly similar plot. Leaving the Necromongers and Vaako (an incredibly brief cameo from Karl Urban), Riddick is betrayed and marooned on a barren planet. Wounded, he finds himself having to fend of a group of bounty hunters, some of whom have specific personal grudges against him. Writer and director Twohy once again toys with the idea of trying to redeem a morally reprehensible murderer and we have such arbitrary tropes as generic bad guys who sneer and look mean, as well as the old cliché of grudging respect between men of war. The dialogue is hard boiled and most of the plot elements have an all too familiar ring to them.

View fullsize

 The acting and script are nothing special and although neither are they shockingly bad. It is all just predictably obvious. There a rather crass sub-plot involving lesbian mercenary Dahl (Katee Sackhoff) who begins to warm to the heterosexual charms of Riddick, which is dumb even by genre standards and considering contemporary sexual politics, somewhat insulting. As ever, the production values are slick despite the lower budget with plenty of creature mayhem, violence and macho posturing. Twohy has an eye for planetary vista's and can certainly craft a good action scene. Free from the pretensions of Chronicles of Riddick and trying to create a more complicated franchise, this third instalment returns to a more standard and user friendly formula. The character of Riddick is better suited to a more focused narrative such as this.

View fullsize

 After twenty years and three movies, I think it would be wise for both Messrs Twohy and Diesel to call it a day with regard to the ongoing adventures of Riddick. I don't really see where you can take this particular anti-hero next and more importantly, I am not sure if many viewers would be especially disposed to do so. Again I feel that praise is due for director Twohy, for at least trying to do something  different and for the determination in trying to sell the character of Riddick to the public. However, I think it's clear that there is not enough narrative meat on the bones to make people care about him. It will be interesting to see if a fourth sequel emerges or whether Twohy moves on from this franchise. Perhaps the latter would be wiser as his previous movies such as Below and A Perfect Getaway were very promising.

NB. There are two versions of Riddick available. The standard theatrical cut and an extended Director’s cut, which includes 5 minutes of slightly expanded dialogue scenes and some additional nudity. This review is based upon the latter.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)

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.

Objectively, Terminator: Dark Fate plays out as a greatest hits of the Terminator franchise. Due to the way that Terminator 2: Judgement Day concluded, the future existence of Skynet has been definitively stopped. Therefore for this new film to justify its existence it has to contrive another comparable future threat and does so with a new rogue AI called Legion. So despite Judgement Day being averted, we are simply presented with a new dystopian future (because obviously Legion perceives mankind as a threat) and a new Terminator (Rev-9 model played by Gabriel Luna) sent back in time. Naturally, if there’s a Terminator on the loose, then they have to have a target. This time round it is Daniella Ramos (Natalia Reyes), a young woman who works in an automobile assembly factory. She is rescued and protected (as was Sarah Connorin the original movie) by a soldier from the future. The major difference being this time, is that Grace (Mackenzie Davis) has been cybernetically enhanced thus making her more capable in tackling Terminators.

View fullsize

Perhaps the most egregious offense that Terminator: Dark Fate commits is dealing with the conundrum of John Connor. With Judgement Day averted both John and his Mother Sarah were theoretically free to live out the remainder of their lives in peace. But the production’s need to include actress Linda Hamilton into the story (and thus increase the film marketability) requires a rather mean spirit plot twist that effectively negates the entire point of the first two films. To say more would spoil the film’s plot for those who have yet to see it but it really is a poor idea and has upset many ardent fans of this franchise. This narrative device also paves the way to crowbar Arnold Schwarzenegger into the proceedings as yet another T-800 model Terminator from the original Skynet timeline. There are some attempts in the screenplay by David Goyer, Justin Rhodes and Billy Ray to try and play against type, with this particular Terminator living out the rest of his existence as an average member of society. But the scenario envisaged is purely designed for easy laughs and offers nothing of substance beyond its inherent novelty.

View fullsize

Effectively all that Terminator: Dark Fate offers during its 128 minute duration is a retread of previous plot elements from the other movies and a series of noisy and frenetic action scenes, all of which are derivative and soulless, with no genuine sense of threat. Is the film poorly made? No not at all. Is it entertaining on any level? Yes. In a superficial way. But it has nothing to offer beyond that and it is utterly redundant. Beyond the need to make a film studio some money, Terminator: Dark Fate cannot really justify its existence. It adds nothing to the existing canon and lore and makes for rather ponderous viewing. The return to an R Rating provides no tangible benefits either, other than the scope for violence for violence sake. Sadly, the mainstream film making industry has no concept of integrity or art and is utterly lacking in self awareness. So I’m sure given some time, a focus group will attempt to resurrect this franchise yet again at a future date, only to make exactly the same mistakes.

Ad Astra (2019)

View fullsize

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?

Many critics felt that Ad Astra fell between two stools with its cold, clinical approach to space travel and its intermittent action scenes. I did not feel this way for the first third of the movie and accepted the lunar chase scene as relevant to the plot. Within the confines of the story, the Moon is  colonised by multiple nations and there are territorial disputes. Hence violating borders could indeed provoke a military response. However the film contradicted its own adherence to science at the end of the first act to accommodate a most unusual, unexpected but ultimately superfluous suspense sequence. This somewhat jaded my view of Ad Astra for the remainder of its running time and I got the distinct feeling that perhaps there was studio pressure put upon writer and director James Gray to balance the existential self contemplation of the plot with some accessible action sequences for the less “intellectually invested” viewers. Furthermore the much anticipated ending in which Father and Son meet, lands wide of the mark, failing to meet expectations both narratively and philosophically.

View fullsize

One cannot fault the quality of the production with much of the technology and science on display in Ad Astra being credible and well realised. The 100 million dollar budget seems to have gone mainly into the films visual  effects and production design. Performances from all involved are good, as you would expect from such an ensemble cast. But as Ad Astra progresses the ideas run out of steam and suddenly there is nothing to sustain the drama beyond the visuals and the hope that matters will be resolved in a satisfactory or at the least adequate fashion. And it is sadly the latter that is only achieved. For a movie that strives to deal with the near future in a Kubrickeques manner and explore the complexity of family relationships in an idiom similar to Greek Mythology, it fails to deliver at its dramatic climax. Furthermore, not only is the accurate depiction of science suspended when it finds itself at odds with the drama, so is narrative credibility. One scene where Roy is discovered illegally stowing away on a rocket, ends so abruptly and violently that it verges on the absurd.

View fullsize

However, despite losing its way Ad Astra does at least do something unusual that flies in the face of popular belief with one of the stories core themes. It postulates the idea that there is no other intelligent, sentient life in the universe and that we are as a species are just an anomaly that is utterly alone. Such a statement is very bold and thought provoking. But the Science fiction genre often works best when it is a MacGuffin for a human story. And there is a lot on offer in Ad Astra that could fuel that very process. Yet the production seems to have made the classic mistake of getting the cart before the horse and focusing more on the aesthetics and ambience of space travel, at the expense of the emotional heart of the story. But I will also give the film credit for having the best unnecessary primate attack and explosive decompression scene in any movie. It’s just a shame that it served no real purpose here than to add some contrived tension, in lieu of the genuine article.