Ace of Knaves
Avenger
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2008
- Messages
- 31,200
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Quoted for truth.
Hey it's better than being a 8 year old trapped inside an old mans body right?
CFE's 100 Science Fiction Film Countdown
- Thread starter CFE
- Start date
Hey it's better than being a 8 year old trapped inside an old mans body right?
CFE
The never-ending battle
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 9,122
- Reaction score
- 54
- Points
- 73
#47
Stargate (1994)
[YT]h1t064QfpgE[/YT]
Directed by … Roland Emmerich
Written by … Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich
Kurt Russell ... Col. Jonathan 'Jack' O'Neil
James Spader ... Dr. Daniel Jackson
Alexis Cruz ... Skaara
Viveca Lindfors ... Catherine Langford
Mili Avital ... Sha'uri
John Diehl ... Lieutenant Kawalsky
Leon Rippy ... General W.O. West
Carlos Lauchu ... Anubis
Djimon Hounsou ... Horus
Erick Avari ... Kasuf
French Stewart ... Lieutenant Ferretti
Gianin Loffler ... Nabeh
Jaye Davidson ... Ra
Christopher John Fields ... Freeman
Derek Webster ... Brown
Jack Moore ... Reilly
Steve Giannelli ... Porro
Cecil Hoffman ... Sarah O'Neil
Rae Allen ... Barbara Shore, Ph.D.
Richard Kind ... Gary Meyers, Ph.D.
John Storey ... Mitch
Lee Taylor-Allan ... Jenny
George Gray ... Technician
Kelly Vint ... Young Catherine Langford
Erik Holland ... Prof. Langford
Nick Wilder ... Taylor, the Foreman
Sayed Badreya ... Arabic Interpreter
Kairon John ... Masked Ra
Frank Welker ... Mastadge (voice)
An interstellar teleportation device found in Egypt leads to a planet with humans resembling ancient Egyptians who worship the god Ra.
--------------------------------------------------------
When it comes to quality, big budget director Roland Emmerich has always been on the fence. “Godzilla” has its moments but they’re few and far between…”The Patriot” was decent but, at times, a bit too much…and, given the trailers of late his most recent, “2012” looks to be his biggest and brassiest yet...which may or may not be a good thing.
But when it comes to the film that broke down Hollywood’s door for him, it seems like he actually took the time to examine and inject what makes movies great.
Truly, 1994’s “Stargate” is, if anything, exceptionally inventive and incredibly fun.
In the inscrutable ways of Washington bureaucracy, somebody in the Defense Department has taken an interest in a device simply dubbed the “Stargate”…a giant metallic artifact that had been unearthed in Egypt in the late 1920s. Chosen for his bizarre theories concerning the construction of the pyramids at Giza, eccentric Egyptologist Dr. Daniel Jackson (James Spader) is contacted by a former colleague (Viveca Lindfors) and given the opportunity to prove his theories by analyzing the Stargate. Within weeks, Jackson discovers how to operate the machine and joins a military mission headed by Col. Jack O’Neill (Kurt Russell) to travel through the Stargate and investigate the mysterious world on the other side…a world populated by slaves who worship the Sun God Ra (Jaye Davidson), who uses advanced alien technology to oppress the populace.
Even though the story itself is not that special, it still has a great and intriguing concept that somehow knows to connect an alien world to ancient Egypt and their Gods. It's a great science-fiction story without ever really getting too deep in its 'science-fiction’ aspects…which audiences that aren’t too sold on the genre might appreciate. It uses a lot of great and imaginative elements.
Personally, I consider “Stargate” to be Emmerich’s best film. Sure it can get a bit stupid at times, but sometimes it’s okay to accept eye popping visuals and style over substance once in awhile. Besides the plot of the film is very unique and a nice twist on the theory of ancient civilizations being built by extra terrestrial technology (I’ll take “Stargate”s answer to this concept over…say…”Alien vs. Predator?”
.
The cast is nicely assembled, but ultimately lacking. Kurt Russell and his special ops group are wooden and stilted in their deliveries…but I won't criticize too harshly since these type of characters always seem to lack flair in this genre (with the notable exception of “Aliens.” James Spader is slightly unconvincing as hero Dan Jackson due to his wimpish nature throughout the film…and a peculiarly effeminate hairstyle (Curious…was Jackson conceived as a female character first? Sorry, that was a bit harsh, I apologize)
But for my money, the best performance goes to Jaye Davidson as his absolutely superb turn as Ra. Turns out this is the same Jaye Davidson from “The Crying Game” (I know right!?) and I was totally shocked to find this was the second and last feature film he appeared in. There were reports on set that he was difficult to work with…but we’ve all got our shortcomings…so get this guy back into film already!
For 1994 standards, the visual effects are pretty good…especially the actual operations of the Stargate and passing through it (sort of like passing through a wall combining grape jelly and water…say, perhaps this is where Lucas got the inspiration for how Jar Jar, Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan enter the Gungan City in “Episode I.” and the spiffy transforming masks worn by the ‘Gods’…including that bad ass Anubis head. The desert locale doesn’t really show off any sort of budget…which I think is a good thing since Emmerich has now become prone to wave his budget in audience’s faces.
Once you start really thinking about it, there isn't an awful lot happening in this movie, mostly action wise.
Yet despite this, it's a very entertaining movie to watch, which is due to the fact that its sense of pace in how it tells this story is very well-calibrated. It's a movie that never bores and never seems to be pretentious at any time (again, unlike some of Emmerich’s later pictures). The movie also gets uplifted by its rousing musical score composed by Emmerich alum David Arnold (who also scored “Godzilla” for Emmerich in 98).
“Stargate” is a bit underrated by many…but it’s been able to stand the test of time, actually doing its small part to inspire (the opening of Disney’s “Atlantis: The Lost Empire” is very reminiscent of the opening scenes for “Stargate” as well as live on in a handful of popular Sci-Fi channel television series including “Stargate: SG-1,” “Stargate: Atlantis” and most recently “Stargate: Universe.”
(Side Note: if you’re feeling really adventurous, check out the awesome “Director’s Cut” that adds an additional ten minutes of material to the 2 hour theatrical version of the film.)
A very recommendable science fiction blockbuster from the 90s, “Stargate” might not define classic by any stretch of the imagination…But it’s solid entertainment just the same.
--------------------------------------------------------
Stargate (1994)
[YT]h1t064QfpgE[/YT]
Directed by … Roland Emmerich
Written by … Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich
Kurt Russell ... Col. Jonathan 'Jack' O'Neil
James Spader ... Dr. Daniel Jackson
Alexis Cruz ... Skaara
Viveca Lindfors ... Catherine Langford
Mili Avital ... Sha'uri
John Diehl ... Lieutenant Kawalsky
Leon Rippy ... General W.O. West
Carlos Lauchu ... Anubis
Djimon Hounsou ... Horus
Erick Avari ... Kasuf
French Stewart ... Lieutenant Ferretti
Gianin Loffler ... Nabeh
Jaye Davidson ... Ra
Christopher John Fields ... Freeman
Derek Webster ... Brown
Jack Moore ... Reilly
Steve Giannelli ... Porro
Cecil Hoffman ... Sarah O'Neil
Rae Allen ... Barbara Shore, Ph.D.
Richard Kind ... Gary Meyers, Ph.D.
John Storey ... Mitch
Lee Taylor-Allan ... Jenny
George Gray ... Technician
Kelly Vint ... Young Catherine Langford
Erik Holland ... Prof. Langford
Nick Wilder ... Taylor, the Foreman
Sayed Badreya ... Arabic Interpreter
Kairon John ... Masked Ra
Frank Welker ... Mastadge (voice)
An interstellar teleportation device found in Egypt leads to a planet with humans resembling ancient Egyptians who worship the god Ra.
--------------------------------------------------------
When it comes to quality, big budget director Roland Emmerich has always been on the fence. “Godzilla” has its moments but they’re few and far between…”The Patriot” was decent but, at times, a bit too much…and, given the trailers of late his most recent, “2012” looks to be his biggest and brassiest yet...which may or may not be a good thing.
But when it comes to the film that broke down Hollywood’s door for him, it seems like he actually took the time to examine and inject what makes movies great.
Truly, 1994’s “Stargate” is, if anything, exceptionally inventive and incredibly fun.
In the inscrutable ways of Washington bureaucracy, somebody in the Defense Department has taken an interest in a device simply dubbed the “Stargate”…a giant metallic artifact that had been unearthed in Egypt in the late 1920s. Chosen for his bizarre theories concerning the construction of the pyramids at Giza, eccentric Egyptologist Dr. Daniel Jackson (James Spader) is contacted by a former colleague (Viveca Lindfors) and given the opportunity to prove his theories by analyzing the Stargate. Within weeks, Jackson discovers how to operate the machine and joins a military mission headed by Col. Jack O’Neill (Kurt Russell) to travel through the Stargate and investigate the mysterious world on the other side…a world populated by slaves who worship the Sun God Ra (Jaye Davidson), who uses advanced alien technology to oppress the populace.
Even though the story itself is not that special, it still has a great and intriguing concept that somehow knows to connect an alien world to ancient Egypt and their Gods. It's a great science-fiction story without ever really getting too deep in its 'science-fiction’ aspects…which audiences that aren’t too sold on the genre might appreciate. It uses a lot of great and imaginative elements.
Personally, I consider “Stargate” to be Emmerich’s best film. Sure it can get a bit stupid at times, but sometimes it’s okay to accept eye popping visuals and style over substance once in awhile. Besides the plot of the film is very unique and a nice twist on the theory of ancient civilizations being built by extra terrestrial technology (I’ll take “Stargate”s answer to this concept over…say…”Alien vs. Predator?”
.The cast is nicely assembled, but ultimately lacking. Kurt Russell and his special ops group are wooden and stilted in their deliveries…but I won't criticize too harshly since these type of characters always seem to lack flair in this genre (with the notable exception of “Aliens.”
James Spader is slightly unconvincing as hero Dan Jackson due to his wimpish nature throughout the film…and a peculiarly effeminate hairstyle (Curious…was Jackson conceived as a female character first? Sorry, that was a bit harsh, I apologize)But for my money, the best performance goes to Jaye Davidson as his absolutely superb turn as Ra. Turns out this is the same Jaye Davidson from “The Crying Game” (I know right!?) and I was totally shocked to find this was the second and last feature film he appeared in. There were reports on set that he was difficult to work with…but we’ve all got our shortcomings…so get this guy back into film already!
For 1994 standards, the visual effects are pretty good…especially the actual operations of the Stargate and passing through it (sort of like passing through a wall combining grape jelly and water…say, perhaps this is where Lucas got the inspiration for how Jar Jar, Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan enter the Gungan City in “Episode I.”
and the spiffy transforming masks worn by the ‘Gods’…including that bad ass Anubis head. The desert locale doesn’t really show off any sort of budget…which I think is a good thing since Emmerich has now become prone to wave his budget in audience’s faces.Once you start really thinking about it, there isn't an awful lot happening in this movie, mostly action wise.
Yet despite this, it's a very entertaining movie to watch, which is due to the fact that its sense of pace in how it tells this story is very well-calibrated. It's a movie that never bores and never seems to be pretentious at any time (again, unlike some of Emmerich’s later pictures). The movie also gets uplifted by its rousing musical score composed by Emmerich alum David Arnold (who also scored “Godzilla” for Emmerich in 98).
“Stargate” is a bit underrated by many…but it’s been able to stand the test of time, actually doing its small part to inspire (the opening of Disney’s “Atlantis: The Lost Empire” is very reminiscent of the opening scenes for “Stargate”
as well as live on in a handful of popular Sci-Fi channel television series including “Stargate: SG-1,” “Stargate: Atlantis” and most recently “Stargate: Universe.”(Side Note: if you’re feeling really adventurous, check out the awesome “Director’s Cut” that adds an additional ten minutes of material to the 2 hour theatrical version of the film.)
A very recommendable science fiction blockbuster from the 90s, “Stargate” might not define classic by any stretch of the imagination…But it’s solid entertainment just the same.
--------------------------------------------------------
The Navigator
Avenger
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2004
- Messages
- 15,735
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
I'm a little surprised to see Stargate getting ranked above your more "cerebral" picks, but 
all the same.
all the same.
CFE
The never-ending battle
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 9,122
- Reaction score
- 54
- Points
- 73
#46
Pi (1998)
[YT]zQYYGwYTPuY[/YT]
Directed by Darren Aronofsky
Story by Eric Watson, Sean Gullette and Darren Aronofsky
Screenplay by Darren Aronofsky
Sean Gullette ... Maximillian Cohen
Mark Margolis ... Sol Robeson
Ben Shenkman ... Lenny Meyer
Pamela Hart ... Marcy Dawson
Stephen Pearlman ... Rabbi Cohen
Samia Shoaib ... Devi
Ajay Naidu ... Farrouhk
Kristyn Mae-Anne Lao ... Jenna
Espher Lao Nieves ... Jenna's Mom
Joanne Gordon ... Mrs. Ovadia
Lauren Fox ... Jenny Robeson
Stanley Herman ... Moustacheless Man
Clint Mansell ... Photographer
Tom Tumminello ... Ephraim
Peter Cheyenne ... Brad
David Tawil ... Jake
J.C. Islander ... Man Presenting Suitcase
Abraham Aronofsky ... Man Delivering Suitcase
Ray Seiden ... Transit Cop
Scott Franklin ... Voice of Transit Cop (voice)
Chris Johnson ... Limo Driver
Sal Monte ... King Neptune
A paranoid mathematician searches for a key number that will unlock the universal patterns found in nature.
--------------------------------------------------------
Independent filmmaking in one of its best examples, 1998s Pi is a bizarre cinematic experience unlike anything being released in the 1990s.
A truly macabre examination into the abyss of mans psyche itself, the film is a hip-trip with spine tingles to spare.
Following mathematical clues derived from an analysis of the stock market, Maximillian Cohen (played by co-writer Sean Gullette himself) begins his descent into madness as he attempts to discover the nature of everything through the peculiar numerical entity known as Pi (you know 3.14 and all that jazz).
Truly, obsession has never been this exciting since Basic Instinct.
I mean who would have thought to marry Wall Street with Kabbalah, Computer Science, Go, Number Theory, and the most fascinating number in the universe in a solute of obsessive-compulsive, paranoid genius and then strain it through gritty Black and White cinematography and hyperkinetic editing?
Whatever Aronofsky and co. were smoking it mustve been good!
What's most striking about Pi is that it's different. So much so that honestly It isn't really comparable to any other movie I know; in terms of its plot or its style. Aronofsky shows an incredible ability to work with a budget and yet still produce a visually striking movie - the movie doesn't suffer from being shot in fuzzy black & white. The paranoia of the man character is enhanced greatly by the use of a "snorricam" - a camera mounted to the body so that the viewer is attached to Max as he walks. Sharp, extremely kinetic cuts add to the frenetic energy and display what we would later see as a stylistic extension in "Requiem for a Dream." The whole intense, brooding nature is helped by the black & white imagery never allowing for any color to seep through, enhanced by the fuzzy dream-like quality of the movie that reflects Cohen's delusions. It's no wonder that Aronofsky came away from Sundance as the Best Director for his amazing work here with such limited means.
The plot is interesting but the number Cohen seeks (which is actually not Pi - Pi is just used because it is a universal invariant like that which Cohen wants) isn't the centre of the movie. It's about obsession and how, as Max's friend points out, it can drive you to see things everywhere. Sure there are technical inaccuracies in it, but it's played with an assured sense of conviction.
The film stars Sean Gullette, who co-wrote the movie with Aronofsky and Eric Watson. You might recognize him as Arnold (Marion's old partner and shrink) in "Requiem." Gullette is perfect in his role and takes to his descent into madness very compellingly, doing an amazing job here. It's a shame we don't see his talent in other films.
Mark Margolis (Mr. Rabinowitz in "Requiem") is excellent as Max's mentor and all of the other cast is doing a terrific job too.
The film, virtually without any sizeable budget to speak of, is shot through black and white by cinematographer Matthew Libatique it actually turns out to work in the pictures favor allowing Libatique to paint with light and shadow in an extremely inventive way.
The music of the film is also dynamically perverted, representative of Max losing his grip on sanity through the work of composer Clint Mansell, the frontman for the group Pop will Eat Itself. The score is delightfully techno-laced with an edge that has an intriguing tinge to it that I personally responded to very much.
The stylistic underpinnings of Pi are very slick, very modern, very hip .at times it actually reminded me of "The Matrix;" which is ironic, considering that was released the FOLLOWING year.
"Pi" is a perfectly concrete example of how the relative absence of special effects, explosions, etc. can still help create an engaging, and thoroughly unique viewing experience. Overflowing with intensity and dynamic camerawork, this is a frightening roller-coaster ride of a film; despite clocking in at less than 90 minutes, "Pi" is by no means short on resonance - but rather leaves a heavy feeling of exuberance and fascination with the material that lasts long after it's finished. At the same time, though, people who aren't as open-minded to more obscure, abstract films like this would be, I think, surprised. This is not as complicated or bewildering a film as I had expected. If one can be able to focus intently on the story, the result is rewarding, and doesn't provide for much head-scratching.
If you're looking for something different here and there, I would give this curiosity piece a quick look. Overall its components "added up" to a rather intriguing film
It's original, it's interesting, and above all it might just be genius.
Pi certainly delivers the goods.
--------------------------------------------------------
Pi (1998)
[YT]zQYYGwYTPuY[/YT]
Directed by Darren Aronofsky
Story by Eric Watson, Sean Gullette and Darren Aronofsky
Screenplay by Darren Aronofsky
Sean Gullette ... Maximillian Cohen
Mark Margolis ... Sol Robeson
Ben Shenkman ... Lenny Meyer
Pamela Hart ... Marcy Dawson
Stephen Pearlman ... Rabbi Cohen
Samia Shoaib ... Devi
Ajay Naidu ... Farrouhk
Kristyn Mae-Anne Lao ... Jenna
Espher Lao Nieves ... Jenna's Mom
Joanne Gordon ... Mrs. Ovadia
Lauren Fox ... Jenny Robeson
Stanley Herman ... Moustacheless Man
Clint Mansell ... Photographer
Tom Tumminello ... Ephraim
Peter Cheyenne ... Brad
David Tawil ... Jake
J.C. Islander ... Man Presenting Suitcase
Abraham Aronofsky ... Man Delivering Suitcase
Ray Seiden ... Transit Cop
Scott Franklin ... Voice of Transit Cop (voice)
Chris Johnson ... Limo Driver
Sal Monte ... King Neptune
A paranoid mathematician searches for a key number that will unlock the universal patterns found in nature.
--------------------------------------------------------
Independent filmmaking in one of its best examples, 1998s Pi is a bizarre cinematic experience unlike anything being released in the 1990s.
A truly macabre examination into the abyss of mans psyche itself, the film is a hip-trip with spine tingles to spare.
Following mathematical clues derived from an analysis of the stock market, Maximillian Cohen (played by co-writer Sean Gullette himself) begins his descent into madness as he attempts to discover the nature of everything through the peculiar numerical entity known as Pi (you know 3.14 and all that jazz).
Truly, obsession has never been this exciting since Basic Instinct.
I mean who would have thought to marry Wall Street with Kabbalah, Computer Science, Go, Number Theory, and the most fascinating number in the universe in a solute of obsessive-compulsive, paranoid genius and then strain it through gritty Black and White cinematography and hyperkinetic editing?
Whatever Aronofsky and co. were smoking it mustve been good!
What's most striking about Pi is that it's different. So much so that honestly It isn't really comparable to any other movie I know; in terms of its plot or its style. Aronofsky shows an incredible ability to work with a budget and yet still produce a visually striking movie - the movie doesn't suffer from being shot in fuzzy black & white. The paranoia of the man character is enhanced greatly by the use of a "snorricam" - a camera mounted to the body so that the viewer is attached to Max as he walks. Sharp, extremely kinetic cuts add to the frenetic energy and display what we would later see as a stylistic extension in "Requiem for a Dream." The whole intense, brooding nature is helped by the black & white imagery never allowing for any color to seep through, enhanced by the fuzzy dream-like quality of the movie that reflects Cohen's delusions. It's no wonder that Aronofsky came away from Sundance as the Best Director for his amazing work here with such limited means.
The plot is interesting but the number Cohen seeks (which is actually not Pi - Pi is just used because it is a universal invariant like that which Cohen wants) isn't the centre of the movie. It's about obsession and how, as Max's friend points out, it can drive you to see things everywhere. Sure there are technical inaccuracies in it, but it's played with an assured sense of conviction.
The film stars Sean Gullette, who co-wrote the movie with Aronofsky and Eric Watson. You might recognize him as Arnold (Marion's old partner and shrink) in "Requiem." Gullette is perfect in his role and takes to his descent into madness very compellingly, doing an amazing job here. It's a shame we don't see his talent in other films.
Mark Margolis (Mr. Rabinowitz in "Requiem") is excellent as Max's mentor and all of the other cast is doing a terrific job too.
The film, virtually without any sizeable budget to speak of, is shot through black and white by cinematographer Matthew Libatique it actually turns out to work in the pictures favor allowing Libatique to paint with light and shadow in an extremely inventive way.
The music of the film is also dynamically perverted, representative of Max losing his grip on sanity through the work of composer Clint Mansell, the frontman for the group Pop will Eat Itself. The score is delightfully techno-laced with an edge that has an intriguing tinge to it that I personally responded to very much.
The stylistic underpinnings of Pi are very slick, very modern, very hip .at times it actually reminded me of "The Matrix;" which is ironic, considering that was released the FOLLOWING year.
"Pi" is a perfectly concrete example of how the relative absence of special effects, explosions, etc. can still help create an engaging, and thoroughly unique viewing experience. Overflowing with intensity and dynamic camerawork, this is a frightening roller-coaster ride of a film; despite clocking in at less than 90 minutes, "Pi" is by no means short on resonance - but rather leaves a heavy feeling of exuberance and fascination with the material that lasts long after it's finished. At the same time, though, people who aren't as open-minded to more obscure, abstract films like this would be, I think, surprised. This is not as complicated or bewildering a film as I had expected. If one can be able to focus intently on the story, the result is rewarding, and doesn't provide for much head-scratching.
If you're looking for something different here and there, I would give this curiosity piece a quick look. Overall its components "added up" to a rather intriguing film
It's original, it's interesting, and above all it might just be genius.
Pi certainly delivers the goods.
--------------------------------------------------------
CFE
The never-ending battle
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 9,122
- Reaction score
- 54
- Points
- 73
#45
Logan’s Run (1976)
[YT]4WUUnc1M0TA[/YT]
Directed by … Michael Anderson
Written by … David Zelag Goodman
Adapted from the novel “Logan’s Run” by … William F. Nolan and George Clyaton Johnson
Inspired by the novel “Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats” by … T.S. Eliot
Michael York ... Logan
Richard Jordan ... Francis
Jenny Agutter ... Jessica 6
Roscoe Lee Browne ... Box
Farrah Fawcett ... Holly
Michael Anderson Jr. ... Doc
Peter Ustinov ... Old Man
Randolph Roberts ... 2nd Sanctuary Man
Lara Lindsay ... The Woman Runner
Gary Morgan ... Billy
Michelle Stacy ... Mary 2
Laura Hippe ... Woman Customer
David Westberg ... Sandman
Camilla Carr ... Sanctuary Woman
Greg Lewis ... Cub
Ashley Cox ... Timid Girl
Bill Couch ... Sandman
Glenn R. Wilder ... Great Hall Runner
An idyllic utopian future has one major drawback: life must end at the age of 30.
--------------------------------------------------------
An all time science fiction classic, 1976’s “Logan’s Run” has been a personal favorite since I first saw it om AMC back in high school.
The story is one of intrigue and an overall theme of tempting and cheating fate. It’s a film based on a foundation of fundamental change, both on a personal and social level…a great parable for counter-culture informing the audience that when it comes to the authoritative establishment of conformity…run for your life and fight like hell.
In the year 2274, a faction of the human race, following global war and other apparent catastrophes that have ravaged the Earth, live together in a giant domed city, completely sealed off from the outside world. Here, in this bubbled society, the young, healthy, beautiful people who populate it live in total and complete pleasure, free of labor & strife, and free to do anything & everything they want, sexually or otherwise. It's a total state of hedonism.
But there's one catch: no one is allowed to live past the age of 30. On your 30th birthday (known as "Lastday"), the little jeweled lifeclock attached to your hand blinks, and you must be expelled from this society of pleasure through an arena event known as "carrousel," in which, the city's young people believe, your soul is "renewed," afterwhich you will be reborn into the city's society and start all over again.
But some 30 year-olds in this city know the real truth about carrousel---that it is, in fact, a death sentence---and they try to escape. They're called "runners." The domed city has a faction of policemen who hunt down runners, and they're called "Sandmen." Logan (Michael York of ‘Cabaret’ and ‘Austin Powers’ fame) is a 26 year-old Sandman. Life in the city is good for him, but suddenly, he is given a secret mission by his boss---the city's master computer---that will change him. Logan's assignment is to go undercover as a runner, escape the city and go outside, where he is to find a so-called haven for escaped runners called Sanctuary, and destroy it. But Logan soon learns the truth about carrousel himself, and, with the aid of a beautiful girl named Jessica (Jenny Agutter), whom he falls in love with, he must now figure out how to free his people from their horrible fate at the age of 30....
I've always been fascinated by the storyline and its implications and statements not just of social oppression but obviously of over-population and, to an extent, birth control. The idea of society controlling the size of its populace is obviously exaggerated to a science fiction limit, but as with all good science fiction there in lies a small grain of truth…now of course we don’t have people turning 30 and consequently getting picked up off the street to be lead to a gas chamber…but there are subtle (and not so subtle) devices in the world that manipulate us to keep our numbers low (abortion, birth control, public executions, sending men and women to die in war, social and racial intolerance, fear…the list of factors is quite long).
But back on topic.
Some have criticized "Logan's Run" as being too long, saying that the film bogs down in the middle when Logan & Jessica get outside the city and meet the Old Man. I can see why many people would feel that way…and even more so today given the microscopic attention spans a lot of people seem to have developed…but the whole concept of triumphing over oppression and the fascinating ideal of a hunter becoming the hunted appeals to me at such an extent that I don’t consider the film to be long in the tooth at all. I've always enjoyed this part of the film, featuring Ustinov's charming turn as the Old Man. Besides, it's an important part of the story, as Logan & Jessica fall in love with one another, and learn through meeting the Old Man that there IS, in fact, life after 30. Without this segment of the film, "Logan's Run" would be pointless. It's there for a reason…it serves a purpose.
The moral undertones of “Logan’s Run” are also fascinating to observe. We see how Logan and his friends hunt the runners in a decidedly sadistic way, and how casual sex is available at the push of a button. Then we see the people whose time is up don weird masks and robes and float to the ceiling in the ritual – very striking compositions here, although the way the scene was edited together with the crowd's cheers made it seem as if they're at a gladiator event cheering for people's deaths instead of religious supplicants at a ritual, as they are intended.
Also I'm not completely sure if Logan was supposed to come off as quite as much of a fascist as he does here, with his gleeful face and blithe attitude about sex… but then again maybe he is.
That being said, Michael York gives a solidly strong performance as Logan and it’s far more of a developed character arc than what you’d usually find in early to mid 70s genre work. His chemistry with Agutter is also very well conceived and Jenny in turn is quite convincing. I liked how the relationship Logan develops with Jessica was explored as a counterpoint to his friendship with Francis as he moves towards a greater understanding of his situation and, perhaps, the human condition...very well calibrated. As for the rest of the cast. I think Richard Jordan, who had appeared in the extremely underrated Robert Mitchum movie 'The Yakuza' prior to this, is an actor who never got the attention (or roles) he deserved. The sequence with the “Box” (Roscoe Lee Browne…who people my age might also recognize as the voice of Wilson Fisk/The Kingpin in the early 90s’ “Spider-Man: The Animated Series) is great fun, although the costume/animatronic can easily look a bit absurd wheeling around the set shrieking about his beloved birds…oh well.
Although the film's Oscar-winning visual effects have long since been surpassed, they're still quite colorful to look at (including the groundbreaking use of holography). I’m also very impressed with the film’s cinematography and production design. Ernest Laszlo does a phenomeonal job of playing with tension and broad strokes of light within his frames and truly…iconic moments such as Logan and Jessica discovering the moss and vine covered Lincoln Memorial would not nearly have been as visually bombastic if not for his efforts. The design of the stark, white-walled society of pleasure is an absolute vision…or obviously ‘illusion’ given the ‘truth’…crafted by art director Dale Hennessy (who’s credited for the art direction but not the production design…I’d say it’s because most likely at the time the two were not differentiated).
The film is accompanied by a lovely score from “Alien” and “Star Trek” composer Jerry Goldsmith and, to date, it’s one of my favorites of his…although that’s a tad bias what with my being a Goldsmith enthusiast.
Simply put, “Logan’s Run” is a kind of sci-fi film that you really don't see any more – with plenty of action and sexuality to distract the eye and plenty of ideas to chew on as well.
What's interesting about the film from a philosophical standpoint is how blind Logan and the others are to the ramifications of the situation. That's why his speech to the people in the plaza couldn't sway them; like Logan they had to see the outside and the Old Man for themselves. And none of them have any idea about the negative effects of aging, which is quite charming. I think the overall idea is to poke holes in the idea (which had great currency in the late 60s when the source novel was written) that "youth culture" and "free love" could save humanity from all of its problems.
This could have been a painful pedantic film if the film-makers hadn't had the good taste to never verbalize this film but to simply let the audience soak up the realization.
Thankfully that was the case. People who like the fact that Star Wars is a Campbellian construction of the Hero's Journey should definitely discover “Logan’s Run”--it might as well have been the primary source for George Lucas' later work.
And for science fiction fans as a whole, it's a classic example of the form.
--------------------------------------------------------
Logan’s Run (1976)
[YT]4WUUnc1M0TA[/YT]
Directed by … Michael Anderson
Written by … David Zelag Goodman
Adapted from the novel “Logan’s Run” by … William F. Nolan and George Clyaton Johnson
Inspired by the novel “Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats” by … T.S. Eliot
Michael York ... Logan
Richard Jordan ... Francis
Jenny Agutter ... Jessica 6
Roscoe Lee Browne ... Box
Farrah Fawcett ... Holly
Michael Anderson Jr. ... Doc
Peter Ustinov ... Old Man
Randolph Roberts ... 2nd Sanctuary Man
Lara Lindsay ... The Woman Runner
Gary Morgan ... Billy
Michelle Stacy ... Mary 2
Laura Hippe ... Woman Customer
David Westberg ... Sandman
Camilla Carr ... Sanctuary Woman
Greg Lewis ... Cub
Ashley Cox ... Timid Girl
Bill Couch ... Sandman
Glenn R. Wilder ... Great Hall Runner
An idyllic utopian future has one major drawback: life must end at the age of 30.
--------------------------------------------------------
An all time science fiction classic, 1976’s “Logan’s Run” has been a personal favorite since I first saw it om AMC back in high school.
The story is one of intrigue and an overall theme of tempting and cheating fate. It’s a film based on a foundation of fundamental change, both on a personal and social level…a great parable for counter-culture informing the audience that when it comes to the authoritative establishment of conformity…run for your life and fight like hell.
In the year 2274, a faction of the human race, following global war and other apparent catastrophes that have ravaged the Earth, live together in a giant domed city, completely sealed off from the outside world. Here, in this bubbled society, the young, healthy, beautiful people who populate it live in total and complete pleasure, free of labor & strife, and free to do anything & everything they want, sexually or otherwise. It's a total state of hedonism.
But there's one catch: no one is allowed to live past the age of 30. On your 30th birthday (known as "Lastday"), the little jeweled lifeclock attached to your hand blinks, and you must be expelled from this society of pleasure through an arena event known as "carrousel," in which, the city's young people believe, your soul is "renewed," afterwhich you will be reborn into the city's society and start all over again.
But some 30 year-olds in this city know the real truth about carrousel---that it is, in fact, a death sentence---and they try to escape. They're called "runners." The domed city has a faction of policemen who hunt down runners, and they're called "Sandmen." Logan (Michael York of ‘Cabaret’ and ‘Austin Powers’ fame) is a 26 year-old Sandman. Life in the city is good for him, but suddenly, he is given a secret mission by his boss---the city's master computer---that will change him. Logan's assignment is to go undercover as a runner, escape the city and go outside, where he is to find a so-called haven for escaped runners called Sanctuary, and destroy it. But Logan soon learns the truth about carrousel himself, and, with the aid of a beautiful girl named Jessica (Jenny Agutter), whom he falls in love with, he must now figure out how to free his people from their horrible fate at the age of 30....
I've always been fascinated by the storyline and its implications and statements not just of social oppression but obviously of over-population and, to an extent, birth control. The idea of society controlling the size of its populace is obviously exaggerated to a science fiction limit, but as with all good science fiction there in lies a small grain of truth…now of course we don’t have people turning 30 and consequently getting picked up off the street to be lead to a gas chamber…but there are subtle (and not so subtle) devices in the world that manipulate us to keep our numbers low (abortion, birth control, public executions, sending men and women to die in war, social and racial intolerance, fear…the list of factors is quite long).
But back on topic.
Some have criticized "Logan's Run" as being too long, saying that the film bogs down in the middle when Logan & Jessica get outside the city and meet the Old Man. I can see why many people would feel that way…and even more so today given the microscopic attention spans a lot of people seem to have developed…but the whole concept of triumphing over oppression and the fascinating ideal of a hunter becoming the hunted appeals to me at such an extent that I don’t consider the film to be long in the tooth at all. I've always enjoyed this part of the film, featuring Ustinov's charming turn as the Old Man. Besides, it's an important part of the story, as Logan & Jessica fall in love with one another, and learn through meeting the Old Man that there IS, in fact, life after 30. Without this segment of the film, "Logan's Run" would be pointless. It's there for a reason…it serves a purpose.
The moral undertones of “Logan’s Run” are also fascinating to observe. We see how Logan and his friends hunt the runners in a decidedly sadistic way, and how casual sex is available at the push of a button. Then we see the people whose time is up don weird masks and robes and float to the ceiling in the ritual – very striking compositions here, although the way the scene was edited together with the crowd's cheers made it seem as if they're at a gladiator event cheering for people's deaths instead of religious supplicants at a ritual, as they are intended.
Also I'm not completely sure if Logan was supposed to come off as quite as much of a fascist as he does here, with his gleeful face and blithe attitude about sex… but then again maybe he is.
That being said, Michael York gives a solidly strong performance as Logan and it’s far more of a developed character arc than what you’d usually find in early to mid 70s genre work. His chemistry with Agutter is also very well conceived and Jenny in turn is quite convincing. I liked how the relationship Logan develops with Jessica was explored as a counterpoint to his friendship with Francis as he moves towards a greater understanding of his situation and, perhaps, the human condition...very well calibrated. As for the rest of the cast. I think Richard Jordan, who had appeared in the extremely underrated Robert Mitchum movie 'The Yakuza' prior to this, is an actor who never got the attention (or roles) he deserved. The sequence with the “Box” (Roscoe Lee Browne…who people my age might also recognize as the voice of Wilson Fisk/The Kingpin in the early 90s’ “Spider-Man: The Animated Series) is great fun, although the costume/animatronic can easily look a bit absurd wheeling around the set shrieking about his beloved birds…oh well.
Although the film's Oscar-winning visual effects have long since been surpassed, they're still quite colorful to look at (including the groundbreaking use of holography). I’m also very impressed with the film’s cinematography and production design. Ernest Laszlo does a phenomeonal job of playing with tension and broad strokes of light within his frames and truly…iconic moments such as Logan and Jessica discovering the moss and vine covered Lincoln Memorial would not nearly have been as visually bombastic if not for his efforts. The design of the stark, white-walled society of pleasure is an absolute vision…or obviously ‘illusion’ given the ‘truth’…crafted by art director Dale Hennessy (who’s credited for the art direction but not the production design…I’d say it’s because most likely at the time the two were not differentiated).
The film is accompanied by a lovely score from “Alien” and “Star Trek” composer Jerry Goldsmith and, to date, it’s one of my favorites of his…although that’s a tad bias what with my being a Goldsmith enthusiast.
Simply put, “Logan’s Run” is a kind of sci-fi film that you really don't see any more – with plenty of action and sexuality to distract the eye and plenty of ideas to chew on as well.
What's interesting about the film from a philosophical standpoint is how blind Logan and the others are to the ramifications of the situation. That's why his speech to the people in the plaza couldn't sway them; like Logan they had to see the outside and the Old Man for themselves. And none of them have any idea about the negative effects of aging, which is quite charming. I think the overall idea is to poke holes in the idea (which had great currency in the late 60s when the source novel was written) that "youth culture" and "free love" could save humanity from all of its problems.
This could have been a painful pedantic film if the film-makers hadn't had the good taste to never verbalize this film but to simply let the audience soak up the realization.
Thankfully that was the case. People who like the fact that Star Wars is a Campbellian construction of the Hero's Journey should definitely discover “Logan’s Run”--it might as well have been the primary source for George Lucas' later work.
And for science fiction fans as a whole, it's a classic example of the form.
--------------------------------------------------------
CFE
The never-ending battle
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 9,122
- Reaction score
- 54
- Points
- 73
#44
CUBE (1997)
[YT]01hUyIrubWE[/YT]
Directed by … Vincenzo Natali
Written by … André Bijelic, Graeme Manson and Vincenzo Natali
Nicole de Boer ... Leaven
Nicky Guadagni ... Holloway
David Hewlett ... Worth
Andrew Miller ... Kazan
Julian Richings ... Alderson
Wayne Robson ... Rennes
Maurice Dean Wint ... Quentin
7 complete strangers of widely varying personality characteristics are involuntarily placed in an endless kafkaesque maze containing deadly traps.
--------------------------------------------------------
Dubbed one of the most innovative science fiction films of the 90s, 1997’s “CUBE” is a cult film that has in turn been inspirational for other films of this nature such as “Primer” and, perhaps most obviously, “Saw.”
This low cost, Sci fi, high tech, lowly acted, Canadian psychological and mathematical thriller with a great set, offers plenty from the shorts for the slice and dice fans.
Quentin (Maurice Dean Wint) wakes up in a square room with exits on each wall. Soon he is joined by other people, strangers, who also have no idea where they are. Looking around they find that each room leads to another one that looks just the same. One member of the group is the famous prison escape artist Rennes (Wayne Robson), who realizes that some of the rooms are booby-trapped but that he thinks he has got the solution. With no other ideas the group follow him and try to evade the traps and stay alive – all the time with absolutely no idea of why they are here or who has imprisoned them.
A fully realized but perfectly mysterious environment is created in Cube. It's a system that is hard to fathom, an intricate one but seemingly simple with the use of mathematics, but the human element, really, is the thing that keeps the characters not able, until the last fifteen minutes, to really get themselves together and get out of this 'place' that may have been created by humans or aliens or even cyborgs, or nobody at all.


Cube is a great film about people with their own 'personalities'; it's appropriate, and a sweet touch, to have the opening title to homage Ridley Scott's Alien, as it's about a group of people thrust together who get picked off one by one in a claustrophobic environment. Only this time, with its set-up like the beginning of a new life itself, and the people each reflecting a stand-point that can help, damage or be neutral to the chances of escape, there's no one real "villain" except each other.


Vincenzo Natali takes the audience by the brain and doesn't let go - not the balls, mind you, though if he wants those he can get them from time to time. This is about as close to a science fiction 'No Exit', or a translation of ideas from multiple philosophers like Nietzsche and Descartes (the latter name-dropped in the film and used as a basis for mathematics), but as 'brainy' science fiction it doesn't kid those looking for just a pulse-pounding horror film either. And for anyone wanting to compare this to Saw, by the way, break it down this simply: Cube is smart, Saw is stupid. Saw starts with a semi-clever premise and shatters it with shoddy and ludicrous storytelling and characters that no one can care about. In Cube, it's just so bizarre and mechanically inspired a set-up that the characters have to be rich to keep things interesting - and they really are.


Cube will make you think while it has scenes of sensationalized killings, but they're not very rampant or frequent, and rely on what we know is going to happen and taking time with the scene- or just springing the unexpected trap. The opening scene, for example, is a staggering example of taking an audience right off its feet, much like when one first sees the chest-burster in “Alien;” when the guy goes into the room, and we think we hear or see something *swipe* downward, only to suddenly notice that the man's entire body has been sliced into a dozen pieces, it slowly dawns on us what is going on - and if your jaw doesn't drop at that, I don't what to do for you. Or, on top of this, good old fashioned suspense with the group of guys and gals going downward into the room that can be triggered by a single voice-sound.


The conception is brilliant. The sets are Shakespearian, with no props, essentially no costumes. In fact, essentially the whole film is in ostensibly different, but identical small rooms. It is all pure drama which hinges less on what you see, instead the situation that is created by dialog. The center of this film is built in your imagination, on incomplete fragments rattling around in there -- paranoid fragments about the nature of fate, trust and a society allied against you.
What really appeals to me is how much sense this world makes. The design of the maze makes great sense; the mathematics is accessible and correct as is the visual notion of the rooms moving. The logic of the physical space contrasts with the total ignorance about who created this situation and why. Since the cinematic vocabulary is made so clear, the angst about the outside society is made more acute.
The cast of characters are interesting enough, given that we're not seeing them in the best possible light. Maurice de Wint, an underrated Canadian actor, probably gives the best overall performance. His switchover to savagery is a little too abrupt (one second he's saving the doc, the next he drops her) for my tastes. And the writers can't resist giving him a Jason-like "return from the dead" sequence. The other characters are an interesting lot. I wasn't impressed with “Deep Space 9” alum deBoer but David Hewlett is perfect.
Personally, I think the purpose of the Cube is an experiment, to see how these unimportant people will react to being placed in a nightmarish situation. The results are not encouraging. But still, this is a highly compelling film, and more unique then most sci-fi you see nowadays. I was on the edge of my seat to see if they would escape, but a lunatic like Quentin in their midst, and the dimensions of the Cube hinder their efforts at every turn.
The words of wisdom from Rennes have stuck with me concerning survival (ironically just before his death) that I will quote them:
"No more talking. No more guessing. Don't even think about anything that's not sitting right in front of you. That's the real challenge. You've got to save yourselves from yourselves.”
That certainly applies to Quentin. The ending is a bit of an anticlimax, and I felt disappointed and still intrigued at the same time.
When the climax comes about, the movie descends into hokey B-horror land, with a terrorized killer stalking most of the people. When the original exploration of the cubes subsides and you get the people walking around, also, the interest starts to wane. It's often repetitive, but the booby traps are quite, for lack of a better word, fun. But that doesn't mean that the original creativity has gone away, it's just not as interesting.
Still, it’s an example of minimalist filmmaking at its most advantageous. “CUBE” is one of the most unique films in the genre.
In the end, “CUBE” succeeds in building atmosphere and suspense quite impressively given what it had to work with. It’s exciting, unnerving and ultimately quite fascinating. While not without its disappointing moments (usually when they do bend to Hollywood conventions), “CUBE” is an absolute triumph of low budget craftsmanship. I hope Natali proves to be more than a one-hit wonder, because I'd love to see more films like “CUBE.”
--------------------------------------------------------
CUBE (1997)
[YT]01hUyIrubWE[/YT]
Directed by … Vincenzo Natali
Written by … André Bijelic, Graeme Manson and Vincenzo Natali
Nicole de Boer ... Leaven
Nicky Guadagni ... Holloway
David Hewlett ... Worth
Andrew Miller ... Kazan
Julian Richings ... Alderson
Wayne Robson ... Rennes
Maurice Dean Wint ... Quentin
7 complete strangers of widely varying personality characteristics are involuntarily placed in an endless kafkaesque maze containing deadly traps.
--------------------------------------------------------
Dubbed one of the most innovative science fiction films of the 90s, 1997’s “CUBE” is a cult film that has in turn been inspirational for other films of this nature such as “Primer” and, perhaps most obviously, “Saw.”
This low cost, Sci fi, high tech, lowly acted, Canadian psychological and mathematical thriller with a great set, offers plenty from the shorts for the slice and dice fans.
Quentin (Maurice Dean Wint) wakes up in a square room with exits on each wall. Soon he is joined by other people, strangers, who also have no idea where they are. Looking around they find that each room leads to another one that looks just the same. One member of the group is the famous prison escape artist Rennes (Wayne Robson), who realizes that some of the rooms are booby-trapped but that he thinks he has got the solution. With no other ideas the group follow him and try to evade the traps and stay alive – all the time with absolutely no idea of why they are here or who has imprisoned them.
A fully realized but perfectly mysterious environment is created in Cube. It's a system that is hard to fathom, an intricate one but seemingly simple with the use of mathematics, but the human element, really, is the thing that keeps the characters not able, until the last fifteen minutes, to really get themselves together and get out of this 'place' that may have been created by humans or aliens or even cyborgs, or nobody at all.


Cube is a great film about people with their own 'personalities'; it's appropriate, and a sweet touch, to have the opening title to homage Ridley Scott's Alien, as it's about a group of people thrust together who get picked off one by one in a claustrophobic environment. Only this time, with its set-up like the beginning of a new life itself, and the people each reflecting a stand-point that can help, damage or be neutral to the chances of escape, there's no one real "villain" except each other.


Vincenzo Natali takes the audience by the brain and doesn't let go - not the balls, mind you, though if he wants those he can get them from time to time. This is about as close to a science fiction 'No Exit', or a translation of ideas from multiple philosophers like Nietzsche and Descartes (the latter name-dropped in the film and used as a basis for mathematics), but as 'brainy' science fiction it doesn't kid those looking for just a pulse-pounding horror film either. And for anyone wanting to compare this to Saw, by the way, break it down this simply: Cube is smart, Saw is stupid. Saw starts with a semi-clever premise and shatters it with shoddy and ludicrous storytelling and characters that no one can care about. In Cube, it's just so bizarre and mechanically inspired a set-up that the characters have to be rich to keep things interesting - and they really are.


Cube will make you think while it has scenes of sensationalized killings, but they're not very rampant or frequent, and rely on what we know is going to happen and taking time with the scene- or just springing the unexpected trap. The opening scene, for example, is a staggering example of taking an audience right off its feet, much like when one first sees the chest-burster in “Alien;” when the guy goes into the room, and we think we hear or see something *swipe* downward, only to suddenly notice that the man's entire body has been sliced into a dozen pieces, it slowly dawns on us what is going on - and if your jaw doesn't drop at that, I don't what to do for you. Or, on top of this, good old fashioned suspense with the group of guys and gals going downward into the room that can be triggered by a single voice-sound.


The conception is brilliant. The sets are Shakespearian, with no props, essentially no costumes. In fact, essentially the whole film is in ostensibly different, but identical small rooms. It is all pure drama which hinges less on what you see, instead the situation that is created by dialog. The center of this film is built in your imagination, on incomplete fragments rattling around in there -- paranoid fragments about the nature of fate, trust and a society allied against you.
What really appeals to me is how much sense this world makes. The design of the maze makes great sense; the mathematics is accessible and correct as is the visual notion of the rooms moving. The logic of the physical space contrasts with the total ignorance about who created this situation and why. Since the cinematic vocabulary is made so clear, the angst about the outside society is made more acute.
The cast of characters are interesting enough, given that we're not seeing them in the best possible light. Maurice de Wint, an underrated Canadian actor, probably gives the best overall performance. His switchover to savagery is a little too abrupt (one second he's saving the doc, the next he drops her) for my tastes. And the writers can't resist giving him a Jason-like "return from the dead" sequence. The other characters are an interesting lot. I wasn't impressed with “Deep Space 9” alum deBoer but David Hewlett is perfect.
Personally, I think the purpose of the Cube is an experiment, to see how these unimportant people will react to being placed in a nightmarish situation. The results are not encouraging. But still, this is a highly compelling film, and more unique then most sci-fi you see nowadays. I was on the edge of my seat to see if they would escape, but a lunatic like Quentin in their midst, and the dimensions of the Cube hinder their efforts at every turn.
The words of wisdom from Rennes have stuck with me concerning survival (ironically just before his death) that I will quote them:
"No more talking. No more guessing. Don't even think about anything that's not sitting right in front of you. That's the real challenge. You've got to save yourselves from yourselves.”
That certainly applies to Quentin. The ending is a bit of an anticlimax, and I felt disappointed and still intrigued at the same time.
When the climax comes about, the movie descends into hokey B-horror land, with a terrorized killer stalking most of the people. When the original exploration of the cubes subsides and you get the people walking around, also, the interest starts to wane. It's often repetitive, but the booby traps are quite, for lack of a better word, fun. But that doesn't mean that the original creativity has gone away, it's just not as interesting.
Still, it’s an example of minimalist filmmaking at its most advantageous. “CUBE” is one of the most unique films in the genre.
In the end, “CUBE” succeeds in building atmosphere and suspense quite impressively given what it had to work with. It’s exciting, unnerving and ultimately quite fascinating. While not without its disappointing moments (usually when they do bend to Hollywood conventions), “CUBE” is an absolute triumph of low budget craftsmanship. I hope Natali proves to be more than a one-hit wonder, because I'd love to see more films like “CUBE.”
--------------------------------------------------------
CFE
The never-ending battle
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 9,122
- Reaction score
- 54
- Points
- 73
#43
Serenity (2005)
[YT]wWc4XlvDlhc[/YT]
Written and Directed by … Joss Whedon
Based on characters created by … Joss Whedon
Nathan Fillion ... Captain Malcolm Reynolds
Gina Torres ... Zoë Washburne
Alan Tudyk ... Hoban Washburne
Morena Baccarin ... Inara Serra
Adam Baldwin ... Jayne Cobb
Jewel Staite ... Kaylee Frye
Sean Maher ... Dr. Simon Tam
Summer Glau ... River Tam
Ron Glass ... Shepherd Book
Chiwetel Ejiofor ... The Operative
David Krumholtz ... Mr. Universe
Michael Hitchcock ... Dr. Mathias
Sarah Paulson ... Dr. Caron
Yan Feldman ... Mingo
Rafael Feldman ... Fanty
Nectar Rose ... Lenore
Tamara Taylor ... Teacher
Glenn Howerton ... Lilac Young Tough
Hunter Ansley Wryn ... Young River
Logan Craig O'Brien ... Boy Student
Erik Erotas ... Boy Student
Demetra Raven … Girl Student
Jessica Huang ... Girl Student
Marley McClean ... Girl Student
Scott Kinworthy ... Ensign
Erik Weiner ... Helmsman
Conor O'Brien ... Lab Technician
Peter James Smith ... Lab Technician
Weston I. Nathanson ... Trade Agent
Carrie 'CeCe' Cline ... Young Female Intern
Chuck O'Neil ... Vault Guard
Amy Wieczorek ... Lilac Mom
Tristan Jarred ... Lilac Son
Elaine Lee ... Fan Dancer
The crew of the ship Serenity tries to evade an assassin sent to recapture one of their number who is telepathic.
--------------------------------------------------------
FOX has a nasty habit of cancelling gold…I mean “Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles” and most recently “Dollhouse.”
And of course “Dollhouse” and “Buffy te Vampire Slayer” creator Joss Whedon’s cult smash “Firefly.”
Nevertheless, FOX’s idiotic decision didn’t do much…except gain the show an expanding legion of fans, dubbing themselves “Browncoats,” ever loyal in their appreciation for the series.
Interestingly enough, despite going off the air after only one season, the show’s popularity was enough to warrant and off-shoot feature film!
Thus 2005’s “Serenity” was born.
River (Summer Glau) is a physic who, up till recently has been held at a top level Government research station as part of a project that has been visited and approved by key members of the Alliance. Of course this poses a problem for the powers that be when the girl is rescued by her brother, with the possibility of all those secrets in her head. A Government Operative is put on the case and goes after River. Meanwhile River and Simon (Sean Maher) have become passengers aboard the Serenity – a ship captained by Malcolm Reynolds (Nathon Fillion), a desperate former soldier who has taken to doing illegal work to try and get by in an increasingly controlled world. While in a space port a subliminal message planted in advertising by the Alliance to catch River, triggers a violent outburst in her. Once subdued Mal decides to keep her and her brother on board and try to work out what makes River so important to the Alliance.
“Serenity” is able enough to be a dark, thrilling science fiction thriller with some interesting story bits, grandiose special effects, and a few really amazing fight scenes (when River sets off in this one…WHOA!!!) even if you're a 'virgin' to the “Firefly” universe. I thought before that it lacked a portal for a non-affiliated viewer, but this isn't entirely the case.
The result of the proceedings is, obviously like the show, an action adventure space Western that is both fun and willing, creating a decent two hours to attract the fans and allowing itself enough space to make it worth it for newcomers.
Naturally, I took it upon myself to purchase and see the entire series and then the film…and in doing so it’s clear that Whedon is really working a double-edged sword: for the regular sci-fi fan and new to life out in space with Serenity vs. the Alliance/the Reavers, it's still a solid and well plotted movie on its own terms, and for the fan already comfortable with the characters it's a enormous treat, to be sure.
Because Whedon's working both of these angles, as a mainstream/commercial movie (albeit with a slightly less budget than most, certainly a helluva lot more than he had on the TV show) he needs to make things a little simpler or more condensed for the unaffiliated, so that, for example, the bond between River and the crew is very shaky for a good portion of the movie as opposed to the series where, by the end, they had all come to become closer than at the start when she and Simon first came aboard.
Nevertheless, only this- and a major fumble at the very end with something that the Chiwetel Ejiofor character *doesn't* do, which he said he was going to twice- are the biggest flaws to the piece. Upon a reviewing I'm convinced that there's so much that's rich and smart and dangerous for the common genre picture, and when it works it takes risks and keeps things entertaining and bloody (sometimes all at once)!
The Reavers are extremely dangerous folk, and I kind of liken them to “Star Trek: The Next Generation”s Borg - they keep coming like zombies, and are known to rape and murder. The pacing is kept very tight, with witty dialogue flying all round. Humor is peppered throughout and you'll never know when it'll hit, even up to the very last frame (no, I'm not kidding here).


The cast is dynamite if you’re a fan of the show…and even if you’re not, they’re camaraderie is tremendous. Yes Nathan Fillion's "Mal Reynolds" is a lot like "Han Solo" as a captain of a rag tag ship, but he's more than a smuggler with his memory-haunted back story as a veteran from a losing side and moral code. The blow hard elements of "Solo" are given almost satirically to Adam Baldwin's tough guy "Jayne" (which always seemed to be a bit of "A Man Named Sue" kind of joke.) Religion is a component, but not a force, as the Christian "Shepherd" has a small, advisory role here. 


Though this far future is familiar from other imagined futures, with a post-war, victorious alliance, the particular political situation the characters are caught in has a specific pay off that is both smart and emotional, emphasized by the numbers who are sacrificed for its suppression.
But Whedon's strength is always his unusual female characters for sci fi, particularly his trademark teen girl as "The Weapon" with "she's simply extraordinary" powers (the series had been canceled before we found out about all her powers and her newly developed uneasy alliance with the crew is a creative element of the film); plus a sex-starved tomboy mechanic and Gina Torres as a magnificent soldier -- and the tough men who are intensely loyal to them, particularly a brother and a loving husband. One female character is somewhat mysterious here, and even misrepresented a bit as her importance is pared to her essentials, but she is ancillary to the plot here. Key is that you really care about these characters and what unexpectedly happens to them.
Chiwetel Ejiofor, with his native Brit accent, makes a neat enemy as "The Operative" with more intriguing motivations than usual for an implacable foe as he is both cynical and ideological, though his samurai sword calling card is a bit overly dramatic.
The production sets, though most are CGI, are really very pretty to look at, and the advanced world they live in, is an amalgamation of American and Chinese, so much so that the characters also spout (sometimes intelligible) Chinese phrases. There are memorable moments in the movie, though the action fights are quite ordinary, save for River's battle with the Reavers, which seem to beat “Aeon Flux”s and “Ultraviolet”s hands down. Her storyline did thread very closely to resemble that of Leeloo's in “The Fifth Element” though.


The film is also bolstered with a breathtaking David Newman composed score and it’s a wonderful addition to the task of expanding upon the universe of “Firefly.”
Filled with deep characterization, “Serenity” will make you want to get your hands on the TV series to indulge in more adventures of the space crew. After the movie, it was no wonder why “Firefly” had fast become a cult favorite…and the film only reassures us of that even more so.
Good, interesting Sci-Fi…and a definite must watch.
--------------------------------------------------------
Serenity (2005)
[YT]wWc4XlvDlhc[/YT]
Written and Directed by … Joss Whedon
Based on characters created by … Joss Whedon
Nathan Fillion ... Captain Malcolm Reynolds
Gina Torres ... Zoë Washburne
Alan Tudyk ... Hoban Washburne
Morena Baccarin ... Inara Serra
Adam Baldwin ... Jayne Cobb
Jewel Staite ... Kaylee Frye
Sean Maher ... Dr. Simon Tam
Summer Glau ... River Tam
Ron Glass ... Shepherd Book
Chiwetel Ejiofor ... The Operative
David Krumholtz ... Mr. Universe
Michael Hitchcock ... Dr. Mathias
Sarah Paulson ... Dr. Caron
Yan Feldman ... Mingo
Rafael Feldman ... Fanty
Nectar Rose ... Lenore
Tamara Taylor ... Teacher
Glenn Howerton ... Lilac Young Tough
Hunter Ansley Wryn ... Young River
Logan Craig O'Brien ... Boy Student
Erik Erotas ... Boy Student
Demetra Raven … Girl Student
Jessica Huang ... Girl Student
Marley McClean ... Girl Student
Scott Kinworthy ... Ensign
Erik Weiner ... Helmsman
Conor O'Brien ... Lab Technician
Peter James Smith ... Lab Technician
Weston I. Nathanson ... Trade Agent
Carrie 'CeCe' Cline ... Young Female Intern
Chuck O'Neil ... Vault Guard
Amy Wieczorek ... Lilac Mom
Tristan Jarred ... Lilac Son
Elaine Lee ... Fan Dancer
The crew of the ship Serenity tries to evade an assassin sent to recapture one of their number who is telepathic.
--------------------------------------------------------
FOX has a nasty habit of cancelling gold…I mean “Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles” and most recently “Dollhouse.”
And of course “Dollhouse” and “Buffy te Vampire Slayer” creator Joss Whedon’s cult smash “Firefly.”
Nevertheless, FOX’s idiotic decision didn’t do much…except gain the show an expanding legion of fans, dubbing themselves “Browncoats,” ever loyal in their appreciation for the series.
Interestingly enough, despite going off the air after only one season, the show’s popularity was enough to warrant and off-shoot feature film!
Thus 2005’s “Serenity” was born.
River (Summer Glau) is a physic who, up till recently has been held at a top level Government research station as part of a project that has been visited and approved by key members of the Alliance. Of course this poses a problem for the powers that be when the girl is rescued by her brother, with the possibility of all those secrets in her head. A Government Operative is put on the case and goes after River. Meanwhile River and Simon (Sean Maher) have become passengers aboard the Serenity – a ship captained by Malcolm Reynolds (Nathon Fillion), a desperate former soldier who has taken to doing illegal work to try and get by in an increasingly controlled world. While in a space port a subliminal message planted in advertising by the Alliance to catch River, triggers a violent outburst in her. Once subdued Mal decides to keep her and her brother on board and try to work out what makes River so important to the Alliance.
“Serenity” is able enough to be a dark, thrilling science fiction thriller with some interesting story bits, grandiose special effects, and a few really amazing fight scenes (when River sets off in this one…WHOA!!!) even if you're a 'virgin' to the “Firefly” universe. I thought before that it lacked a portal for a non-affiliated viewer, but this isn't entirely the case.
The result of the proceedings is, obviously like the show, an action adventure space Western that is both fun and willing, creating a decent two hours to attract the fans and allowing itself enough space to make it worth it for newcomers.
Naturally, I took it upon myself to purchase and see the entire series and then the film…and in doing so it’s clear that Whedon is really working a double-edged sword: for the regular sci-fi fan and new to life out in space with Serenity vs. the Alliance/the Reavers, it's still a solid and well plotted movie on its own terms, and for the fan already comfortable with the characters it's a enormous treat, to be sure.
Because Whedon's working both of these angles, as a mainstream/commercial movie (albeit with a slightly less budget than most, certainly a helluva lot more than he had on the TV show) he needs to make things a little simpler or more condensed for the unaffiliated, so that, for example, the bond between River and the crew is very shaky for a good portion of the movie as opposed to the series where, by the end, they had all come to become closer than at the start when she and Simon first came aboard.
Nevertheless, only this- and a major fumble at the very end with something that the Chiwetel Ejiofor character *doesn't* do, which he said he was going to twice- are the biggest flaws to the piece. Upon a reviewing I'm convinced that there's so much that's rich and smart and dangerous for the common genre picture, and when it works it takes risks and keeps things entertaining and bloody (sometimes all at once)!
The Reavers are extremely dangerous folk, and I kind of liken them to “Star Trek: The Next Generation”s Borg - they keep coming like zombies, and are known to rape and murder. The pacing is kept very tight, with witty dialogue flying all round. Humor is peppered throughout and you'll never know when it'll hit, even up to the very last frame (no, I'm not kidding here).


The cast is dynamite if you’re a fan of the show…and even if you’re not, they’re camaraderie is tremendous. Yes Nathan Fillion's "Mal Reynolds" is a lot like "Han Solo" as a captain of a rag tag ship, but he's more than a smuggler with his memory-haunted back story as a veteran from a losing side and moral code. The blow hard elements of "Solo" are given almost satirically to Adam Baldwin's tough guy "Jayne" (which always seemed to be a bit of "A Man Named Sue" kind of joke.) Religion is a component, but not a force, as the Christian "Shepherd" has a small, advisory role here. 


Though this far future is familiar from other imagined futures, with a post-war, victorious alliance, the particular political situation the characters are caught in has a specific pay off that is both smart and emotional, emphasized by the numbers who are sacrificed for its suppression.
But Whedon's strength is always his unusual female characters for sci fi, particularly his trademark teen girl as "The Weapon" with "she's simply extraordinary" powers (the series had been canceled before we found out about all her powers and her newly developed uneasy alliance with the crew is a creative element of the film); plus a sex-starved tomboy mechanic and Gina Torres as a magnificent soldier -- and the tough men who are intensely loyal to them, particularly a brother and a loving husband. One female character is somewhat mysterious here, and even misrepresented a bit as her importance is pared to her essentials, but she is ancillary to the plot here. Key is that you really care about these characters and what unexpectedly happens to them.
Chiwetel Ejiofor, with his native Brit accent, makes a neat enemy as "The Operative" with more intriguing motivations than usual for an implacable foe as he is both cynical and ideological, though his samurai sword calling card is a bit overly dramatic.
The production sets, though most are CGI, are really very pretty to look at, and the advanced world they live in, is an amalgamation of American and Chinese, so much so that the characters also spout (sometimes intelligible) Chinese phrases. There are memorable moments in the movie, though the action fights are quite ordinary, save for River's battle with the Reavers, which seem to beat “Aeon Flux”s and “Ultraviolet”s hands down. Her storyline did thread very closely to resemble that of Leeloo's in “The Fifth Element” though.


The film is also bolstered with a breathtaking David Newman composed score and it’s a wonderful addition to the task of expanding upon the universe of “Firefly.”
Filled with deep characterization, “Serenity” will make you want to get your hands on the TV series to indulge in more adventures of the space crew. After the movie, it was no wonder why “Firefly” had fast become a cult favorite…and the film only reassures us of that even more so.
Good, interesting Sci-Fi…and a definite must watch.
--------------------------------------------------------
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2002
- Messages
- 74,999
- Reaction score
- 30,913
- Points
- 203
I watched CUBE again just last week. Good movie....very creative and imaginative on a low budget. It had been years since I saw it, so had forgotten that Hewlett from STARGATE ATLANTIS was in it. I remembered deBoer(DEAD ZONE, DEEP SPACE NINE) and Wint (TEK WAR) and like thier performances as well. I recently recorded the second in the series, but haven't watched it yet.
strikezone89
Smarks Chat CM PUNK :-/
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 6,636
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 58
Senerity was one of my favorites
Motown Marvel
Crimson and Clover
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 21,445
- Reaction score
- 312
- Points
- 73
Logan's Run is the best!
Spider-Vader
Mercin' & Workin'
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2007
- Messages
- 12,396
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 58
What I want to know is why Whedon keeps giving his shows to Fox. Is he dumb?
cerealkiller182
Must Get Deadpool Avatar
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2004
- Messages
- 12,957
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Cube is pretty good and Serenity is tons of fun
CFE
The never-ending battle
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 9,122
- Reaction score
- 54
- Points
- 73
#42
The Thing from Another World (1951)
[YT]1te2zzJ5aTs[/YT]
Directed by … Christian Nyby (Howard Hawks)
Written by … Charles lederer (Howard Hawks and Ben Hecht)
Adapted from the story “Who Goes There?” by … John W. Campbell JR.
Margaret Sheridan ... Nikki
Kenneth Tobey ... Captain Patrick Hendry
Robert Cornthwaite ... Dr. Carrington
Douglas Spencer ... Scotty
James R. Young ... Lt. Eddie Dykes
Dewey Martin ... Crew Chief
Robert Nichols ... Lt. Ken Erickson
William Self ... Corporal Barnes
Eduard Franz ... Dr. Stern
Sally Creighton ... Mrs. Chapman
James Arness ... 'The Thing'
Scientists and American Air Force officials fend off a blood-thirsty alien organism while at a remote arctic outpost.
--------------------------------------------------------
On the surface, 1951’s “The Thing from Another World” looks like a common footnote in the milieu of 50s sci-fi horror mixtures…films that put the real-world paranoia and fears of the foreign (usually meaning ‘communist’ to the average American) in the vernacular of the monster, the robot or some other bizarre other-worldly entity.
Even the notion of a creature that can change its appearance and enter our ranks through deception seems to be a broad statement on the Reds, with growing concerns of Commie Spies infiltrating our lands and attempting to change us into them with methods of mind-altering implications.
But, much like the extra terrestrial in question, looks can be deceiving.
For “The Thing from Another World” should not be counted among the rest of the 50s fair…it, along with a few other exceptions such as “The Day the Earth Stood Still” and “Forbidden Planet” remains at a standard of a much higher level.
Case in point…although there were two directors on the picture, the fact that Howard Hawks got involved adds to the film’s luster. If one thinks of the director of comedies like “Bringing up Baby” or “I was a Male War Bride” directing a science fiction film, you would be surprised - but then Hawks also did well with crime films (SCARFACE) and westerns (RED RIVER). Apparently Christian Nyby took most of Hawks' ideas and put them to work in the film. Good move Christian!
It's now generally assumed that, as I said, most of the great science fiction and horror films of the early 1950s were veiled discussions of either the Communist threat to America or of the threat McCarthism in this country .
But there were strong currents in that period that were not really available earlier periods of film science fiction films. In the 1950s the remarkable (if bloodstained) achievements in science in the World War (radar, jet planes, rocket bombs, the atomic bomb) made people more aware of science as never before. Tied to this was the sudden phenomenon of UFO sitings that - whether true or not - were finally being given serious consideration by the media.


Loosely adapted by Charles Lederer from the 1938 novella "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell, Jr (although it was published under the pseudonym Don A. Stuart), “The Thing from Another World” is set in a hostile environment - but one that is an "acceptable" hostile environment for government purposes. Polar exploration had been in the hands of the military from all nations from the 16th Century onward. Such explorers like Martin Frobisher were part-time naval commanders. In the 19th Century it was a rarity for a civilian to get involved (Thomas Simpson, the man who actually first sited the spot the "Northwest Passage" would most likely be at, was an exception - but he worked for the Hudson's Bay Company). More typical figures involved were Sir John Franklin (lost with two shiploads of British naval personnel in 1848) or Lt. Robert Peary (later Rear Admiral Peary) or Commander Robert Scott.
After 1920 the typical polar expedition would be one led by somebody like Rear Admiral Richard Byrd. In 1931 Byrd would nearly die in an experiment in Antarctica regarding isolation in a tent (his stove malfunctioned, but some of his men found him in time).

So the cast here are at the North Pole, under joint command of Captain Hendry (Kenneth Tobey) and Dr. Carrington (Robert Cornthwaite). There is also a member of the fourth estate present to report the expedition's results (Scotty, played by Douglas Spencer). During the expedition's regular work they find the wreckage of an unidentified flying saucer. They also find the frozen remains of a creature. The creature is the title figure of "The Thing". If you look closely you will recognize the actor playing this creature is James Arness. While far from his “Gunsmoke” role of Marshal Matt Dillon, keep in mind that in the 1950s Arness varied western roles (John Ford's “Wagon Master” with serious adventure films (“Island in the Sky” and other science fiction parts (“THEM!”. He is actually quite effective as the creature, especially in his later rampages.
As long as the creature is frozen there is no real problem, but one of the men makes the mistake of putting a blanket on top of the permafrost "ice cube" the Thing is lying in. The blanket is an electric blanket, and it melts the permafrost - thus releasing the Thing. Subsequently it is discovered that the creature is not mammalian like man, nor reptilian, but an intelligent form of vegetable.
On a side note, I gotta say that the ‘Thing’ itself (portrayed by James Arness) looks impressive considering the time this was made…it almost reminds me of the creature from “It! The Terror Beyond Space” to a certain extent.
The best science fiction films manage to get some convincing dialog in about these points. Carrington and his fellow scientist Dr. Stern (Eduard Franz) discuss the possibility of intelligent vegetable life forms on earth, including plants that eat small rodents. Carrington is fascinated by this creature, and realizes that it is actually more intelligent than man is - he (in his misguided zeal) hopes to actually talk to the creature and learn from it for man's benefit. This does not sit well with Hendry, especially after two of the staff are butchered by the creature (apparently it's survival is predicated on the use of animal blood).
I will go on a limb and say no other 1950s film really dealt with the conflict of pure science (Carrington) and self-defense or government defense (Hendry) as “Thing” did. Carrington, a Nobelist, sees learning as the end and be-all of mankind. Hendry sees survival as more important. Most would probably agree with Hendry, but Carrington does maintain a type of respect with the audience until nearly the end of the film when he loses it a bit.
The cast handled the roles well. Cornwaithe never had a better part in movies (and I'm glad to note in his last film he repeated the part). Tobey's Captain is intelligent and keeps the loyalty of both his own men and most of the scientists. He also has several moments when a romance between him and scientist Nikki (Margaret Sheridan) heats up (in typical Hawkian role reversal, she plies him with drink while he is tied up, to make sure she controls the date!). Spencer's newsman is rather believable (his skepticism about outer space creatures gradually dissolving - he has the famous last words of the film, "Look to the skies!"). Spencer also is constantly remembering past assignments in World War II, and even covering the execution of Ruth Snyder in 1928. Also doing well in supporting parts are Franz (a more rational scientist than Cornwaithe), Dewey Martin (an electrician who figures out how to solve the danger), and - of all people - George Fennimen as one of the soldiers.
An integral part of any science fiction and horror film are the special effects and how well they illustrate the most graphic and imaginative content of the film and subsequently how realistic or perhaps even frightening they may be. There's only one word to describe this very facet of The Thing from Another World: astounding. And we could easily follow up with other superlative such as outstanding, impressive, laudable and even mind-blowing, especially when we consider that this film was made in the turn of the 1950's. Parallels can be drawn to a precursor in pioneering such ground-breaking effects in film, 1933's “King Kong,” highlighting all the more the importance of this movie on both artistic and technical grounds. And although the SFX may not be utilized a great deal in "The Thing from Another World", the sporadic instances when they are appropriately used are marvelous to behold.
In the end, I can narrow down the brilliance of the film to two words…
Howard Hawks.
I’ve said it before but I’m more than happy to say it again…it's easy to see Hawks' fingerprints all over “The Thing” particularly in the film’s dialogue and his presence helps to stimulate the picture…making for quite the viewing experience.
In short the film is one of the best science fiction thrillers to come along, and while my own aesthetics are perhaps more tuned in with the updated John Carpenter incarnation, “The Thing from Another World” is certainly well worth watching.
--------------------------------------------------------
The Thing from Another World (1951)
[YT]1te2zzJ5aTs[/YT]
Directed by … Christian Nyby (Howard Hawks)
Written by … Charles lederer (Howard Hawks and Ben Hecht)
Adapted from the story “Who Goes There?” by … John W. Campbell JR.
Margaret Sheridan ... Nikki
Kenneth Tobey ... Captain Patrick Hendry
Robert Cornthwaite ... Dr. Carrington
Douglas Spencer ... Scotty
James R. Young ... Lt. Eddie Dykes
Dewey Martin ... Crew Chief
Robert Nichols ... Lt. Ken Erickson
William Self ... Corporal Barnes
Eduard Franz ... Dr. Stern
Sally Creighton ... Mrs. Chapman
James Arness ... 'The Thing'
Scientists and American Air Force officials fend off a blood-thirsty alien organism while at a remote arctic outpost.
--------------------------------------------------------
On the surface, 1951’s “The Thing from Another World” looks like a common footnote in the milieu of 50s sci-fi horror mixtures…films that put the real-world paranoia and fears of the foreign (usually meaning ‘communist’ to the average American) in the vernacular of the monster, the robot or some other bizarre other-worldly entity.
Even the notion of a creature that can change its appearance and enter our ranks through deception seems to be a broad statement on the Reds, with growing concerns of Commie Spies infiltrating our lands and attempting to change us into them with methods of mind-altering implications.
But, much like the extra terrestrial in question, looks can be deceiving.
For “The Thing from Another World” should not be counted among the rest of the 50s fair…it, along with a few other exceptions such as “The Day the Earth Stood Still” and “Forbidden Planet” remains at a standard of a much higher level.
Case in point…although there were two directors on the picture, the fact that Howard Hawks got involved adds to the film’s luster. If one thinks of the director of comedies like “Bringing up Baby” or “I was a Male War Bride” directing a science fiction film, you would be surprised - but then Hawks also did well with crime films (SCARFACE) and westerns (RED RIVER). Apparently Christian Nyby took most of Hawks' ideas and put them to work in the film. Good move Christian!
It's now generally assumed that, as I said, most of the great science fiction and horror films of the early 1950s were veiled discussions of either the Communist threat to America or of the threat McCarthism in this country .
But there were strong currents in that period that were not really available earlier periods of film science fiction films. In the 1950s the remarkable (if bloodstained) achievements in science in the World War (radar, jet planes, rocket bombs, the atomic bomb) made people more aware of science as never before. Tied to this was the sudden phenomenon of UFO sitings that - whether true or not - were finally being given serious consideration by the media.


Loosely adapted by Charles Lederer from the 1938 novella "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell, Jr (although it was published under the pseudonym Don A. Stuart), “The Thing from Another World” is set in a hostile environment - but one that is an "acceptable" hostile environment for government purposes. Polar exploration had been in the hands of the military from all nations from the 16th Century onward. Such explorers like Martin Frobisher were part-time naval commanders. In the 19th Century it was a rarity for a civilian to get involved (Thomas Simpson, the man who actually first sited the spot the "Northwest Passage" would most likely be at, was an exception - but he worked for the Hudson's Bay Company). More typical figures involved were Sir John Franklin (lost with two shiploads of British naval personnel in 1848) or Lt. Robert Peary (later Rear Admiral Peary) or Commander Robert Scott.
After 1920 the typical polar expedition would be one led by somebody like Rear Admiral Richard Byrd. In 1931 Byrd would nearly die in an experiment in Antarctica regarding isolation in a tent (his stove malfunctioned, but some of his men found him in time).

So the cast here are at the North Pole, under joint command of Captain Hendry (Kenneth Tobey) and Dr. Carrington (Robert Cornthwaite). There is also a member of the fourth estate present to report the expedition's results (Scotty, played by Douglas Spencer). During the expedition's regular work they find the wreckage of an unidentified flying saucer. They also find the frozen remains of a creature. The creature is the title figure of "The Thing". If you look closely you will recognize the actor playing this creature is James Arness. While far from his “Gunsmoke” role of Marshal Matt Dillon, keep in mind that in the 1950s Arness varied western roles (John Ford's “Wagon Master”
with serious adventure films (“Island in the Sky” and other science fiction parts (“THEM!”. He is actually quite effective as the creature, especially in his later rampages.As long as the creature is frozen there is no real problem, but one of the men makes the mistake of putting a blanket on top of the permafrost "ice cube" the Thing is lying in. The blanket is an electric blanket, and it melts the permafrost - thus releasing the Thing. Subsequently it is discovered that the creature is not mammalian like man, nor reptilian, but an intelligent form of vegetable.
On a side note, I gotta say that the ‘Thing’ itself (portrayed by James Arness) looks impressive considering the time this was made…it almost reminds me of the creature from “It! The Terror Beyond Space” to a certain extent.
The best science fiction films manage to get some convincing dialog in about these points. Carrington and his fellow scientist Dr. Stern (Eduard Franz) discuss the possibility of intelligent vegetable life forms on earth, including plants that eat small rodents. Carrington is fascinated by this creature, and realizes that it is actually more intelligent than man is - he (in his misguided zeal) hopes to actually talk to the creature and learn from it for man's benefit. This does not sit well with Hendry, especially after two of the staff are butchered by the creature (apparently it's survival is predicated on the use of animal blood).
I will go on a limb and say no other 1950s film really dealt with the conflict of pure science (Carrington) and self-defense or government defense (Hendry) as “Thing” did. Carrington, a Nobelist, sees learning as the end and be-all of mankind. Hendry sees survival as more important. Most would probably agree with Hendry, but Carrington does maintain a type of respect with the audience until nearly the end of the film when he loses it a bit.
The cast handled the roles well. Cornwaithe never had a better part in movies (and I'm glad to note in his last film he repeated the part). Tobey's Captain is intelligent and keeps the loyalty of both his own men and most of the scientists. He also has several moments when a romance between him and scientist Nikki (Margaret Sheridan) heats up (in typical Hawkian role reversal, she plies him with drink while he is tied up, to make sure she controls the date!). Spencer's newsman is rather believable (his skepticism about outer space creatures gradually dissolving - he has the famous last words of the film, "Look to the skies!"). Spencer also is constantly remembering past assignments in World War II, and even covering the execution of Ruth Snyder in 1928. Also doing well in supporting parts are Franz (a more rational scientist than Cornwaithe), Dewey Martin (an electrician who figures out how to solve the danger), and - of all people - George Fennimen as one of the soldiers.
An integral part of any science fiction and horror film are the special effects and how well they illustrate the most graphic and imaginative content of the film and subsequently how realistic or perhaps even frightening they may be. There's only one word to describe this very facet of The Thing from Another World: astounding. And we could easily follow up with other superlative such as outstanding, impressive, laudable and even mind-blowing, especially when we consider that this film was made in the turn of the 1950's. Parallels can be drawn to a precursor in pioneering such ground-breaking effects in film, 1933's “King Kong,” highlighting all the more the importance of this movie on both artistic and technical grounds. And although the SFX may not be utilized a great deal in "The Thing from Another World", the sporadic instances when they are appropriately used are marvelous to behold.
In the end, I can narrow down the brilliance of the film to two words…
Howard Hawks.
I’ve said it before but I’m more than happy to say it again…it's easy to see Hawks' fingerprints all over “The Thing” particularly in the film’s dialogue and his presence helps to stimulate the picture…making for quite the viewing experience.
In short the film is one of the best science fiction thrillers to come along, and while my own aesthetics are perhaps more tuned in with the updated John Carpenter incarnation, “The Thing from Another World” is certainly well worth watching.
--------------------------------------------------------
Last edited:
Good review of The Thing From Another World, although I'd have it much closer to the best than #42.
A few other things of note. I think the overlapping dialogue and banter really works well for this movie. Not only is it fun to listen to, it works as misdirection. Case in point, the conversation before they open the door to the greenhouse totally takes our mind off what might be lurking behind the door. Instead of building up obviously to a big reveal, we're given something else to chew on so that it actually seems like a surprise when they open the door. Let's face it, most horror films have pretty lousy dialogue and acting, and this points out a better way.
It also serves to give the film, with a bloodsucking alien, a more naturalistic tone.
There's a flat out fantastic fire stunt in this movie. One that I don't think has been equalled.
The use of the geiger counter to track the approach of the creature foreshadows the use of the motion tracker in Alien and Aliens.
The scene where they stand on the ice to determine the shape of the buried object I think is one of the best in science fiction. It's a mystery with an outstanding payoff (and very convincing as they don't have to build an expensive prop).
Flat out terrific movie.
A few other things of note. I think the overlapping dialogue and banter really works well for this movie. Not only is it fun to listen to, it works as misdirection. Case in point, the conversation before they open the door to the greenhouse totally takes our mind off what might be lurking behind the door. Instead of building up obviously to a big reveal, we're given something else to chew on so that it actually seems like a surprise when they open the door. Let's face it, most horror films have pretty lousy dialogue and acting, and this points out a better way.
It also serves to give the film, with a bloodsucking alien, a more naturalistic tone.
There's a flat out fantastic fire stunt in this movie. One that I don't think has been equalled.
The use of the geiger counter to track the approach of the creature foreshadows the use of the motion tracker in Alien and Aliens.
The scene where they stand on the ice to determine the shape of the buried object I think is one of the best in science fiction. It's a mystery with an outstanding payoff (and very convincing as they don't have to build an expensive prop).
Flat out terrific movie.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2002
- Messages
- 74,999
- Reaction score
- 30,913
- Points
- 203
The THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD has been one of my favorite movies for decades.
As Evil Twin pointed out....the overlapping dialogue is excellent. It sounds like real people talking in a real situation. And as he mentioned also, the fire stunt is excellent.
One of the other things I loved about the movie was the way the hero (Captain Hendry) was portrayed. He wasn't the man with all the answers who always knew what to do....he asked for ideas, several people would give an opinion, and he would pick the best one to go with. Being a leader doesn't mean you have to come up with the answers....but you do need to know a good one when you hear it and have the moxy to follow it.
As Evil Twin pointed out....the overlapping dialogue is excellent. It sounds like real people talking in a real situation. And as he mentioned also, the fire stunt is excellent.
One of the other things I loved about the movie was the way the hero (Captain Hendry) was portrayed. He wasn't the man with all the answers who always knew what to do....he asked for ideas, several people would give an opinion, and he would pick the best one to go with. Being a leader doesn't mean you have to come up with the answers....but you do need to know a good one when you hear it and have the moxy to follow it.
CFE
The never-ending battle
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 9,122
- Reaction score
- 54
- Points
- 73
#41
Videodrome (1983)
[YT]Fh5U2RW58p4[/YT]
Written and Directed by … David Cronenberg
James Woods ... Max Renn
Sonja Smits ... Bianca O'Blivion
Deborah Harry ... Nicki Brand
Peter Dvorsky ... Harlan
Les Carlson ... Barry Convex
Jack Creley ... Brian O'Blivion
Lynne Gorman ... Masha
Julie Khaner ... Bridey
Reiner Schwartz ... Moses
David Bolt ... Raphael
Lally Cadeau ... Rena King
Henry Gomez ... Brolley
Harvey Chao ... Japanese Salesman
David Tsubôchi ... Japanese Salesman
Kay Hawtrey ... Matron
Sam Malkin ... Sidewalk Derelict
Bob Church ... Newscaster
Jayne Eastwood ... Woman Caller
Franciszka Hedland ... Bellydancer
A sleazy cable-TV programmer begins to see his life and the future of media spin out of control in a very unusual fashion when he acquires a new kind of programming for his station.
--------------------------------------------------------
While I can divorce myself from the issue enough to make the statement that this is not, in my opinion, Cronenberg’s best science fiction film…I will then step back in and comment that 1983’s “Videodrome” is my personal favorite Cronenberg film…bar none.
The film follows sleaze-incarnate…Max Renn (James Woods), the overseer of Channel 83 (better known as Civic TV…the one you take to bed with you.) a low-rent, exploitative cable network whose programming specialties range from hardcore violence to softcore porn. Ever the ambitious one, Renn continues to search for a show that’ll not only walk the razor’s edge but transcend it…he finds such a show when he stumbles upon a pirate transmission of a show called “Videodrome” - a show with nothing but S&M, bondage, torture and murder. Renn believes that he's discovered his breakthrough...sharing it with sexual fling Nicki Brand (Deborah Harry).
But something is happening to Max. psychotropic-like hallucinations and paranoia…visions…and ultimately dead bodies, cancer guns, stomach-vulvas and a secret conspiracy between a Tumor victim who now only lives on through video (Jack Creley) and a megalomaniacal businessman (Les Carlson) who wage a battle over the collective minds of North America with “Videodrome.”
Reality bends…alliances shift…and, perhaps, Videodrome has taken over Max.
In every respect, “Videodrome” is a tremendous film, effectively managing to simultaneously repulse and intrigue. It is horrific and contains numerous science-fiction motifs, but, unlike the horror and special effects driven pictures of today, “Videodrome”…to quote the film itself…has a philosophy.
“Videodrome” is not about mind-controlling cable shows; it is about our un-healthy consumption of visual media. I may not agree with Cronenberg's vision of our relationship with TV, but it is never less than interesting. It's refreshing to see a movie about more than itself; it seems that, since the 1980s, these types of films have become increasingly rare and that's a shame. Maybe it's only nostalgia, but the era when films like Videodrome and Dawn of the Dead were being made by major studios and released to huge audiences seems like a Golden Age to my mind.
Here's to hoping those days will return.
What's truly brilliant about “Videodrome,” beyond its decision to base itself upon an idea, is its seamless blending of the characters' realities and their hallucinations.
After the forty-five minute mark, what actually happens becomes lost as we enter deeper and deeper in the tortured psyche of Max Renn. It is impossible, by the end of the movie, to know what actually happened. Unlike a movie like “Donnie Darko,” which left me puzzled and irritable upon first viewing (though I’ve come to be more accepting with subsequent viewings), I accept the puzzlement of “Videodrome” because an explanation would have lessened the film's visceral impact. The open-endedness of the narrative melds perfectly with a film that revels in the hallucination/reality divide. If the characters cannot comprehend what is actually happening, why should we?
At its core, “Videodrome” is the story of war for the mind.
On the one side, representing control is Barry Convex, who wishes to shape the world by controlling what people see. Convex is a glasses salesmen who essentially tells us he is the Devil in using the words of Lorenzo de Medici, "love comes in at the eye" and "the eye is the window to the soul" as his formula for control: First you tempt with the forbidden fruit, then, when your victim has bitten, you take their soul. This is done via the organ of the eye because the mind will take as fact whatever the eye shows it. This is why it is so essential today for the faculty of critical thinking to become damaged via such institutions as the public school system and television.
Unfortunately, the opposing side does not seem to offer freedom, but some other sort of control. A kind of confusing, chaotic and recursive control. Dr. Brian Oblivion, the inventor and first victim of Videodrome is murdered by Convex prior to the movie, and now exists only in the virtual world of video tape. For 1983, this was the best way to convey the virtual world, as only kids played video games and most computers barely did 64K of memory. The bad thing about using videotape to represent the virtual world was that tape does not convey the fluidity of the convention.
But I digress, for Oblivion, freedom seems to be some sort of unending recursive loop, the kind you get when you hold two mirrors in front of each other. The Oblivion side does seem to be trying to help, at least, as the Doctor's daughter, Bianca Oblivion runs the Cathode Ray Mission, that tries to "patch" the indigent back into society by serving them a generous supply of orange juice along with their TV.
One of the reasons it is difficult to tell who the good guys are, or even if there are any good guys, is that the story is told through the eyes of Max Renn and Max is cynical little man whose only concern is taking his porn cable channel to the next level and getting Nicki Brand into bed. Max allows himself to become a pawn in this war and by the end of the movie it becomes clear that Max has left his humanity behind.
Sex and violence form the back drop of the movie, especially perverted sex. At least twice, Max is offered "nice" sex to show on his cable channel and both times he turns it down. The importance of perverted sex and perverted violence as a plot point is that it opens certain neural receptors in the nervous system that allows the Videodrome signal to get in. The bad guys in the movie, Convex and Renn's video pirate, Harlen, both moralize against this perverted sex and use it as a hook to get Max "infected" with the Videodrome signal. "Why would anybody watch such a thing?" one of the bad guys preaches to Max.
This was particularly effective when I first saw the movie. I wondered if the Videodrome signal was encoded in the movie itself.
Ah the naivety of youth.
There are amazing set-pieces throughout the picture (throbbing televisions and gurgling video cassettes) and moments of beautiful photography (the shots of Renn approaching the harbor for instance come to mind quickly). The acting, even by Blondie front vocalist Debbie Harry in her first starring role, is excellent.
James Woods, in particular, excels. In the aftermath of discovering the film through my Criterion Edition, he has since become a personal acting favorite and brings to Renn a level of sleaziness that perhaps could only have been achieved him…
Well…maybe Harry Dean Stanton but let’s not lose sleep over that debate.
The film also comes with a lovingly morbid score from composer Howard Shore…which begins to build in its tension as both Max and the film continue their descent into the macabre of the proceedings…it’s truly a nice touch to have ‘Videodrome’ itself, as well as the toll it’s taking on the film and its characters, represented by low-brow synthesizers.
Another awesome acknowledgement should be made for the incredible effects work of make-up maestro Rick Baker…from having a TV explode in a sea of blood and entrails to the notorious stomach vagina (correlating with Cronenberg’s own fascinations with both male and female genitalia) and the pulsating pleasure TV…which I like to call “Nikki-V”…complete with Harry’s luscious lips…the work being done here is both groundbreaking and extraordinary.
“Videodrome,” thanks to its surreal imagery and story that could only be inspired by divergent thought, is both convincing and confusing. Such is the ultimate achievement in storytelling.
Fortunately, the question of whether one can separate their perception of reality from the fantasy they see depicted on a video source has been answered already. It isn't really even a question that needs asking here, as it has long been answered by film. No, “Videodrome” is about something more, although exactly what that is could be anything David Cronenberg desires. I chose to see it as an example of one man getting so wrapped up in his ideas or fantasies that they utterly distort his reality, an idea subtly hinted at when one character describes his hallucinations causing him a brain tumor rather than the other way around.
The new flesh is the idea that drives a given machine, always mutating and altering itself. However you choose to interpret the story of “Videodrome,” I think the consensus we can all come to is that it is just plain odd. Most of us will never really see the things shown in “Videodrome.”
Maybe if we take a mix of heroin, crack, and LSD then wash it down with drain cleaner.
Meh…I’ll stick with the film.
Long Live the New Flesh!
--------------------------------------------------------
Videodrome (1983)
[YT]Fh5U2RW58p4[/YT]
Written and Directed by … David Cronenberg
James Woods ... Max Renn
Sonja Smits ... Bianca O'Blivion
Deborah Harry ... Nicki Brand
Peter Dvorsky ... Harlan
Les Carlson ... Barry Convex
Jack Creley ... Brian O'Blivion
Lynne Gorman ... Masha
Julie Khaner ... Bridey
Reiner Schwartz ... Moses
David Bolt ... Raphael
Lally Cadeau ... Rena King
Henry Gomez ... Brolley
Harvey Chao ... Japanese Salesman
David Tsubôchi ... Japanese Salesman
Kay Hawtrey ... Matron
Sam Malkin ... Sidewalk Derelict
Bob Church ... Newscaster
Jayne Eastwood ... Woman Caller
Franciszka Hedland ... Bellydancer
A sleazy cable-TV programmer begins to see his life and the future of media spin out of control in a very unusual fashion when he acquires a new kind of programming for his station.
--------------------------------------------------------
While I can divorce myself from the issue enough to make the statement that this is not, in my opinion, Cronenberg’s best science fiction film…I will then step back in and comment that 1983’s “Videodrome” is my personal favorite Cronenberg film…bar none.
The film follows sleaze-incarnate…Max Renn (James Woods), the overseer of Channel 83 (better known as Civic TV…the one you take to bed with you.) a low-rent, exploitative cable network whose programming specialties range from hardcore violence to softcore porn. Ever the ambitious one, Renn continues to search for a show that’ll not only walk the razor’s edge but transcend it…he finds such a show when he stumbles upon a pirate transmission of a show called “Videodrome” - a show with nothing but S&M, bondage, torture and murder. Renn believes that he's discovered his breakthrough...sharing it with sexual fling Nicki Brand (Deborah Harry).
But something is happening to Max. psychotropic-like hallucinations and paranoia…visions…and ultimately dead bodies, cancer guns, stomach-vulvas and a secret conspiracy between a Tumor victim who now only lives on through video (Jack Creley) and a megalomaniacal businessman (Les Carlson) who wage a battle over the collective minds of North America with “Videodrome.”
Reality bends…alliances shift…and, perhaps, Videodrome has taken over Max.
In every respect, “Videodrome” is a tremendous film, effectively managing to simultaneously repulse and intrigue. It is horrific and contains numerous science-fiction motifs, but, unlike the horror and special effects driven pictures of today, “Videodrome”…to quote the film itself…has a philosophy.
“Videodrome” is not about mind-controlling cable shows; it is about our un-healthy consumption of visual media. I may not agree with Cronenberg's vision of our relationship with TV, but it is never less than interesting. It's refreshing to see a movie about more than itself; it seems that, since the 1980s, these types of films have become increasingly rare and that's a shame. Maybe it's only nostalgia, but the era when films like Videodrome and Dawn of the Dead were being made by major studios and released to huge audiences seems like a Golden Age to my mind.
Here's to hoping those days will return.
What's truly brilliant about “Videodrome,” beyond its decision to base itself upon an idea, is its seamless blending of the characters' realities and their hallucinations.
After the forty-five minute mark, what actually happens becomes lost as we enter deeper and deeper in the tortured psyche of Max Renn. It is impossible, by the end of the movie, to know what actually happened. Unlike a movie like “Donnie Darko,” which left me puzzled and irritable upon first viewing (though I’ve come to be more accepting with subsequent viewings), I accept the puzzlement of “Videodrome” because an explanation would have lessened the film's visceral impact. The open-endedness of the narrative melds perfectly with a film that revels in the hallucination/reality divide. If the characters cannot comprehend what is actually happening, why should we?
At its core, “Videodrome” is the story of war for the mind.
On the one side, representing control is Barry Convex, who wishes to shape the world by controlling what people see. Convex is a glasses salesmen who essentially tells us he is the Devil in using the words of Lorenzo de Medici, "love comes in at the eye" and "the eye is the window to the soul" as his formula for control: First you tempt with the forbidden fruit, then, when your victim has bitten, you take their soul. This is done via the organ of the eye because the mind will take as fact whatever the eye shows it. This is why it is so essential today for the faculty of critical thinking to become damaged via such institutions as the public school system and television.
Unfortunately, the opposing side does not seem to offer freedom, but some other sort of control. A kind of confusing, chaotic and recursive control. Dr. Brian Oblivion, the inventor and first victim of Videodrome is murdered by Convex prior to the movie, and now exists only in the virtual world of video tape. For 1983, this was the best way to convey the virtual world, as only kids played video games and most computers barely did 64K of memory. The bad thing about using videotape to represent the virtual world was that tape does not convey the fluidity of the convention.
But I digress, for Oblivion, freedom seems to be some sort of unending recursive loop, the kind you get when you hold two mirrors in front of each other. The Oblivion side does seem to be trying to help, at least, as the Doctor's daughter, Bianca Oblivion runs the Cathode Ray Mission, that tries to "patch" the indigent back into society by serving them a generous supply of orange juice along with their TV.
One of the reasons it is difficult to tell who the good guys are, or even if there are any good guys, is that the story is told through the eyes of Max Renn and Max is cynical little man whose only concern is taking his porn cable channel to the next level and getting Nicki Brand into bed. Max allows himself to become a pawn in this war and by the end of the movie it becomes clear that Max has left his humanity behind.
Sex and violence form the back drop of the movie, especially perverted sex. At least twice, Max is offered "nice" sex to show on his cable channel and both times he turns it down. The importance of perverted sex and perverted violence as a plot point is that it opens certain neural receptors in the nervous system that allows the Videodrome signal to get in. The bad guys in the movie, Convex and Renn's video pirate, Harlen, both moralize against this perverted sex and use it as a hook to get Max "infected" with the Videodrome signal. "Why would anybody watch such a thing?" one of the bad guys preaches to Max.
This was particularly effective when I first saw the movie. I wondered if the Videodrome signal was encoded in the movie itself.
Ah the naivety of youth.
There are amazing set-pieces throughout the picture (throbbing televisions and gurgling video cassettes) and moments of beautiful photography (the shots of Renn approaching the harbor for instance come to mind quickly). The acting, even by Blondie front vocalist Debbie Harry in her first starring role, is excellent.
James Woods, in particular, excels. In the aftermath of discovering the film through my Criterion Edition, he has since become a personal acting favorite and brings to Renn a level of sleaziness that perhaps could only have been achieved him…
Well…maybe Harry Dean Stanton but let’s not lose sleep over that debate.
The film also comes with a lovingly morbid score from composer Howard Shore…which begins to build in its tension as both Max and the film continue their descent into the macabre of the proceedings…it’s truly a nice touch to have ‘Videodrome’ itself, as well as the toll it’s taking on the film and its characters, represented by low-brow synthesizers.
Another awesome acknowledgement should be made for the incredible effects work of make-up maestro Rick Baker…from having a TV explode in a sea of blood and entrails to the notorious stomach vagina (correlating with Cronenberg’s own fascinations with both male and female genitalia) and the pulsating pleasure TV…which I like to call “Nikki-V”…complete with Harry’s luscious lips…the work being done here is both groundbreaking and extraordinary.
“Videodrome,” thanks to its surreal imagery and story that could only be inspired by divergent thought, is both convincing and confusing. Such is the ultimate achievement in storytelling.
Fortunately, the question of whether one can separate their perception of reality from the fantasy they see depicted on a video source has been answered already. It isn't really even a question that needs asking here, as it has long been answered by film. No, “Videodrome” is about something more, although exactly what that is could be anything David Cronenberg desires. I chose to see it as an example of one man getting so wrapped up in his ideas or fantasies that they utterly distort his reality, an idea subtly hinted at when one character describes his hallucinations causing him a brain tumor rather than the other way around.
The new flesh is the idea that drives a given machine, always mutating and altering itself. However you choose to interpret the story of “Videodrome,” I think the consensus we can all come to is that it is just plain odd. Most of us will never really see the things shown in “Videodrome.”
Maybe if we take a mix of heroin, crack, and LSD then wash it down with drain cleaner.
Meh…I’ll stick with the film.
Long Live the New Flesh!
--------------------------------------------------------
cerealkiller182
Must Get Deadpool Avatar
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2004
- Messages
- 12,957
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
This is definitely a great mind-**** movie. For most cinephiles its not too much of a mind-****, but would really **** new minds looking for a mind-****. Cronenberg is the master of visceral imagery, which is why I think hed make a great Swamp thing director. And while History of Violence and Eastern Promises have both been awesome, Im dissapointed that they are much less Cronenberg-esque such as this
Fresh Prince
Superhero
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2008
- Messages
- 6,649
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Videodrome was a great movie...I saw it a few years ago after someone told me I should see it...James Wood is a pretty good actor and love the scene towards the end when he uses his mutated hand to kill the guy...Thne saying a funny ass line...I forgot what he said.
TruerToTheCore
Sidekick
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2008
- Messages
- 2,934
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
I like Videodrome. I really do. Have to buy the DVD.
Fresh Prince
Superhero
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2008
- Messages
- 6,649
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Wasn't it a canadian film?
Ash J. Williams
Hail to the king
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2005
- Messages
- 23,777
- Reaction score
- 2,667
- Points
- 103
I believe so.
SsM
Stuff?
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2001
- Messages
- 16,258
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
Staff online
-
SwordOfMorningSuper Moderator -
Lily Adler🔥 Hot Scoops 🍨 -
Hunter RiderRonin -
DKDetectiveBoo Boo Bubbles (he/him)
