VSM: 1970s Science Fiction

Mostly this list is limited movies we haven't seen (except for Logan's Run, which we saw about a decade ago, and Close Encounters, which I think I saw once but too long ago to remember), which is why obvious choices like Star Wars and Alien aren't there.

Very Slow Marathon #7 - 1970s Science Fiction
[note: You can find this from the sidebar, under "Very Slow Marathons."]

1. The Andromeda Strain, 1971
2. THX 1138, 1971
3. Silent Running, 1972
4. Solaris, 1972
5. Soylent Green, 1973
6. Westworld, 1973
7. Fantastic Planet, 1973
8. The Stepford Wives, 1975
9. Logan's Run, 1976
10. Close Encounters of the Third Kind, 1977
11. Invasion of the Body Snatchers, 1978
12. Time After Time, 1979

(2001: A Space Odyssey)

from my 1st Ebert’s Great Movies Marathon, part 13 of 13

2001: A Space Odyssey, 1968... I've got nothing new to add to my earlier post: linkity link.

"Lily and Jim"

"Lily and Jim" (short), 1997. An awkward blind date. Directed by Don Hertzfeldt. Written by Hertzfeldt, with Karin Anger & Robert May. Starring Anger & May.

Concept: 2/4 (Indifferent)
Story: 2/4 (Indifferent)
Characters: 3/4 (Good)
Dialog: 3/4 (Good)
Pacing: 4/4 (Great)
Cinematography: 2/4 (Indifferent)
Special effects/design: 3/4 (Good)
Acting: 3/4 (Good)
Music: 2/4 (Indifferent)
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay, 2/4). Fairly funny, but rough.
Objective Rating (Average): 2.6/4 (Good)

(The Godfather)

from my 1st Ebert’s Great Movies Marathon, part 12 of 13

The Godfather, 1972.  ...I don't really have anything new to add to my post on this from about a year ago, so here's a link to that.

Harold and Maude

Harold and Maude, 1971. A morbid, rich teenager falls in love with a crazy old lady. Directed by Hal Ashby. Written by Colin Higgins. Starring Ruth Gordon, Bud Cort & Vivian Pickles.

Concept: 2/4 (Indifferent)
Story: 3/4 (Good)
Characters: 4/4 (Great)
Dialog: 4/4 (Great)
Pacing: 3/4 (Good)
Cinematography: 3/4 (Good)
Special effects/design: 3/4 (Good)
Acting: 3/4 (Good)
Music: 4/4 (Great)
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great, 4/4). Re-watching it for the first time in several years, I started off annoyed at how self-absorbed Maude is (not annoyed that the character's written that way, mind you, but annoyed with Maude personally - the character's too entertaining to want her to be different). But as little hints of her life are dropped here and there, I came around to understanding her a little, and seeing the events of the film in a different perspective - as the conclusion to a long, tragic story.
Objective Rating (Average): 3.3/4 (Very good)

(update of a previous post - original is here)

"Genre"

"Genre" (short), 1996. An animator torments his cartoon rabbit. Written and directed by Don Hertzfeldt.

Concept: 1/4 (Bad). It was great concept, when Chuck Jones did it.
Story: 1/4 (Bad). No story.
Characters: 2/4 (Indifferent)
Dialog: n/a
Pacing: 3/4 (Good)
Cinematography: 2/4 (Indifferent)
Special effects/design: 3/4 (Good)
Acting: 3/4 (Good)
Music: 2/4 (Indifferent)
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay, 2/4). Funny but derivative.
Objective Rating (Average): 2.1/4 (Okay)

The Passion of Joan of Arc

from my 1st Ebert’s Great Movies Marathon, part 11 of 13

La passion de Jeanne d'Arc, 1928. The heresy trial of Joan of Arc. Directed by Carl Theodor Dreyer. Written by Dreyer & Joseph Delteil. Starring Maria Falconetti.

Concept: 3/4 (Good)
Story: 4/4 (Great). Although a detailed plot synopsis would sound like an unremarkable historical drama, the execution of the writing is absolutely perfect.
Characters: 4/4 (Great)
Dialog: 4/4 (Great). It's taken from the transcripts of the actual trial. I never expected to see this level of realism in the dialog of a movie earlier than the 50s, much less in a silent.
Pacing: 4/4 (Great)
Cinematography: 4/4 (Great)
Special effects/design: 4/4 (Great)
Acting: 4/4 (Great). One of the greatest performances, ever.
Music: 4/4 (Great)
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites, 4/4 5/4). Emotionally powerful, intellectually fascinating, visually striking, and entirely unique.
Objective Rating (Average): 3.9/4 4.0/4 (Great)

Doctor Who #149: Paradise Towers

Doctor Who: "Paradise Towers," 1987 (the second story of four from season twenty-four). Something is killing people in a dystopian apartment building. Directed by Nicholas Mallett. Written by Stephen Wyatt. Starring Sylvester McCoy, Bonnie Langford, Richard Briers & Howard Cooke.

Concept: 1/4 (Bad)
Story: 1/4 (Bad). At least it makes sense. It's full of plot holes, but it makes enough sense that you can identify the plot holes. That's pretty good for late 80's Doctor Who.
Characters: 1/4 (Bad). Some nice ideas for characters, but with terrible execution.
Dialog: 1/4 (Bad)
Pacing: 2/4 (Indifferent)
Cinematography: 2/4 (Indifferent)
Special effects/design: 1/4 (Bad)
Acting: 1/4 (Bad)
Music: 0/4 (Terrible)
Subjective Rating: 3/10 (Bad, 1/4). Silly, but a completely wrong type of silly for Doctor Who. It's like the writer had never seen Doctor Who, heard it was a children's show, and then... just didn't give any more fucks. Poor Sylvester McCoy - between this and "Time and the Rani," he really got a horrible start to his Doctor. If I'd been watching at the time, I might even have thought he was worse than Colin Baker.
Objective Rating (Average): 1.1/4 (Bad)

L'Avventura

from my 1st Ebert’s Great Movies Marathon, part 10 of 13



L'Avventura, 1960. A man and a woman don't find their missing friend. Directed by Michelangelo Antonioni. Written by Antonioni, Elio Bartolini & Tonino Guerra. Starring Gabriele Ferzetti & Monica Vitti.

Concept: 0/4 (Terrible)
Story: 0/4 (Terrible). The epitome of narrative vacuum.
Characters: 1/4 (Bad)
Dialog: 2/4 (Indifferent)
Pacing: 0/4 (Terrible). Not that it could have been improved - the sadistically slow pace is necessary to convince you that he meant to do this.
Cinematography: 4/4 (Great)
Special effects/design: 3/4 (Good)
Acting: 2/4 (Indifferent). I don't even know.
Music: 2/4 (Indifferent). It's good when it's there. It's usually conspicuously absent.
Subjective Rating: 1/10 (Eew get it away, 0/4). It's like watching paint dry. Completely, utterly awful. My wife says, "The word you're looking for is inane. Inane."
Objective Rating (Average): 1.4/4 (Bad)

Lilo & Stitch

Lilo & Stitch, 2002. A cute, fluffy space monster uses an orphan as a human shield against his pursuers. Written and directed by Dean DeBlois & Chris Sanders. Starring Daveigh Chase, Chris Sanders & Tia Carrere.

Concept: 3/4 (Good)
Story: 3/4 (Good)
Characters: 4/4 (Great)
Dialog: 3/4 (Good)
Pacing: 4/4 (Great)
Cinematography: 3/4 (Good)
Special effects/design: 4/4 (Great)
Acting: 3/4 (Good)
Music: 3/4 (Good)
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites, 4/4 5/4). I had forgotten how wonderful this movie is - right up there with Pixar's best.
Objective Rating (Average): 3.4/4 3.5/4 (Very good)

"Ah, L'Amour"

"Ah, L'Amour" (short), 1995. Women over-react to a man's advances. Written & directed by Don Hertzfeldt.

Concept: 1/4 (Bad)
Story: 1/4 (Bad)
Characters: 1/4 (Bad)
Dialog: 3/4 (Good)
Pacing: 4/4 (Great)
Cinematography: 1/4 (Bad)
Special effects/design: 3/4 (Good)
Acting: 2/4 (Indifferent)
Music: 3/4 (Good)
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good, 3/4). It's a loooong way off from the beautifully expressive animation that Don would do later. It's entertaining, though. And very short.
Objective Rating (Average): 2.2/4 (Okay)

La Dolce Vita

from my 1st Ebert’s Great Movies Marathon, part 9 of 13

La Dolce Vita, 1960. A jackass is a jackass. Directed by Federico Fellini. Written by Fellini, Ennio Flaiano & Tullio Pinelli, with Brunello Rondi. Starring Marcello Mastroianni, Anita Ekberg, Anouk Aimée & Yvonne Furneaux.

Concept: 0/4 (Terrible)
Story: 0/4 (Terrible). No story. No dramatic tension of any kind.
Characters: 2/4 (Indifferent). I'm torn here. They're very well developed characters. I mean, the movie does nothing but develop the protagonist for three hours. But he's so completely unlikable and unrelatable, I can't bring myself to call him a good character. Presumably this attitude toward him is my fault, not the movie's; so many people love this movie, they must be relating to him at least a little. I find that thought depressing.
Dialog: 2/4 (Indifferent)
Pacing: 1/4 (Bad)
Cinematography: 3/4 (Good)
Special effects/design: 4/4 (Great)
Acting: 3/4 (Good)
Music: 3/4 (Good)
Subjective Rating: 3/10 (Bad, 1/4). It's the sort of movie that gets heavily analyzed because the audience has Nothing Else To Do for 3 hours.
Objective Rating (Average): 1.9/4 (Eh)

(update of a previous post - original is here)

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, 1986. Kirk & friends time travel to the 1980s. Directed by Leonard Nimoy. Written by Steve Meerson, Peter Krikes, Harve Bennett & Nicholas Meyer; story by Bennett & Nimoy; based on a TV show by Gene Roddenberry. Starring William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy & Catherine Hicks.

Concept: 1/4 (Bad)
Story: 2/4 (Indifferent)
Characters: 3/4 (Good)
Dialog: 4/4 (Great)
Pacing: 3/4 (Good)
Cinematography: 2/4 (Indifferent)
Special effects/design: 3/4 (Good)
Acting: 3/4 (Good)
Music: 2/4 (Indifferent)
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great, 4/4). Nine times out of ten, when humor and the original Star Trek cast mix, the result is a disaster. But in this case, it's brilliant. It's not quite as good a movie as Wrath of Khan, but it's close.
Objective Rating (Average): 2.7/4 (Good)

Doctor Who #148: "Time and the Rani"

Doctor Who: "Time and the Rani," 1987 (the first story of four from season twenty-four). An evil Time Lady needs the Doctor's brain in order to carry out an experiment. Directed by Andrew Morgan. Written by Pip & Jane Baker. Starring Sylvester McCoy, Bonnie Langford & Kate O'Mara.

Concept: 1/4 (Bad)
Story: 1/4 (Bad)
Characters: 2/4 (Indifferent)
Dialog: 2/4 (Indifferent)
Pacing: 0/4 (Terrible)
Cinematography: 2/4 (Indifferent)
Special effects/design: 1/4 (Bad)
Acting: 2/4 (Indifferent)
Music: 1/4 (Bad)
Subjective Rating: 3/10 (Bad, 1/4). The first episode is okay. The rest consists of a cycle of various protagonists alternately escaping and getting re-captured. And the mysterious master plan that you're supposed to be in suspense over turns out to be plot-holed gibberish.
Objective Rating (Average): 1.3/4 (Bad)

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, 1984. Two people sharing one brain need to recover a lost body... in Space! Directed by Leonard Nimoy. Written by Harve Bennett, based on a TV show by Gene Roddenberry. Starring William Shatner, DeForest Kelley, Robin Curtis, Merritt Butrick & Christopher Lloyd.

Concept: 3/4 (Good). So, if I was going to pick a classic episode for a movie to emulate, "Spock's Brain" wouldn't exactly be my first choice. But negative associations aside, it's a pretty good concept.
Story: 2/4 (Indifferent). Why are Klingons even in this movie? Because if you didn't have battles and fisticuffs, it would be too damn science fictiony, I guess. Okay, blowing up the Enterprise is pretty cool - but is it worth turning what could have been a unique psychological drama into a mediocre action vehicle?
Characters: 3/4 (Good)
Dialog: 3/4 (Good)
Pacing: 2/4 (Indifferent)
Cinematography: 1/4 (Bad)
Special effects/design: 1/4 (Bad). Most of the effects are excellent, but the entire climax of the film takes place on Planet Styrofoam.
Acting: 3/4 (Good). Shatner and Kelley are both surprisingly excellent. Curtis, however, is painful to watch. Who would have thought a movie could ever suffer from not having Kirstie Alley?
Music: 1/4 (Bad)
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay, 2/4). It's close to being a good movie. The script is quite nice, regardless of my pet peeve with the The Third Act Of All Films, Regardless Of Genre, Must Be An Action Sequence formula. If only that action sequence had been any good...
Objective Rating (Average): 2.1/4 (Okay)

"It's Christmastime Again, Charlie Brown"

"It's Christmastime Again, Charlie Brown" (TV short), 1992. Christmas-related sketches. Directed by Bill Melendez. Written by Charles M. Schulz. Starring Jamie E. Smith, Phillip Lucier & Lindsay Benesh.

Concept: 1/4 (Bad). Why does this exist? More importantly, why is it on video?
Story: 0/4 (Terrible). No story.
Characters: 3/4 (Good)
Dialog: 2/4 (Indifferent)
Pacing: 1/4 (Bad)
Cinematography: 1/4 (Bad)
Special effects/design: 2/4 (Indifferent)
Acting: 1/4 (Bad)
Music: 3/4 (Good)
Subjective Rating: 4/10 (Eh, 2/4). A relentless barrage of four-panel "jokes," animated for no apparent reason. All the faults of the 60's special, magnified, with none of the charm.
Objective Rating (Average): 1.6/4 (Eh)

"A Charlie Brown Christmas"

"A Charlie Brown Christmas" (TV short), 1965. A depressed kid is talked into directing the school Christmas play. Directed by Bill Melendez. Written by Charles M. Schulz. Starring Peter Robbins, Christopher Shea & Tracy Stratford.

Concept: 2/4 (Indifferent)
Story: 1/4 (Bad)
Characters: 3/4 (Good)
Dialog: 3/4 (Good)
Pacing: 4/4 (Great)
Cinematography: 1/4 (Bad)
Special effects/design: 1/4 (Bad). Points off for conspicuously absent sound effects.
Acting: 2/4 (Indifferent). The voices are perfect.
Music: 4/4 (Great)
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good, 3/4). Mildly wonderful. I probably saw it as a kid, but I have no memory of watching it before yesterday. So, I was quite pleasantly surprised to find out how good it is.
Objective Rating (Average): 2.4/4 (Okay)

Hellboy

Hellboy, 2004. A demon raised by the US Government fights supernatural badguys. Directed by Guillermo del Toro. Written by Del Toro; story by Del Toro & Peter Briggs; based on a comic book by Mike Mignola. Starring Ron Perlman, John Hurt, Selma Blair, Rupert Evans & Karel Roden.

Concept: 4/4 (Great)
Story: 1/4 (Bad)
Characters: 4/4 (Great). The development is pretty terrible, but there's enough Awesome that I have to give full points in this category.
Dialog: 2/4 (Indifferent)
Pacing: 3/4 (Good)
Cinematography: 3/4 (Good)
Special effects/design: 3/4 (Good). The CG is mediocre. The practical effects and design are great.
Acting: 2/4 (Indifferent)
Music: 3/4 (Good)
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay, 2/4). It's fun. There's some great action. But I remembered it being a lot better than it is. Maybe I had lower standards for a superhero movie back in 2004. Or maybe now that I've seen it enough that the cool bits aren't novel anymore, I'm less distracted from the mess of a story.
Objective Rating (Average): 2.7/4 (Good)

(update of a previous post - original is here)

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, 1982. An old enemy of Kirk wants vengeance. Directed by Nicholas Meyer. Written by Jack B. Sowards & Meyer; story by Harve Bennett, Sowards & Samuel A. Peeples; based on a TV show by Gene Roddenberry. Starring William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley & Ricardo Montalban.

Concept: 4/4 (Great). Revenge is a great motive for any action movie. And on top of that, this movie's a polar opposite of the first one - not that it's necessarily a better direction, but it's great that it's such a different direction. You'd never get that kind of change of pace from a modern franchise.
Story: 3/4 (Good)
Characters: 3/4 (Good)
Dialog: 3/4 (Good)
Pacing: 4/4 (Great)
Cinematography: 2/4 (Indifferent)
Special effects/design: 3/4 (Good). The effects are great, but why are the bad guys a hair band? Maybe in the remake Khan will be emo. If only it had been made in the 70s, they could have been punks.
Acting: 3/4 (Good). Ham sandwich! But I'm okay with that.
Music: 1/4 (Bad). Oh, James Horner, you so awful.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great, 4/4). It used to be one of my favorites. Usually when I like a movie this much, it gets better with every viewing, but this one seems to get a little worse every time. There's no subtlety; what you get is just what's there on the surface. Still awesome, though.
Objective Rating (Average): 3.0/4 (Good)

The Wizard of Oz

from my 1st Ebert’s Great Movies Marathon, part 8 of 13



The Wizard of Oz, 1939. A witch and a lost girl fight to the death over a sparkly pair of heels. Directed by Victor Fleming. Written by Noel Langley, Florence Ryerson & Edgar Allan Woolf, based on a book by L. Frank Baum. Starring Judy Garland, Frank Morgan, Ray Bolger, Bert Lahr, Jack Haley & Margaret Hamilton.

Concept: 4/4 (Great)
Story: 3/4 (Good)
Characters: 4/4 (Great)
Dialog: 3/4 (Good)
Pacing: 4/4 (Great)
Cinematography: 3/4 (Good)
Special effects/design: 4/4 (Great)
Acting: 3/4 (Good). Garland is great. The rest are entertainingly hammy.
Music: 4/4 (Great)
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great, 4/4). Whenever I watch this, I try to imagine what it would be like to see it for the first time. I can never tell, but I do usually notice things that have previously been invisibile-due-to-familiarity. One thing I managed to pull out of it this time around was just how good a song and performance "Over the Rainbow" is. I mean, yeah, I've always known it's great, but this time it struck me how much it probably would have floored me if I'd never heard it before.
Objective Rating (Average): 3.6/4 (Great)

(update of a previous post - original is here)