Reviews

The 1956 movie, "Forbidden Planet", was the first science fiction film produced for $1 million by a major studio, MGM. The film excels in many aspects, particularly its exceptionally intelligent story. Its flaws are minor. The film is based on a story/screen treatment, "Fatal Planet", by special effects expert, Irving Block and his writing partner, Allen Adler. The screenplay was written by Cyril Hume; directed by Fred Wilcox. Filmed in CinemaScope and Eastmancolor. "Forbidden Planet" boasts of great technical achievements in special effects,set and art design for that time period: Art Lonergan's sets of the spaceship, Morbius' home and the Krell laboratory were lavish, massive and stunning. The planet Altair IV's strange but beautiful atmosphere was achieved via a 10,000 ft cyclorama painting. The 6'11" Robby The Robot was a superb effects design, as was the "Id Monster", created by Disney Animator, Joshua Meador. The eerie, all-electronic score by Louis and Bebe Barron, was a first, originally planned to be only a special effects subpart of Harry Partch's traditional score. Under the patronage of avant garde' composer, John Cage, the Barrons created a score more experimental than compositional: modeled on emotional reactions of human nervous systems through cybernetics. The story, set in 2257 CE, involves Commander Adams and crew travelling from Earth to Altair IV, some 17 light years away, to investigate the whereabouts of an Earth expedition sent there 20 years earlier. They find only Dr. Morbius, his daughter and their trusty robot, Robby. Morbius tells Adams that the Belleraphon crew died at the hands of a mysterious invisible monster. Morbius tries to discourage the investigation, but to no avail; matters worsen when Adams and Altaira become romantically involved. Suddenly, various members of Adams' crew are mysteriously killed; it turns out that Morbius, having gained great knowledge and power via technology of the Krell - a super-advanced civilization who once inhabited Altair IV - is once again subconsciously creating via telekinetic materialization, the very monster he claimed to have killed the Earth colony. In the end, Morbius is destroyed along with his Id Monster, while Adams, Altaira and remaining crew return safely to Earth as Altair IV blows up via a thermo-nuclear detonation device. FP's story,loosely based on Shakespeare's "The Tempest", features Walter Pigeon(Dr.Morbius)as similar to Prospero, the exiled Duke of Milan; Anne Francis(Altaira) as his beautiful daughter like Prospero's daughter, Miranda; Morbius' Robby The Robot similar to Prospero's dutiful servant, the spirit Ariel; Leslie Neilson(Commander Adams) analogous to Ferdinand, Prince of Naples; and Morbius' subconscious "Id Monster" paralleling Caliban, the Witch Child. Comparative Analysis: Similarities between "FP" characters and those of "The Tempest": Morbius and Prospero both live in remote locations, the first on a planet, latter on an island. Both have sheltered daughters who have had little human contact and are to be romantically involved with suitors from afar. Both men have acquired great power and knowledge, Morbius via advanced alien technology and Prospero by magic. Both have non-human faithful servants, Morbius has Robby while Prospero has the airy spirit, Ariel. Commander Adams is the suitor of Altaira and Ferdinand,Price of Naples is suitor of Miranda, both men have honorable titles. Altaira and Miranda are similar young women who have been raised solely by their fathers for many years and know little of the world. Morbius' "Monster of the Id" and Caliban, the Witch Child, are analogous insofar as they are evil, elemental, bestial entities. Both are called "monsters" in respective dialogue. Differences - Morbius is fatally flawed, while Prospero is not. Morbius' possessiveness of both daughter and Krellian knowledge proves to be his undoing. OTOH, Prospero uses his knowledge and power to punish and discipline in a constructive way to benefit of all, including his enemies. Morbius' "Id monster" and Caliban are different in that former is an internally projected-outward materialization, while latter is a true entity unto himself. Prospero always has Caliban under control, even to the end, while this is not the case with Morbius. It is interesting to note that in "The Tempest", Ariel oscillates between visibility and invisibility, while in "FP" , it is the "Id Monster". (The Id, a Freudian conception, denotes an instinctual part of the psyche seeking constant gratification, regardless of the consequences to others; e.g., Caliban attempting to rape Miranda, in spite of previous kindness from her and her father.) The film and play end differently due to character differences in Morbius and Prospero: "Forbidden Planet" on a bittersweet note, and "The Tempest" on one of a fairy tale.

Concluding Comments: Dr. Morbius called the Krell, "A mighty and noble race", yet they vanished thousands of years earlier, leaving one to presume that they had psyches similar to Earthians, and like Morbius to come, succumbed to powerful subconscious "Id Monsters", i.e., the dark sides of themselves. Seen thusly, "Forbidden Planet" is a cautionary tale about various civilizations and individuals limited capacities to control immense power. "Forbidden Planet" always seems to inspire awe and wonder,as well as intelligent discussion and rightfully deserves a place alongside other enduring sci-fi classics as "Metropolis", "War of the Worlds" and "2001: A Space Odyssey".

A shoestring budgetter directed by Edgar Ulmer. One of the first (if not the first) alien invasion films. The little alien, a child-like being with a big, solemn face, is known to Scottish villagers as 'the bogey' and strikes mortal terror into their hearts with his HypnoRay, a laserlike beam which reduces them to easily programmable zomboids. His motives are unclear throughout the film until a hypnoidal Dr. Mears 'spills the beans' near its end. Strong points: eerie atmosphere, production design; moody 'film noir' photography, engaging music score and interesting story. Weak points: muddled script(more plotholes than a Stephen King cemetry); stilted dialogue and wooden acting. Recommended only for diehard 1950s sci-fi fans(like myself)- this film is both a joy and a disappointment.

An entertaining film, marred by a ridiculous ending. What's that you say? Hmmmm...let's make like the parasitic aliens and tune in on Sam's thoughts: "Yeah Dad, I'll obediently comply with your orders

and go off to stoke my relationship with Mary, while ignoring that I had only recently, and of necessity, fired a bullet into you, and then to effortlessly eradicate any concern whatsoever for your welfare as attendants cart you off to the hospital, in inexplicable contrast to what I had experienced emotionally a few minutes earlier as you lay on the ground bleeding, and me thinking that you might possibly be dead. And I so wish you could be here now, watching me and Mary walk down the street as One in the final shot." But what the heck, I like the movie for the most part - as I did "Predator" with it's absurd ending. "The Puppet Masters", as Maltin has said, lost some of it's potential edge, due to it's well-worn theme (initially made in 1958 via the low-budget, unauthorized version entitled "The Brain Eaters"), but it's nicely paced, with good performances, convincing, if revolting special effects, and a script at least moderately faithful to the Robert A. Heinlein 1950 classic novel bearing the same title. Maltin awarded "The Puppet Masters" with 2&1/2 stars out of a possible 4. Me too.

Richard Matheson's seminal sci-fi horror novel, "I Am Legend", published in 1954, is first and foremost, a character study, and any film producer must come to terms with that, if there is to be a successful adaptation from print to screen. The novel was adapted to screen in 1964 as "The Last Man On Earth"; producer Sidney Salkow, hampered by a tiny budget, intuitively did the best he could and came close to pulling it off! What Salkow did was convey the novel's mood, tone, atmosphere and plot in primitive fashion, crudely capturing the gist of the novel - that of one man, Robert Neville's confrontation with a horrendous existential dilemma - to be, himself, that is; or not to be, a plague- induced vampiric shell. While "TLMOE" was not entirely successful in translation, especially in the ending - co-scripter Matheson ultimately distanced himself from the final product - it nevertheless, clearly outshines a later, technically superior 1971 remake, "The Omega Man" in the aforementioned aspects. "The Omega Man", taken on it's own, is an interesting, entertaining film; but when referenced against the novel, falls flat on it's face. (Matheson himself stated that that film and his novel are two completely different animals.) In contrast, "TLMOE" fares much better when referenced: it shows that Morgan's (Neville's) battle is more with reactions within himself than with the vampires as a physical threat per se, as it becomes obvious that the vampires are slow-moving, dull-minded individually, and disorganized as a group, each instinctively and savagely interested only in HIS blood. Besides the perpetually nightmarish nuisance of the vampires, who have a collectively demoralizing effect on him, Morgan (Neville) must fight against the horror generated by the desolation and doom of a post-apocalyptic world, against the loneliness of being the last human on earth and against the agony of tragically losing his wife and daughter to the plague. In the final analysis, "The Last Man On Earth" could be likened to a series of crude, but brilliant brush-strokes of feeling-tones. As such it fully deserves cult-classic status.

I saw this film as a child and recall it being moderately frightening, but when viewed recently as an adult, the scare-factor was zilch. This is the result of the unconvincing special effects and script dynamics; for example, the spider attack scenes appear too late in the film and are totally lame - at the end of each attack scene, the camera angle shifts to the spider´s perspective as it descends upon it´s victims with pincher-jaws. Unfortunately, the jaws are never shown touching the victims, much less multilation or devouring. Contrast this with the classic attack scene in ¨The Black Scorpion¨(1957), where a giant scorpion stings a telephone pole lineman to death with it´s deadly tail. The special effects in this scene so artfully crafted that one can rapidly and deeply suspend disbelief for a quick thrill. Not so with anything in ¨Tarantula¨, nothing thrilling at all, even the climatic battle scene was a letdown. This lack of any thrilling experience left a bland taste, although I did enjoy Leo G. Carroll´s performance as The Professor, the only redeeming feature of the film. I wasn´t nearly as impressed with this film as movie critic, Leonard Maltin, who gave it 3 stars. I give it 2 stars, just fair entertainment. In the final analysis, ¨Tarantula¨lacks spunk.

In spite of it's multitude of shortcomings, (for example, in the acting department, Colonel O'Bannion's demeanor in the first half of the film seemed more like that of a gigolo than a spaceship commander), I found "The Angry Red Planet" to be a delightfully entertaining film. Very original and creative in certain respects: the CineMagic red filtering gives the Martian atmosphere and landscape an eerie, glowing quality; the artwork, while evident, is impressive, especially the Martian City across the lake; the giant Venus (I mean Martian!) flytrap was barely passable, but the bat-rat-spider-crab creature was cool and well-constructed; the giant ameoba with the rotating eyeball is an incredible, hilarious sight - intended or not, it's got to be one of the most comically imaginative creatures ever conceived! I would place "The Angry Red Planet" in the third tier of the 180+ sci-fi films made during that era - better than dozens of dull, boring, unimaginative low-budgies in the fourth and bottom rung, but well below the second tier ("When Worlds Collide"; "This Island Earth",etc.), and the "cream of the crop" top level, ("Forbidden Planet"; "The War of the Worlds", etc.). Perfect popcorn fodder for both the 50's sci-fi fan and general family entertainment.

Viewed as a child in the 1950s, this film made a lasting impression upon me; the scene where a giant scorpion snatches a telephone lineman off a pole and impales him with its tail stinger has remained vivid in memory throughout the years. The trainwreck scene where many giant scorpions kill dozens of passengers remains a classic. Perhaps somewhat inferior overall to "Them"-1954 (the first giant bug movie of the 50s) - "The Black Scorpion" has superior special effects, thanks to stop-motion animation wizard, Willis O'Brien. Unlike "Them" and other giant insect sci-fi films of that sub-genre during that era, "The Black Scorpion's" scientific premise does not involve the effects of atomic radiation, but rather due to long term isolation deep with volcanic caverns in Mexico. Not only scorpions are affected, but worm/catepillar-like creatures and spiders. Richard Denning plays another geologist, as in the earlier release, "The Day The World Ended"-1956; however, the real stars are the marauding, vicious, slobbering giant scorpions. Highly recommended for children and adults with childlike imaginations.

Director Roger Corman's first sci-fi film effort in 1956, "The Day The World Ended", is a low-budget, marginal film. The story involves an older man(Paul Birch) and his lovely, grown daughter,(Lori Nelson) who are holed up in their house after a nuclear holocaust has decimated most of the worlds population; their home has been protected from radioactive fallout by the surrounding mountains. The setting is limited to the house and its immediate surrounding area; Corman makes some attempt at post-holocaustic atmosphere by using smoke-generators in the surrounding foothills. At the start of the film, Birch and Nelson are suddenly besieged by five survivors, including a burrow - who all inexplicably arrive within a short time of

one another. One of the survivors has been affected by radiation and is horribly disfigured on one side of his face. It struck me as unusual that some of them appeared remarkably clean and well groomed for this sort of situation. The characters are varied and much of the conflict results from the contrasting personalities, especially in regard to the limited supplies and to geologist(Richard Denning's) and tough guy(Mike "Touch" Conner's, later TV's Mannix) heated competition over the young Nelson. Denning and Conners give the best performances in this film, Adele Jergens(Connor's girlfriend) also delivers an entertaining bit when reenacting her striptease dancing act. However, the interactive scenes within the house drag on and

on for most of the movie without a glimmer of the "mutant monster" (Paul Blaisdell); the monster finally appears after some foreshadowing, but is remarkably inept in its attack on Denning and Nelson and quickly dies from exposure to the "pure rain" that comes just in time. Anti-climatic; with Denning delivering the cliche', "Man created him, God destroyed him". Not much comic relief except for the ridiculous looking monster, who wouldn't frighten anyone but the very young (I saw it at a local drive-in when aged 12 or 13, and although it appeared interesting at the time to my youthful eyes, it was certainly not scary), and a laughable scene where Conners sticks his exposed hand out a window to collect rainwater in a container to see if it's contaminated by radiation. Some of the dialogue is atrocious, for example, one of the

characters suggests that human skin exposed to radiation could be called "atomic skin" - I rolled at that one. A one-time viewing of "The Day The World Ended" should be more than enough for most, except for perhaps the most ardent Corman fan.

The 1955 sci-fi film, "This Island Earth" was spoofed in the film,"MST 3000: The Movie"; but in actuality the film got good reviews from Leonard Maltin, The Motion Picture Guide, not to mention Bill Warren's monumental opus, "Keep Watching The Skies!". The acting in this film is not exceptional, but not dismal, I would say adequate. My favorite character is the Metalunan, Exeter - this dude is one smooth talker, oozing a sinister coolness, while displaying a funky appearance: neatly coiffured white hair, bushy eyebrows, a high indented forehead, coppertone tan and dressed in a conventional Earthian suit and tie (he would have made a great politician or televangelist!). His assistant, Braack, is a carbon copy, as are the other Metalunans. There is an atmosphere of suspense and intrigue and the plot is credible enough. One the technical side, a Metalunan communication device called an Interociter remains a centerpiece throughout the film; it is very versatile, able to incorporate an Interplanetary Generator, Volterator, Astroscope, Electron Sorter, and a deadly Neutrino Ray (all of these are not in the script, rather I got them from the Raymond F. Jones story the film is based upon; however, the Neutrino Ray was demonstrated by Exeter to Dr. Cal Meacham on occasion); Meacham pulled the plug on one of them in his lab, causing it to self-destruct; leading one to wonder if that device were so advanced, then why didn't it have a backup internal power source and safety feature to prevent that sort of sabotage? Moreover, why did it have to rely on an external power supply at all?' The highlight of the film is the voyage back to Metaluna with Drs Meacham and Adams on board; the distant planet is being attacked by enemy Zahgon guided meteors. The Drs were recruited to help the Metalunans rebuild their war depleted uranium supply which sustained their protective atomic force shield- the Earth is rich in uranium supply. The Metalunan spacecraft looks like a cheap, plastic toy pulled from a crackerjack box, but as it cruises through the "thermal barrier", the fiery special effects around the craft look way cool. And the special effects, set design and artwork of the war-ravaged planet and the ongoing battle there are simply excellent for that time period. In addition, the Herman Stein musical score is a tasty delight- the organ parts are simply an ear to behold! No, "This Island Earth" does not have the Oscar-Winning effects of "The War Of The Worlds", the snappy, overlapping dialogue of "The Thing From Another World", the abundant richness of ideas of "Forbidden Planet", nor the spine chilling suspense of "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers"; but what it does have is an irresistable charm, the result - I suspect - of having a peculiar combination of outstanding qualities coexisting alongside of much inferior ones. "This Island Earth" should definitely be part of every 50's sci-fi film connoisseur's collection.

The best things about this ludicrous little cheapie are young Frank Gorshin's ("The Riddler" on the 1960s TV Series, "Batman") acting performance - a shame he was killed off fairly early in the film - and Paul Blasidell's alien creature designs, the bulbous-headed little devils are so pugnaciously cute as to be irresistably charming. However, to cite the film's shortcomings would take several pages. Probably only the 1950s sci-fi film aficionado would want to watch it with an degree of regularity. The best scene is also the most hilarious, which features a gory battle between one of the aliens and a bull! The alien spacecraft, which is accidentally blown up by a human's cutting torch, is also good for a few chuckles.

Best thing about this film was Jeff Kimball's photography of the Florida Everglades and George Clinton's score. Although the two gals were nice to watch and Bill Murray was delightful, the film tries to be too clever with too many surprises and outwits itself. Hopelessly muddled, the script ultimately

degenerates into pure nonsense; I even doubt that writer Stephen Peters could decipher it.

This 50s sci-fi film has always been one of my favorites from that era. As with another Columbia Pictures film, "Earth vs the Flying Saucers", released the previous year, "20 Million Miles To Earth" features some of the same cast. This film has a relatively simple, straightforward plot, perfunctory acting, and a brisk pace. And as with "Earth vs the Flying Saucers", the main attraction is the outstanding Harryhausen effects. It is because of these similarities that I consider the two films companion pieces. Leonard Maltin calls the film one of the best monster-on-the- loose movies ever made and I certainly agree. The sulphur- eating, reptilian-like Venusian creature, "the Ymir's" titanic struggle with an elephant in the streets of Rome, preceding the climatic confrontation in the Colosseum with mankind, remains one of the greatest one-to-one creature battles of all time. Definitely recommended for the 1950s sci-fi connoisseur.

If "The War of the Worlds" is the definitive sci-fi "alien invasion" film of the 1950s, then "Earth vs the Flying Saucers" is the definitive "flying saucer" one. Ray Harryhausen's magic provided us with the prototypical "flying saucer"; his marvelous special effects are indeed the axis upon which all else in the film revolves. The plot is standard formula and the acting is restrained;

but if one can put oneself in "kiddie gear", then these aspects don't matter much. If fact, most of the sci-fi films of the

mid-to-late 1950s were designed for the child and teenager. I own a copy of this little jewel and have viewed it on numerous occasions and unabashedly prefer the Harryhausen effects over many of the later computer-generated ones. "Earth vs the Flying Saucers" should be a part of every 50s sci-fi afficionado's collection.

This film was spoofed in the film, "MST 3000: The Movie", but in actuality got good reviews from Leonard Maltin, The Motion Picture Guide, not to mention Bill Warren's monumental opus, "Keep Watching The Skies!". No, "This Island Earth" does not have the Oscar Winning effects of "The War of the Worlds", the snappy overlapping dialogue of "The Thing From Another World", the abundant richness of ideas in "Forbidden Planet", nor the spine chilling suspense of "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers"; but what it does have is an irresistable charm, the result - I suspect - of having a peculiar combination of outstanding qualities coexisting alongside much inferior ones. "This Island Earth" should definitely be part of every 50's sci-fi film connoisseur's collection.

Almost, but not quite a masterpiece, but still quite a good film, is "The Night Of The Hunter"; it's major flaw is that the climax is about as strong as a wet noodle. The struggle between Harry Powell (Robert Mitchum), the psychopathic, self-appointed "preacher", and Rachel Cooper (Lillian Gish), the kindly, but staunch old spinster, could and should have been riveting and

terrifying, instead it pathetically floundered. Mitchum's performance up until that part was reminiscent of his later performance of psychopath Max Cady in "Cape Fear", which BTW, did not have a weak climax. Director Laughton, with his usually superb sense of drama, should have known better, and is paying the

price by being figuratively whipped with that wet noodle.

Laughton's delivers his greatest career performance as Quasimodo the Bellringer; another great performance of his was Captain Bligh in "Mutiny On The Bounty; Laughton also excellent as the campy Dr. Moreau in "Island Of Lost Souls. This version of "The Hunchback Of Notre Dame" is the best of several and is certainly a film classic; memorable in every way. A must watch for the whole family. This is vivid storytelling at its best!

The remake of "House On Haunted Hill" is an exceptionally well conceived and executed film, with fine production by Robert Zemeckis& Co., sharp direction by William Malone (an ardent fan of the 1958 original), taut scripting by Malone and Dick Beebe (Beebe who incidentally, coscripted the original), and good performances by the cast. Peter Graves in a cameo appearance. HOHH 1999 more or less adheres to the original with some differences; first and foremost it being more serious, with its horrid backstory and graphic violence. This film is definitely not recommended for viewing by small children and those prone to nightmares, as there are lots of disturbing, sadistic scenes; with some profanity and brief nudity also. Not since "Silence Of The Lambs" and the "Hellraiser Series" have I been subjected to so many shocking, gruesome images. Another difference, a fresh and interesting twist, is that the house is not a house per se, but rather a former mental institution converted into living quarters. This variation is integral to understanding and supporting the backstory. The film has a brisk pace with little dragging "expository lumps"; the crucial backstory is seamlessly insinuated into the current events. The soundtrack is on the mark, conveying the sinister tone and atmosphere with modern rock music tracks and even an "Addams Family" type composition thrown in to pay a brief tribute to the more light-hearted tone of the original film. The characters are standard stereotypes, but are played well within the context, and by mid-story, it is predictable as to who exactly will survive the ordeal, not that that is seriously distracting. The standouts of the show are former Oscar Winner, Geoffrey Rush (in the Vincent Price role) as Steven Price, and Famke Janssen as Evelyn, as his Significant Other. Both deliver great performances, both individually and in tandem, as they remain faithful to the Vincent Price/Carol Ohmart adversarial relationship: some delicious/vicious, catty dialogue between the twosome. I can't say that I snickered and grinned that much throughout this remake, like I did during the original, but I don't think that was ever part of Malone's intention. (He had stated in pre-production that he "wanted to capture the flavor of the original, while putting it into a modern context".) In conclusion, while HOHH 1999 certainly remains indebted to the 1958 original, it can stand firmly upon its own merits, and undoubtedly will achieve a reputation as one of the better horror films of the 90's.

I have conflicting emotions about the 1987 horror film, "Hellraiser", based on British writer, Clive Barker's novella, "The Hellbound Heart". While the basic concept is fascinating - involving unfortunate people who open puzzle boxes akin to a Pandora's Box From Hell, thereby unleashing a motley crew of demonic denizens called Cenobites to plague them - and the makeup and special effects being highly effective, if not horrific; the film's incoherent storyline and relentlessly grim atmosphere made viewing a somewhat mixed experience. Perhaps it was the film's utter lack of humor (recall Freddy Kruger's wit), pervading cynicism and sense of despair that

subliminally discomforted me the most. "Hellraiser" is not a particularly frightening film, but it is an effectively gut-wrenching, gruesome one. With a better script and a few deft strokes of levity, it might have become a genuine horror classic; nevertheless, in spite of it's shortcomings, it has managed to attract a dedicated cult following. "Hellraiser's" cult status, arose mainly due to it's outstanding character, Pinhead, the Head Cenobite (played superbly by Doug Bradley). Pinhead is unspeakably cruel and takes great sadistic pleasure in tormenting his victims. I even think that he might have a dual sadomasochistic element within him, as he too was once human and suffered the same torments, and seems to empathize with his victims in a perverse sort of way, i.e., he enjoys the scenario precisely because he can re-experience his own previous suffering vicariously, and at the same time, still relish the hellish pain he currently inflicts upon them! Very twisted if true! The multiple pins or nails that protrude from his face and bald head are stark, grim reminders of the the agony he once endured. "Hellraiser" is not for the squeamish, or those who have depressive maladies - if any film conveys an unremitting picture of eternal gloom and doom, of suffering and damnation, it is this one. Paradoxically, "Hellraiser" is entertaining to the extent that it appeals to perverse, sadomasochistic elements that lie deep within the bowels of human nature. Gruesomely repulsive on one level, yet morbidly fascinating on another. Perhaps the redeeming value of "Hellraiser" is an educational one, that is, it presents atheists and other secularists who discount traditional notions of Hellfire and Brimstone, with the distinct, thought-provoking possibility that a different, far more bizarre kind of Transdimensional Hell might exist.

Francis Coppola's famous quote, "This is not a film ABOUT Vietnam; this film IS Vietnam", gives revealing insight into the filmmaker's intentions when making his visionary war epic, "Apocalypse Now". From that statement it is not difficult to draw parallels between the film and the war it sought to portray: both were long and costly; both began with a sense of purpose and ended with ambiguous, unsatisfying resolutions; and both displayed a surreality borne out of absurd imposed conditions that made it impossible to secure victory. This absurdity was aptly highlighted by Lt. Colonel Kilgore's self-satisfied statement, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning". It is not by accident that towards the end of the film, the mad renegade Colonel Kurtz read passages from T.S. Eliot's, "The Hollow Men". Without being specific, here a few from the poem: "Shape without form, shade without colour...Paralysed force, gesture without motion...Those who have crossed with direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom...Remember us - if at all - not as lost...Violent souls... but only as the hollow men...the stuffed men...In this last of meeting places...We grope together...And avoid speech... Gathered on this beach of the tumid river" - ("Mistah Kurtz - he dead" - 1925). "If all war is hell, then the Vietnam War was a patently absurd one" is the statement I believe Mr. Coppola attempted to make in "Apocalypse Now".

I feel it is appropriate to use John W. Campbell Jr.'s 1938 novella, "Who Goes There?", as a baseline by which to compare the two films that strived to bring it to the screen; that is, "The Thing(From Another World)" released in 1951, and "The Thing" released in 1982. Keep in mind that I consider Campbell's tale one of the best sci-fi horror stories ever written, and that it would be quite a feat to successfully adapt it to cinema. The 1951 film, directed by Christain Nyby, deviated so much from the story that it is difficult to draw many parallels between the two. In the story, the alien is a 4 ft tall being with three red eyes, rubbery,blue,wormlike hair and multiple razor- sharp tentacles. This alien "chameleon" is so intelligent that its species figured out long ago how to imitate any living creature through DNA duplication and replication. This uncanny, insidious imitation extended to the personality and mind of it's victims. The end of the story further highlights its superior intellect by featuring a strap-on anti-gravity device powered by a small atomic generator that it had built within the mere span of one week by scrounging spare parts at the compound - coiled wires, radio tubes, coffee-tins, glass, magnets, leather and cloth belts, etc. The alien was killed before it could make it's escape and eventually imitate the living composition of the entire planet! In the 1951 film version, the alien is portrayed as an 8 ft tall hairless Frankenstein-like humanoid, with flesh of a vegetable- like quality which needed blood to reproduce itself through seedpods. The film is standard horrorfare, with the expedition crew uniting together to fight and destroy the alien menace, which they eventually did, via electrocution. The alien is not characterized as particularly intelligent, rather as a rampaging, blood-thirsty monster; making it hard to imagine such a brute was advanced enough to participate in interstellar travel. So while, "The Thing(From Another World) featured excellent direction, acting, dialogue, score and so forth under the watchful eye of producer/shadow director, Howard Hawks, I feel he took artistic license and deviated too much from Campbell's story. There was suspense and terror to be sure, but it lacked the pervasive paranoia that Campbell conveyed so well in "Who Goes There?" In sharp contrast, director John Carpenter's 1982 version, "The Thing", both brilliantly captures the alien's insidious chameleon-like powers (through Rob Bottin's effects) and the paranoia it induced amongst the expedition's crew. Instead of bonding together as a cohesive unit as in the 1951 film, to fight a readily discernable foe, they fragmented in the face of a remarkably cunning enemy capable of imitating any one of them; they become deeply suspicious and paranoid of one another as any of them could be the alien in disguise, and they literally ask, "is it really you, WHO GOES THERE?"; echoing the name of the novella's title. This situation runs counter to classic character development, as how could anyone be stable and well-defined with their core-identity as such risk? Who's who? who's the good guy? bad guy? Perhaps a little unsettling to viewers and critics. I think this film has received a battering from movie critics because they were weaned on relishing a steady, inexorable buildup of suspense and an inevitable resolution. However, in "The Thing", this suspense is permeated with a claustrophobic paranoia and sullen dread, generating an atmospheric ambiguity - something the critics weren't comfortable with, hence, rejected. Combine this ambiguity with the critic's aversion to the graphic special effects, wholly appropriate to the storyline, but misinterpreted by them as "gratuitous violence and gore", then one understands why "The Thing" got butchered in the reviews. Here, as in the Campbell story, MacReady is the acknowledged hero, even before he tested himself as human, for we instinctively knew he would be. However, in the story, MacReady, with the aid of several genuinely human crewmembers, kills the alien and in doing so, literally saves the planet. Whereas, in the 1982 film, MacReady, valiant as he is, just isn't powerful enough to stop the alien. Thus, the open-ended ending; the lack of closure being a disappointment to me; I immediately thought "sequel", but have yet to see one. Also, keep in mind that in the story, the alien starts and ends with his original form, whereas in the 1982 film, the alien never has a definitive original form, being relatively amorphous throughout. In the final analysis, I like both of these films, in spite of their shortcomings; namely, the 1951 film's failure to adhere closely to the story, thereby failing to capture the essence of the imitative alien and paranoid atmosphere it generated; and the 1982 film's failure to remain faithful to the story's optimistic ending. Actually, both films stand up fairly well when referenced to Campbell's chilling tale, and even better when viewed as stand-alones. One thing is for sure, both films have earned a secure place in my video collection.

Unfortunately nothing much happens in it. You could take all the embellishment, visual and sound effects, add them up and compare them to just one scene in the orginal "The Haunting", - the "bulging-door scene" - and they would generate only a tiny sliver of suspense and terror that it did. This will give you some idea of just how superior the original is to the remake.

Recently went to the discount theater and saw this film. I'd read nothing but derogatory things about it, but decided to view it anyway - heck, it only set me back 50 cents! A reptilian play on "Jaws" featuring a massive 30 ft crocodile that migrated from Asia to a peaceful lake in Maine. Acting Ok for this level; Fonda and Platt the best. The beast is quite impressive throughout the movie but responsible for the anticlimatic ending due to stupidity. (Animal activists will love how the brute is spared.) Their is humor in this film, Betty White, a dingbat who lives beside the lake, creates some giggles with her quirky relationship with the giant croc. In the final analysis, "Lake Placid" is an entertaining movie in spite of it's many flaws, and is actually scary at times if you approach it with a child's perspective. Worth a watch on video.

Don't let anyone fool you; this is Lynch's masterpiece, not "Eraserhead" or "Blue Velvet" (or "Elephant Man", although it is quite good). This destined cult classic won the "Golden Palm" award at the Cannes Film Festivel in 1990. While Cage, Dern and Ladd all give strong performances, it was Willem Dafoe who stole the show as small-time, rotten-toothed hood, Bobby Peru. A must see for all Lynch connoisseurs. And to mention Stone's "Natural Born Killers" in the same breath is blasphemy; that flick is nothing but a neurotic, nail-biting mess!

The premise of "Predator" and it's execution make this one of the alltime great sci-fi horror films. The premise - that of an alien hunting human-heads in the jungle for his trophy room - is simply ingenious; especially when those heads belong to special forces commandos who can fight back. Solid film

in many ways; credible performances, Arnold's best. Special effects superb; exciting pace which never lets up, you know Arnie's gonna eventually beat this awesome Alien, but you don't know just how. The excellent cinematography makes the most of the magnificent jungle setting. Unfortunately, the ending leaves much to be desired in terms of believeablity: there's just no way Arnie could have survived the thermonuclear bomb denoted by the Alien, not far enough away; not even sure the helicopter some distance away could have stayed in the air. Still, a great movie and one I enjoy watching from time to time. Funniest line (Arnold to the Alien): "You one ugly mudderf*cker!"