As was the case with Flash Gordon, there is more than one film version of the project to consider. It all starts with the 1951 novel by Sf author John Wyndham, who also crafted for us the classic tale The Midwich Cuckoos later made into a fine film title The Village of the Damned.

Triffids was adapted into film three times, in 1962 as a feature film starring Jeannette Scott, in 1981 and 2009 as television limited a series each time. I have seen the feature film and the 1981 productions but I have yet to view the 2009.

The 1962 feature film is the production most people are familiar with. In the film the Earth is treated to a rare comet that produces a dazzling lightshow during the nighttime hours. Nearly everyone on the planet turned out to watch the event. The light show had a disastrous side effect; it renders everyone who directly viewed it blind. Our main character is a sailor being treated for eye injures and as such was spared the nearly universal blindness. In addition to burring out everyone’s optic nerves the comet also brought spores for a new plant species; the Triffids.

Triffids are mobile, carnivorous plants. They move slowly and are able to spit poison. Had the population not been blinded they would have presented a minimal threat, but robbed of sight people become easy pickings for the predators. The film follows a number or survivors as they battle triffids, each other, and their own inner demons.

The 1981 television version was a little closer to the original novel. The planets were primarily the result of genetic engineering, a crop meant to create a new supply of oil and hydrocarbons. I honestly cannot remember what caused the planet-wide blindness in that production. In the novel it was not a comet, but rather a malfunctioning orbiting weapons system that blinded the world.

The Day of the Triffids is worth seeing at least once so you can punch your geek cred card, but the film is too flawed for repeated viewings.

Okay I guess I need to touch on this, but as I wrote an essay about this not too long ago, this particular review will be on the brief side.

Tarantula may be the weakest movie on the themed movie list. While the giant bug movie are a fixture of the 1950s, most them, Tarantula included, are woefully short of anything approaching a decent story. John Agar plays the nominal protagonist of the story, but he is principally a reactionary character, driven by events around him and rarely affecting them. Compared to a tension building in better bug movies such as Them!, Tarantula leaves much to be desired.

Jack Arnold directed a number of monster movies for Universal, including The Creature from the Black Lagoon. When given a good script and decent support Arnold turned our film that withstand the test of time. When he had a decent script but limited support he still managed to produce film that were different and interesting such as the little know The Monolith Monsters, but Tarantula has neither of these advantages and lumbers from one lack luster scene into the next. The whole reason for a giant bug movie, the spectacle of an insect of unusual size rampaging the countryside is restricted to the film’s final act and mainly consists of a normal sized spider super-imposed on a background plate of a desert landscape.

I do own a copy, because when I wanted to see it the movie was not available on any streaming service, nor was the DVD available for rent. It was printed on demand on a simple DVD without bonus features. le sigh

There’s no getting around it, for all the dated dialog and social mores, for all the bits lifted from The Tempest, MGM’s grand and glitzy film Forbidden Planet is one of the most influential science-fiction movies ever produced.

Released in 1956, right in the middle of SF Films’ golden age, Forbidden Planet is both a dazzling journey, a paean to exploration and a warning, a call to be heedful of the consequences of your actions and your technology. It is the rare science-fiction story that can so strongly and so competently strike both thematic cords.

(I am willing to entertain the notion that we are currently experiencing a second golden age of SF movies, but that would be a very recent age. While I love Star Wars I do blame it for diverting SF films into pure escapism for several decades. With the exception of just a few notable movies after Star Wars SF is always presented as adventures that generally lack in thematic punch.)

Forbidden Planet is the story of the United Planet Cruiser C-57D mission to the main sequence star Altair, investigating the fate of an earlier expedition. Ignoring warnings against landing the cruiser grounds and discovers the expedition has died leaving a sole survivor and his daughter –born on the planet and therefore technically not a survivor of the expedition. A mysterious force, the same that killed the previous expedition, reawakens after 20 years and the crew is faced with a deadly implacable force.

The production design of the film directly inspired the feel of Star Trek when it aired ten years later. While Universal was know for its monsters and Warner Brothers were known for their gritty street-level realism, MGM was a studio known for massive productions of spectacle and flare, Forbidden Planet lives up the that MGM tradition. It looks and sounds great pus it boasts a stellar cast. (Yes, all puns are intended.)

Leslie Nielsen found a second career after Airplane! taking advantage of his tremendous comic chops, but before that he was a romantic leading man and that’s the role he fills here; the daring, handsome, and inventive commander of the C-57D. Anne Francis plays his love interest, thought she is not credible as a 19 year old girl she still brings charm and delightful mixture of smarts and naiveté to the role.

Walter Pidgeon plays Dr Morbius the mysterious survivor with a dark and deadly secret.

The cast filled out by wonderful and recognizable character actors who often had careers that spanned decades after this particular film.

Forbidden Planet is a treat and if you have not seen it, this is a must view for any serious fan of the genre.

Sunday morning my sweetie-wife and I caught an early morning showing of the latest Star Wars film and the first movie that focuses on characters not established in the main storyline or connected to those iconic people. In their bid to print endless reams of money, Disney is expanding the franchise and that is a risk.

The first of the ‘anthology’ stories is directly tied to the event for the first Star Wars which premiered nearly 40 years ago. In the opening credit crawl we were told that the Rebels striking from their hidden base have revolted against the Galactic Empire and in the battle stole the plans for the Empire’s new weapon, The Death Star. Rogue One is that story.

This is a movie that leans much heavier on the words ‘war’ than on the word ‘star’ from their sub-title. This is a grittier, darker, and more cynical view of the rebel’s revolt against the Empire. The good guys are not quite so good and their actions not always so justifiable. It does not drop down into a cynical level of ‘they are all the same’ so it is still a story with heroes and villains, but the heroes have sharper edges and are not engaged in a long form reenactment of Campbell’s mythic story telling courses. There is a hero character that when they are introduced their ruthlessness is sa cold as to make Han Solo’s original introduction very tame.

So, does this darker tone work?

Yes. This is an enjoyable and in many ways a more adult approach to the Star Wars franchise. The courses aren’t so clear and the costs of victory are much higher than in the simple fantasy fair of the first trilogy. Character death here is not checking off a box about having the mentor depart the story. Overall I enjoyed the film and the experience.

There are flaws in the film. I do not think it joins seamlessly with the very first film, but given the monstrosity that Lucas called continuity in the prequels this is a tiny quibble. A more serious flaw is the CGI human characters. There are two human characters represented by fully CGI effects and the uncanny valley prevented both from working for me. I was utterly aware that they were visual effects and not actors inhabiting the same space as their co-actors. It was a bold attempt but one that failed.

In the end this film is worth seeing and seeing in a good cinema.

I really enjoy King Kong. How much do I enjoy the classic 1933 movie? I have driven from San Diego to Los Angeles, a little over two hours each way, in order to watch the movie on the big big screen. (It was the Egyptian Theater, an old movie palace with a balcony. The film played beautifully there.)

Of course I have seen the 70’s remake, but that is a poor poor imitation of the exciting original. Also I have watched King Kong vs Godzilla and King Kong Lives! The often

forgotten sequel to the 70’s remake. This century saw another remake, this time from Kiwi director Peter Jackson. I own that version on blu-ray, a reasonable $7 purchase. Jackson’s King Kong is a decent 3 ½ hour movie with a really good 2 hour movie hiding inside it. It is overly indulgent, needs a serious edit, and is flawed in its approach to one of the original’s more likeable character, Carl Denham, but it still far exceeds the quality of the 70’s vision. (Which has an additional element of pain on rewatching due to the prominent placement and use of NYC’s World Trade Center.)
No in spite of all remakes and different takes inspired by the original movie in my opinion nothing matches the 1933 film for tone, excitement, and over all fun.

The story is straightforward and simply. An expedition to a distant island discovers dinosaurs and a giant ape. They bring the ape back as an exhibit, it escapes in New York City and after a brief rampage it is killed.
The thing that is missed in all the remakes is that there are no truly bad people in the story. No one is a villain. This film is almost free of cynicism, reveling in the thrill of exploration and adventure over making some statement about humanity. In that pure adventure
it reveals elements of humanity in a much cleared way than a dozen cynical ‘message movies.’

The 70’s remakes falls prey to the darkness of its decade, unable to resist to impulse to portray some classes of people as evil and others as good. Jackson’s vision is less political but equally cynical.

It will be interesting when next year we get Kong: Skull Island and find out how much adventure there is compared to how much cynicism

Wells published his novel in 1897 and the concept has fascinated us ever since. It has been adapted both directly and in concept several times, most notably in 1933 by director James Whale with Claude Rains voicing the titular part. (That itself is amusing. We mostly know Rains for his elegant style and distinguished voice, but his accent was an act. In home life he spoke with a cockney accent so thick people often failed to understand him.)

Most people know the plot. A scientist invents a serum that makes himself invisible, however the serum has an adverse event that also make the user insane. Power and paranoia drive the protagonist to his doom.

This however is a distortion of Wells’ original vision. The scientist, Griffin, is brilliant and does create the invisibility concoction, however he is, before the experiment, already vain, and amoral. Invisibility releases him from the consequences of his actions and frees the monster that always dwelt within him. Wells is making a damning statement on human nature with his story, one that most filmmakers omit just as they omit the sacrilegious subtext to The Island of Doctor Moreau.

Surprisingly in the horrid movie Hollow Man, a blatant adaptation of the story, the scientist is presented as an amoral man and so the theme of the movie is much closer to Well’s vision than the classic film. However Hollow Man is such a wretched movie that I could not recommend it at all.

The trouble with a review of Flash Gordon is which one do you examine? There is the original comic strip, created to rival the very successful Buck Rogers, perhaps the radio serials, or do you look at the film serial from the 1940 where the hero appears ‘silver underwear’ but also established many of the tropes that live on to this day? Of course staying with the cinema there was the campy 1980 film, a guilty pleasure for many people. Television has also gotten in on the act, there were repurposed serials, animated shows, and even a recent attempt at a dramatic live action program. I think looking at the wealth of material I will focus on the one best known to me; the feature film from 1980.

It surprises some people that I truly like this movie. Mostly my tastes in SF movies runs to the serious and films that don’t even try to hadwave their scientific discretions rarely work for this author, but Flash Gordon with its tongue in cheek campiness strikes just the right tone.

The entire concept, a sportsman from Earth (the original was a polo player by the 80’s be had become a football player and if made today perhaps he’d be into basketball) is the saviour of an entire people because he can teach them teamwork and fairplay, is fairly silly. Dictators are tougher to topple than that, but if you take that premise and run with it in a bright colorful and campy manner then it can work. There are several truly good actors in the cast and one that towers over the rest, Max Von Sydow. That man can take any line and make you believe the truth behind it. I own the blu-ray and I tell you half the reason I re-watch the movie is because of Max.

This is not deep and meaningful cinema, but it is fun and it knows when to wink at the audience.

For me, in a film of this nature, that is enough