Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17637
Location: North Carolina
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:31 am Post subject: FEATURED THREADS for 3-22-23 |
 |
|
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 Budbrewster58@gmail.com .
____________________________________________________________________
Whatcha in the mood for today, buddy? 
A serious tale about a post apocalyptic world where it’s neverly impossible to get a date?
A whimsical yarn involving the efforts of a eccentric professor who discover a rubber substance that flies!
A story about a future in which mankind comes face to face with advanced eliens.
____________________________________________________________________
The Last Woman on Earth (1960)
____________
_____________ 
__________ Last Woman on Earth Trailer (1960)
__________ 
An unusual end-of-the-world scenario, scripted by Robert Towne, who went on to such important cinematic assignments as Chinatown (1974).
Towne (credited as Ed Wain for his acting) also plays one of three survivors who happen to be scuba diving off the coast of Puerto Rico when something happens. We're not entirely clear on this, but it's probably a multitude of nuclear bombs going off around the world and sucking the air away temporarily.
The three people are under the water when it happens; when they surface, they find that they can't breathe and must rely on their diving equipment. Fortunately for them, breathable air returns after a couple of hours. Of course, everyone else is dead.
______________ Last Woman on Earth (1960)
__________ 
This is a Roger Corman production, made with his usual low funds and also as a 2-for-1 deal, made in the same location as Creature From the Haunted Sea and with the same actors (Towne, Antony Carbone and Betsy Moreland).
One doesn't require much money to show that all but 3 people are dead. The resulting story is a commentary on human social mores and psychology.
Carbone was a footloose reprobate before the holocaust and becomes the pragmatic one. Towne was a young, business-like lawyer before doomsday; he becomes fatalistic and morose.
The woman had married Carbone's character shortly before the apocalypse and now she naturally becomes stuck between two men — whom will she choose? It's not long before the men go at it and it looks like they will kill each other very soon.
BoG's Score: 6 out of 10
BoG
Galaxy Overlord Galactus
____________________________________________________________________
The Absent-Minded Professor (1961)
____________
____________________ 
__________The Absent Minded Professor Promo
__________ 
The first of the Disney comedies to revolve around characters at Medfield College, a place where all sorts of scientific mishaps occur.
Fred MacMurray stars as the brainy Professor Brainard, a genius so absent-minded that he has forgotten to attend his own wedding twice — 3rd time may not be the charm.
He engages in his own experimenting in his own little lab, set up in his garage. This time, an explosion konks him out and he misses his appointment with his bride-to-be (Nancy Olson) yet again.
However, when he wakes up, he finds that he has created the new substance he dubs "Flubber" — short for flying rubber. This stuff creates its own energy — if you roll it up in a ball and bounce it, it bounces higher each time. Of course, his amazing invention does not square things with his fiancee.
In the meantime, the town's rich citizen, Mr. Hawk (Keenan Wynn), makes plans on his threat to tear down Medfield over a past due loan. His son (Tommy Kirk) is the basketball star but is failing Brainard's class. Without this son, the Medfield team are hopeless, especially up against the lean giants of rival Rutland.
Brainard, having already converted his old Model-T car into a flying vehicle (using Gamma Rays to regulate the substance), gets his next bright idea — ironing the Flubber onto the soles of the shoes of the Medfield players.
In the 2nd half of the game, they bounce all over the place and beat Rutland!
Unfortunately, Hawk spots Brainard in his flying automobile and presses him to sell the stuff to the government. When Brainard rebuffs him, Hawk and his son pull the old switcheroo.
______________ The Absent-Minded Professor
__________ 
As with all the films revolving around Medfield, this stressed the absurd and even the nonsensical — based on Brainard's own involved explanations on how Flubber works, the way it's used on the basketball team doesn't make sense. The players should have been bouncing higher & higher with each bounce.
And, they don't start bouncing until they enter the court. But, we let it go, caught up in the whacky and spectacular sight of the game.
The story veers into thriller territory in the final act, with Brainard teaming up with his wife-to-be to reclaim his automobile and then winging away towards Washington D.C.
MacMurray was just right as the professor, also displaying a mean playful side when he feels he's been wronged. This was mainly for kids, but adults could get something out of it too, relating to Brainard's problems. This was a huge hit for Disney and there was the sequel Son of Flubber in 1963.
___________ The Absent Minded Professor (clip)
__________ 
BoG's Score: 7 out of 10
BoG
Galaxy Overlord Galactus
____________________________________________________________________
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
____________
___________ 
_________________ 
To examine and analyze this film — a film I didn't understand or like when I first saw it as a teen during some poor TV airing — it sometimes behooves me to use the comments of someone else, someone who may be a big fan of the film. In this case, I'll use the remarks of Tom Hanks. (Yes, the Tom Hanks.) It was all here, in the December, 2000 issue of Space Illustrated magazine:
_________  
_________
To begin with, this is not my favorite science fiction film. This isn't even my favorite Kubrick film (that would be A Clockwork Orange). But, what has happened over the past 30 years is that I find that the positives outweigh the negatives with this film for me now, if just slightly. (All following quotes/info from Tom Hanks taken from Space Illustrated magazine)
Let's begin with the first 20-minute sequence, with the apes. I don't want to call them simply monkeys. Isn't the point that these are not apes, not simply versions of today's chimps or gorillas? These are something in-between apes and homo sapien, an early version of a human being.
| Tom Hanks wrote: | In every other movie prior to that, it has always been (launches into a melodramatic narrator voice) 'At the Dawn of Man, the primitive beast that will soon rise to the heavens . . . '
And 2001 didn't have anything like that. And yet I was able to comprehend what was going on somehow. Like the rival ape factions fighting over that water hole. And my God, when that bone gets thrown up in the air and you make that transformation into an orbiting . . . |
The greatest jumpcut (more, time-cut) in the history of cinema. This was a jumpcut of about one million years.
 
We all know that film is a visual medium. Kubrick's strength has always been to take advantage of that and perhaps exploit this aspect. Every frame, every shot — at least, as his intention — is beautifully composed, though, at times, static (his background as a still photographer).
He went overboard with this approach in Barry Lyndon (1975), for example, with every shot intended as a painting on film. The results were dull. There was this same danger in 2001 and many people do find it boring.
____________ 
____________ 
However, as Hanks opines, isn't it possible that Kubrick was using the medium of film to better effect than the conventional wisdom — that he was attempting a more PURE approach in using film to convey information — that he didn't wish to rely on such elements as dialog, which just muddy up the cinematic waters?
If film-goers are accustomed to watching films in a certain way (images filled with dialog) and resist this alternate approach, does this automatically condemn this alternate approach as inferior? This new approach also defies the conventions of silent film stylistics, which concentrate on filling the screen with brash movement to compensate for lack of sound and static camera shots.
| Tom Hanks wrote: | | Bowman and Poole (the astronauts aboard Discovery) did not interact the way guys in movies interact. They didn't even nod at each other. They just started eating dinner, which I thought was fantastic. It had the absolute total ring of authenticity. |
 
But, there was dialog in the film — later. It's just that the harsher critics of this film find this dialog and the acting to be rather dry and, again, monotonous. And, minimalistic?
Perhaps.
Is it possible that some viewers are not looking at the film closely enough? Kubrick demands more than the usual attention. One example stands out for me — the scene with Dr. Floyd (William Sylvester) on the space station, when a Russian character quizzes him about the situation on the moon. There is that rather long pause from Floyd before he gives a non-answer. As with the other two main characters in the film (the astronauts), Floyd's character seems almost bereft of emotion and behaves like an automaton.
And yet . . . I watch this scene now and can see the wheels turning in Floyd's mind as he composes this non-answer in his mind.
Now, as for the unemotional astronauts . . .
| Tom Hanks wrote: | I understood the pressure these guys were under, what a hard job this must have been. I did not think it was miraculous fun that Frank Poole ran around and around that centrifuge for his exercise. I actually thought, "Man, that's got to be monotonous!"
The scene that blew me out of my hut when I saw it was Frank's birthday greeting from home, because he had no joy in the experience. This guy just sat there looking at it with a dead expression. That meant isolation and loneliness. And a kind of merciless professionalism that had to keep emotion in constant check, otherwise these guys would, (number one) go nuts, and (number two) wouldn't even get to make the voyage in the first place.
For me, it elevated David Bowman and Frank Poole. If you were going to be 18 months out in space on the way to Jupiter, you had to be one of the most mentally tough and accomplished human beings on the face of the planet. |
Hanks should know whereof he speaks. he studied real-life astronauts for his role in Apollo 13 and when he produced the HBO series From the Earth to the Moon.
  
I'm not sure I completely agree with Hanks, though.
His analysis of the astronauts doesn't really explain the robotic attitudes of the other characters, the few that we see. I believe Kubrick did the now obvious observation that mankind had transferred much of its humanity to HAL, the computer. At the time, this was subtle — not having been done before. HAL — as shown through the contrast of the machine's emotional behavior versus the unemotional human beings — was depicted as the next step in intelligent lifeforms.
Then, as we know, humanity is depicted as evolving into the next step at the end (the Starchild) since it had reached an obvious dead end in their current incarnation — HAL showed this to the audience. HAL was the next human, whereas humans needed to move on to a kind of godhood.
Am I making this up as I go along? Maybe — but, you have to admit, this film promotes some unusual debates. And we don't get that with most films, do we?
 
I think many people also forget nowadays just how far ahead 2001 was in terms of depicting outer space, the space stations/vehicles, the suits and, especially, the moon — the silence, the majesty, just the dark yet bright and sleek visualization of it all.
Remember, this was released before we had actually set foot on the moon. How many other films actually showed the lack of noise in space? Not many. I can find no fault in any of the visuals and they still hold up extremely well today. In watching it on the latest HD TV, the film still matches or surpasses any of the current CGI-effects-ridden films of the past decade in my opinion . . . over 40 years later, still effectively modern.
 
As for the final act, when surviving astronaut Bowman begins his journey in some light show and ends up in a seemingly baroque living quarters, even Hanks isn't sure what to make of all that.
| Tom Hanks wrote: | | I didn't understand everything that happens once Bowman leaves Discovery and what was going on, but it certainly did look cool. When they put in those quick shots of the tortured face of David Bowman as he's screaming inside his helmet, I was able to figure out, "Okay, this is happening to him and it's not just some cool ride." |
Did Hanks just contradict himself?
I will add this. Watching 2001 again, I realized how it has influenced almost every science fiction film since. Some of it is small and unexpected. When the Discovery first appears, the music is almost identical to the tones used in calm space scenes of such films as Aliens (1986) (I bet that Jim Cameron's a fan).
 
Want more arguments? When I was watching a small part of this film recently — the very first scene with our apelike ancestors — my cat suddenly walked up and rose on its hind legs, gazing at the screen. Was it the clarity of the picture, some crispness not there in other films? I dunno. But the cat had never done that before.
____________ 
BoG
Galaxy Overlord Galactus
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958) |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
