boojam

Members
  • Content count

    5,807
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About boojam

  • Rank
    Council Member
  • Birthday 10/25/1940

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Texas
  1. Spielberg' s War of the Worlds has better SFX due to CGI but it has a muddled story and kind of crawls along, it's not as interesting. You really like Predator better than Aliens? Can you explain? Movies just because they are old? Not a very good reason, some the finest films ever made were before 1960. I don't think you have seen a lot of 40's and 50's films. Before 1950 there is only one that I know of that is a fine film that is Battleground 1949. One thing is during WWII almost everything was 'propaganda' and they after wards there was a kind of cliched idealism , there had to be some distance between the war before the stories were even accurate. The 1962 The Longest Day is as good as the 1998 Saving Private Ryan , D Day , but told in a different way. The 1970 Tora Tora Tora is a 100 times better than the 2001 "Pearl Harbor' . Can you name a better movie about Geroge Patton than the 1970 Patton? In recent times HBO has done the best WWII visual narrative historical dramas about WWII Band of Brothers and The Pacific.
  2. Man! 2001 makes any 'space travel' science fiction look archaic , and there really is no other BIG THINKS SF film that I know of. The War of the Worlds , 1953, has the Spielberg beat 4 ways from Sunday. It has better pace , is crisper, flat out more smart than the later one. Preditor was just a adolescent guess-who-gets-killed , Aliens was sort of that but with a ton more style! Did you just leave Aliens off? Predestination , seems you have not seen, is a quadruple down time paradox story told with a canny eye , clever and ingenious , not a popcorn movie. Terminator , talk about a stupid time paradox! If the underground had of NOT sent Kyle Reese back, John Conner would never have been born , Skynet would never had existed and the Terminator would not have been sent back. Stupid story , only thing good about those films was at the action sequences and I guess that's all people want??
  3. Which War of the Worlds? The 1953 version was better. Are you just talking films since 2000 or something like that? 2001 and Blade Runner (1982) trump all these , tho actually Blade Runner 2049 is a shade better than the original. Predator ... 1987? That one would not even be worth of smelling Aliens's (1986) poop! That is a poor 'alien' film. Passengers was quite mediocre (tho now an awful film) in the last 7 years that movie was totally trumped by Ex Machina and Predestination ... you gotta see Predestination. I am totally underwhelmed by the Matrix movies. Gad Prometheus and Alien Covenant ! Those are not interesting they are addled brain driveling by Scott.
  4. The Quatermass films are sure overlooked as decent to really good science fiction. Besides X the Unknown I don't remember other Hammer SF films. I still like Hammer's 'style' for the horror film, it was more engaging that about 25 % of the Universal horror. Alas when that didn't work for Hammer anymore they just flat went away. No one took their place , horror devolved into repetitive programmers like Friday the 13th and Halloween. Now we have even blander and less imaginative horror than ever before. Sigh.
  5. Donllevy was ok in that role, but I could not figure it either. I guess Hammer felt it would be better box office. Enemy from Space was at the better of the two, tho Creeping Unknown is good. The story in Enemy from Space (Quatermass II) had a sequence in I had never seen done before. Quatermass discovers an extraterrestrial alien base in England , so he goes to the authorities , but he does not tell them it is an Alien base, he makes up a lie they will believe to get them out there. Logical!
  6. Quatermass and the Pit was 5 Million Years to Earth here in the USA, it was the most clever to the Quatermass series which were all good.
  7. Category? I guess it is. The perennial question I prefece this by saying I have been reading science fiction for 60 years. Nowadays , many times, when people talk about science fiction they mean only movies or TV, because , seems, not that many people read anymore! From the perspective of a science fiction reader and among the long time fans I know the biggest disappointment is how little of the prose form source material has ever been adapted. Tons of Westerns and Mystery-Detective , as genre, have been but only a wisp of great science fiction prose has been. My favorite , and the only movie I know of that is 100% in the spirit and sophistication of the prose form is 2001: A Space Odyssey. And that is in the category of H G Wells - A.C. Clarke BIG THINKS science fiction, don't think we will ever see another of those. (Tho! weirdly the SyFy channel did an adaptation of Clarke's Childhood's End, which was respectful, tho a bit lackluster.) Back in the 1950's there were gems like , The Day the Earth Stood Still, a clever adaptation of War of the Worlds, Invasion of the Body Snatchers , the strange case of Forbidden Planet (Hollywood for some reason unknown ignored science fiction space-opera , it took till a TV show Star Trek for it be used again and then it was not common currency.) After 2001 I list Blade Runner (1982) .... In recent years there has been a handful of good SF films, Gravity (an alternate universe story), Ex Machina a smart AI story. An astoundly good adaptation of a Robert Heinlein short travel story called Predestination (raise you hand if you have seen it). Recently we had Interstellar (could of had a better story) , Arrival and really recent Blade Runner 2049 (which is a just a tiny bit better than Blade Runner). There have been good science fiction films starting with Destination Moon (1950) to recent movies like Children of Men , District 9, passable ones like Minority Report and the Matrix (I am not all that fond of The Matrix) and others, at least they are not Z movies. Times are sure a lot better than when I had to trop downtown to watch Z movie dreek like Queen of Outer Space , Plan 9 from outer Space .... and god! many others like them.
  8. I have not seen all Zack Snyder directed films , I was not a fan of 300 , in fact thought it awful. Snyder has been blamed for DC movie critical problems , I think he has a tin ear for big epic action films. It will a bit odd if Justice League really looses money, fans of this genre still barf about Suicide Squad but it made 745 million world wide , WB must have cried all the way to the bank.
  9. For me Wonder Woman was the best comic book movie I had seen since Dark Knight. I didn't like the smack dab ending but about 98 percent of that film undercut my expectations. Especially liked the framing. Someone is going to have to figure out an imaginative way to bring in the heavy artillery towards the end of comic book movies because my fun fatigue threshold has been exceeded for that , even in the best of comic book films. I thought that was what hurt Guardians of the Galaxy.
  10. I agree , I think Affleck is just fine as Batman.
  11. Yeah should have noted First Men in the Moon, I think that is my second favorite 'Harryhousen' after Jason and the Argonauts. H G Well got pretty good adaptations War of the Worlds (1953) (a nifty smartly done 'modern setting' , a very crisp film compared to the 2005 version, I wish Spielberg had left that alone.) The 1960 Time Machine , even The Invisible Man and The Island of Doctor Moreau. Nigel Kneale was a wonder of a screen writer , Quatermass and the Pit is a science fiction film gem.
  12. Knobs and dials do not make the engineering physics wrong. Destination Moon, 1950, had 50's state of the art instrumentation which would have worked! The rocket ship in that film was atomic powered , which could be done, could have been done, a few were built in the 1960s, but does not exist now as a form of rocket propulsion. Another case of science fiction trumping the present! All the controls and instruments in 2001 are not in any way obsolete in the present. We still don't have an AI like HAL , and it might even take a large scale solid state instrumentality as depicted on the movie to construct a HAL. We have no idea how to made a HAL.
  13. The 'Haryhausen - part' of "Haryhausen" films, you do know that Haryhausen did not write or direct any of those movies? The only thing good about: The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (1953) It Came from Beneath the Sea (1955) Earth vs. the Flying Saucers (1956) 20 Million Miles to Earth (1957) Is the VFX by Harryhausen. (Some say Earth vs the Flying Saucers has a good story, not that I could ever tell!) Not until Seventh Voyage of Sinbad did someone put a decent 'film' around Harryhausen. The best film with Haryausen FX and a good story was Jason and the Argonauts. Films around that were had a lot of mediocre stories. Especially disappointing was Clash of the Titans, once again great Harryhausen FX but thudding ponderous narrative.
  14. Why the word Obsolete ? Def: Obsolete - in or according to styles or types no longer current or common; not modern. Everything in 2001 is more than modern , all the technology exceeds anything had at present in this universe. I think the word you are looking for is 'transpire' or 'came to pass' , not obsolete. All the technological elements in 2001 are based on known physics and engineering physics that existed in 1968. This is the real triumph good prose science fiction. Take known facts and extrapolate them to a technology that can exist. Sometime I see SF used in the manner of "what was silly science fiction" has now become science fact. God I wish that kind of phrasing would go away!