ALL SCI-FI

[Bud Brewster]

If you're not a member of All Sci-Fi, registration is easy. Just use the registration password, which is —

gort



Attention members! If you've forgotten your password, just email me at Brucecook1@yahoo.com.
____________________________________________________________________

A Kirk Douglas science fiction movie deserves to be good — but since it’s saddled with the worse robot since the clunky ones from the serials, it’s a big disappointment.

The third Star Wars movie in the original triology was, in my opinion, the best of the three.

And the remake of The Thing from Another Word is a much better movie than I thought it was after I first saw it in 1982.
___________________________________________________________________

Saturn 3 (1980)

____________
____________________

_____________________ Saturn 3 (trailer)


__________

______________________

___________________________ SATURN 3


__________

Some people think this sci-fi film about the future had an influence on later sci-fi films in the eighties, such as ALIENS (1986) and ROBOCOP (1987).

However, it's more realistic to believe that this awkward, very average sci-fi thriller was itself green-lit due to previous films like the first ALIEN (1979) and THE BLACK HOLE (1979). It's definitely the lesser of most of the sci-fi pictures of this period, suffering many behind-the-scenes problems which damaged it even more.




Most of the film takes place on Titan, one of Saturn's moons. There, two scientists, older Adam (Kirk Douglas) and young Alex (Farrah-Fawcett) are working on alternate forms of food for Earth's burgeoning population. These two are also lovers, even if Adam should be strictly a father-figure to Alex. Their life, though very solitary, is quite idyllic.

Or, it was.

Along comes Captain James (Harvey Keitel), there to ostensibly check on their progress. James, unknown to the two lovebirds, is not really James, but Benson, a disturbed psycho, having just committed a murder in the previous scene. Benson brings along some cultivated brain tissue, a main ingredient for the soon-to-be-constructed Hector, first of the 'Demigod' class of robots.

Uh-oh.




Benson, either by default or accident, comes to represent the unpleasant atmosphere of this future society, since we barely see any of it other than these 3 characters. He takes strange drugs ('blues') and makes very odd remarks, such as "wanting to use Alex' body" for his pleasure, as if this is routine conversation of the future.

Adam, the old guy, represents the old-fashioned past to an extent, but even he speaks of being close to his "abort-time" — the code-speak for euthanasia?

There are ideas here, sure, but they're unfocused and scattered (again, due to problems while filming). Benson transfers his psychosis to the new robot and, of course, things become very unpleasant and bloody.



I really didn't see any point to much of this, except to have a robotic Frankenstein's monster-type plodding around menacingly (it is a bit creepy, with its headless appearance).

And, towards the end, this seems to suggest that unwanted programming exists in mankind's future, if technological advancement continues. This was all done better in the Terminator and Matrix films.

______________________

______________ Saturn 3 - Hector the Robot


________

One of the problems was that John Barry, the composer, originated this project, but he left after disagreeing with star Douglas, and Stanley Donen took over.

Harvey Keitel's distinctive Brooklyn-accented voice was then dubbed over by Roy Dotrice, resulting in a dull performance.

Farrah does show some skin and usually wears something skimpy, but this didn't help with the box office gross (much like with her previous films, Sunburn & Somebody Killed Her Husband).

Kirk also shows a lot of skin in one scene, unfortunately, but he was in great shape for an old guy. Don't expect too much, unless you're curious to see Farrah in her prime.

____________
____________

There were also filmed scenes which were removed prior to release, showing Farrah in a provocative outfit during a strange dream sequence (or drug-influenced scene). Producer Lew Grade did not like these and had them removed. There were other scenes removed, as well. In the trailer for this film, which is on at least one DVD edition, we see Farrah in that outfit.

BoG's Score: 6 out of 10


BoG
Galaxy Overlord Galactus
____________________________________________________________________

Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (1983)

____________



The 2nd sequel to Star Wars (77) after The Empire Strikes Back (1980) and the 6th chapter of the film series (George Lucas intended it to be a 6-part saga, so this one would have been the final chapter, but the 7th chapter finally arrives in 2015).

The first act finds our heroes back on Tatooine, in the domain of Jabba the Hut, the local head gangster who looks like a giant slug. Han Solo (Harrison Ford) had been captured and frozen near the end of the 5th episode — so now, about a year later — his friends have figured out a plan to rescue him.

It's a strange, 2-pronged plan; both Leia (Carrie Fisher) and Lando (Billy Dee Williams) infiltrate Jabba's organization but Leia is swiftly found out and made Jabba's pet slave. It then falls to Luke (Mark Hamill), now well-versed in the ways of "The Force," to directly challenge Jabba's authority. This act also features the bounty hunter Boba Fett (Jeremy Bulloch) in action.



As first acts go, the entire sequence is fairly entertaining, perhaps more-than-ever a big budget variation of old-fashioned action serials.

But it may also be a sad commentary that the FX puppet playing Jabba probably remains the most entertaining character of the film; he or it is a cheerful expression of larger-than-life villainy — again, straight out of the old serials — and you may be almost sad to see him go so early in the film.

After Han's rescue, the film switches gears to get on with the business of the rebellion. Luke briefly returns to Dagobah to witness Yoda's death and then joins everyone in the latest plan against the Empire — which has an oddly deja vu feeling about it: the rebels need to destroy a 2nd version of the Death Star, shown as under construction. The difference with this is that the Emperor (Ian McDiarmid) himself has arrived to join Darth Vader on the Death Star, which orbits the forested moon of Endor.

____________________

It's in this big forest that the real drawbacks of the film begin. We are soon introduced to the local residents, small teddy bear characters called Ewoks. The film, until now appropriate for young teens and people of all ages, suddenly becomes geared towards 10-year-olds and younger.

This was the latest bid of George Lucas to expand the merchandising potential, i.e. sell more toys to the kids. It's also what prevents this film series from reaching truly classic status.

The Ewoks capture Leia first and then the other heroes, but are cowed when Luke levitates C3PO, whom the little creatures regard as a godling. From then on, the Ewoks becomes serious allies of the rebels in defeating the Imperial troops.

Isn't that magnificent?

No, not so, because all the scenes of the Ewoks are too sharp a contrast with the dark tone of the Emperor's scenes with Vader and Luke. It's almost like watching two different films.



Where the film does excel — and this makes it similar to late scenes in The Empire Strikes Back — is in concluding the story arc of Luke and Vader, with the Emperor thrown in to offer a truly creepy portrait of rancid evil. In showing us this Emperor, the film underlines what the menace of this Empire really is and what power Vader has been following over the course of these films.

McDiarmid was an inspired choice to play the dark ruler — he reeks of evil and his voice is most unsettling. His backstory was, of course, later revealed in the prequels, but this was at the time — 1983 — our only glimpse of this terrible figure and it was unpleasantly intense, also piquing our curiosity about who this Satanic villain really was and where he came from. There was a further revelation about Luke and Leia, settling things for the Luke-Leia-Han triangle, and an unexpected finale for Vader.

Return of the Trivia: As with the previous two films, this was the highest-grossing film of the year (1983).

~ Actor McDiarmid would reprise his role in the prequels, even though he was over 15 years older when the prequels were made and his character — only then named Palpatine — was over 20 years younger.

~ In the 2004 video release version of this film, actor Hayden Christensen was inserted digitally in the final shot as a ghostly Anakin; before, it was actor Sebastian Shaw as an older Anakin. The next episode, VII, to be released in 2015, takes place about 30 years after the events here.

_________ Star Wars- Return Of The Jedi Trailer

__________

BoG's Score: 7.5 out of 10



BoG
Galaxy Overlord Galactus
____________________________________________________________________

The Thing (1982)

____________
____________

______________________ The Thing (1982) Trailer


__________

I once had a long debate with someone about some films from the fifties-sixties-seventies, and some of his arguments revolved around context — the context of the times in which the films were made/released.

This may never apply better than to a discussion about the two versions of The Thing.

The first one from Howard Hawks in 1951 was during the McCarthy era. Communism was the primary danger, the focus was on teamwork, the power of well-organized democracy to counter the danger, and how we can rely on a stable American military/government to solve the problems.

Potentially radical elements such as appeasers — say, someone who theorizes peaceful gestures — were unreliable. Organization is the key to success here. Ken Tobey, as the main military man, manages a team to effect that success eventually.



I didn't like the old Thing film version when I was younger and grew to appreciate it only as I got to a certain age — perhaps I became conservative enough?

Perhaps my original dislike also had to do with how much this old version veered from the original story concepts (I did read the story very long ago).

The film still isn't in my top 10 of fifties Sci-Fi, but I understand how it laid the groundwork for many of the films to follow.

Now we get to the 2nd version from John Carpenter in '82. Where are we? Post-Vietnam. Post-Watergate. Things (no pun there) appear a little less organized — not quite anarchy, of course, but there are undercurrents of distrust, fatalism, despair even. Maybe even a bit of nihilism. OK, here we go...



When Kurt Russell's character pours his drink into the computer near the beginning, fizzling its circuits, it sent a message to me; here's a guy who is fed up, who may even be near the end of his rope, who is unpredictable, quick to anger, and may even be capable of ruthless acts.

This foreshadows the scene where he's truly tested and shows that he does not bluff. No more computer chess for this guy. The universe sends him a real foe to vanquish.

Russell was just off of Carpenter's Escape From New York and looks even more grizzled here, a wild man stuck in wild country, confronted by a wild alien.



I'm not going to say that his character and the others are likable. A couple of them, including Russell, come close to being guys we can relate to, but mostly they are like the cold weather surrounding them — not very approachable. This is actually a common element in Carpenter's films — his characters are usually not warm, comfy human beings.

But I don't think it works against the film in this case. See, the threat of this Thing is against the rest of the world, not so much this group of guys. The focus becomes how do we keep this Thing from invading the rest of the world. Not how do we survive so the audience can cheer us at the end.

Russell even states out-loud near the end, to make sure we get it, that the remaining survivors are not meant to survive to the very end. He and they are all expendable (fatalism, remember?), to make sure that the rest of the Earth doesn't get victimized.

____
____________

This real possibility of the entire Earth getting hit is also spelled out.

In one scene, Brimley's character does some computer projections and it shows him (and us) that Earth would be fully infected by the Thing in about 26,000 hours (3 years — these scenes always guarantee a chilling effect in me, like in all those Satan Bug-type of virus threats).

It's a cold equation at play here — the lives of a dozen people vs. 5 billion (this was back in '82).

I'm not alone in admiring this film and admiring it a lot — it's currently at #162 of the top films of all time list or TOP 250 at IMDb. My only quibble is what I perceive as a weakness in some of the plotting, as if an extra few days weren't taken to tighten the script (another commonality in Carpenter's films).

There's one scene a bit past the midpoint, for example. There have already been several victims of the Thing. The remaining men know what they face. Rather than band together or take steps to prevent further deaths, we are shown a scene of all the men separated, as if it's just another day in Antarctica, and one guy (Fuchs is the character) goes off alone to no good end. This was easily avoidable.

But then again, this wasn't '51 and teamwork just wasn't a strong point for us anymore.


________________

Thing Trivia: The story is based on John W. Campbell Jr.'s famous novella, Who Goes There? (1938).

~ There were sequels to this film in comic book format. One of the better ones was published by Dark Horse in 1992. It followed the character of MacReady (Russell, who does not really survive the film, as I see it) as he continues to tangle with the Thing monstrosity outside of Antarctica. Of course, this corrupts what I see as the creepiest factor of the Thing film — that if the Thing manages to make it off Antarctica, the rest of the world is toast. It's not really even a question.

~ By the way, the Thing was building himself a little spacecraft in the film. I believe this was to take it to other parts of Earth, not off-planet. Nevertheless, there are many fans who would love to see a sequel to this.

~ I ran across a fan-written synopsis of a sequel on IMDb about a year ago. It took place about 30 years later, still with MacReady, and covered about the first 20 minutes of a proposed film sequel. The funny thing is, Kurt Russell is still around, still active in film and could conceivably do it if they placed it in production within the next couple of years. And the '82 version was 31 years after the first one. However, all they managed was a prequel of sorts for a 2011 version of The Thing, without Russell or any of the characters in the '82 version.

BoG's Score: 8.5 out of 10

__________ The Thing (1982) Ending Explained


__________



BoG
Galaxy Overlord Galactus
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)