Conference noted::sf

	Yes - right you are. We've tread this soil once in the distant past,
	but why not again? "E.T." was a cutesey combination of "The Outer
	Limits" and "Flipper", but then, you can't argue with success. E.T.
	was science fiction watered down for the appetite of the Laverne and
	Shirley generation - a real thought-provoker, if you follow me.

	But, hey - Spielberg can smell a dollar fifteen miles away. He knows
	what to kiss and when. Those of us who appreciate science fiction
	expect Spielberg to live up to our standards, but he's marching to
	the beat of a different drummer - a cash register.

	Too bad. For me, "Blade Runner" was the best thing Hollywood has
	ever done with science fiction. There weren't too many spin-off toys,
	but when you're dealing with Art, you can't have everything...

					call me a Hard Core...

						Max

I had an enormous amount of trouble with "Blade Runner" the first time I saw
it.  On the one hand, it had the best SFish atmosphere I'd ever seen in a
movie.  On the other hand, it had some of the most nauseating scenes of
violence I've ever forced myself to sit through.  In short, I couldn't decide
if it was the best or worst SF film I'd ever seen.

Several screenings and much contemplation later, I've gotten over the
violence enough to really appreciate the rest of the film.  I wouldn't say
it's my favorite SF movie ("2001: A Space Odyssey" still claims that
position), but it could be my second favorite.  I'm going to dedicate an
entire TDK HG videotape (in SP mode) to it; I haven't done that for many
movies!

					  -  o
					 - -/-->
					-  @~\_

					Roger

Well, since someone started this note, it's only fair to provide reasons
for my choices. People seem to agree that ALTERED STATES and BRAINSTORM
are real sf, so perhaps it would be necessary to explain why, but anyways,
I consider them such because they both extrapolate the results of a new
scientific discovery, and I think they both do a good job of it.
	As for BLADE RUNNER, it's basic plot was that of a hard-boiled
police/detective movie, but the idea behind it was what made it real sf.
It tried to examine the nature of humanity --- just what does make a
human being a human being? Most of the so-called humans acted less human
than the replicants, while the replicants seemed to be very definitely
human beings.
	While it did have its flaws --- mostly in its characterizations
--- I personally feel that BLADE RUNNNER is the best sf movie ever made
(sorry, Roger, I like 2001, too, but multiple viewings have shown flaws
that I have a hard time dealing with, even though I can tell that some
of them are things that Kubrick did for a reason). Actually, I'd have
to say that the best sf movie I've ever seen, in the sense of a movie
that is sf being better than any other such movie, would be A CLOCKWORK
ORANGE, but BLADE RUNNER, while not being quite as good a movie as ACO,
is not too far behind it, and is much better sf.
	Other "real sf" movies? Well, DESTINATION MOON is one; THINGS
TO COME; FORBIDDEN PLANET (sure it's just THE TEMPEST redone, but it
makes the transition into an sf context quite reasonably); THE LATHE OF
HEAVEN. Even STAR TREK--- THE MOTION PICTURE is a real sf film; even if
it wasn't very good as a STAR TREK movie, I still thought that as an sf
film it was quite well done. There are some films that didn't come off
quite so well, and/or might have had real bogus science in them, but
nevertheless all still valid sf movies. Examples I can think of are THE
BLACK HOLE and that old schlocker THE FLY, not to mention THE DEAD ZONE,
or Cronenberg's previous film, VIDEODROME.
	I think that there are probably more "real sf" movies out there
than one would at first think, probably mostly due to the recent trend
toward adventure fantasy in sf settings. The telling argument as to the
true sf nature of a movie, or even a book, is whether the premise could
be told in a non-sf (or fantasy, in the case of FORBIDDEN PLANET/THE
TEMPEST) context. In the above examples, I don't think so.

--- jerry

Ooops!! that should be "...so perhaps it would not be necessary to explain
why..." in the previous reply.                 ^^^

--- jerry

	I think it's the philospohical speculation of the consequences of
	technology in BLADE RUNNER that made it such excellent science
	fiction. That's a rotten sentence, let's break it down: BLADE RUNNER
	dealt philosophically with the future - is it good? is it bad?
	That "message", if you will, makes it genuine Science Fiction.
	OUTLAND didn't have it, E.T. didn't have it, and certainly not THE
	FLY.

	Whe can learn something about how we should guide our future from
	BLADE RUNNER. ATTACK OF THE KILLER TOMATOES has far less to offer.

Well, THE FLY counts (at least I count it) as "real" SF because it dealt
with the consequences of explorinng new technologies, in this case, a
matter transmitter. Certainly the film had a high "bogus index", but the
concept was there nevertheless.
	Your remarks on BLADE RUNNER are certainly on the mark, but I
tend to prefer seeing it as a statement on the nature of humanity rather
than merely a speculation on the future.

--- jerry

One of the greatest sf stories of all time is Frankenstein, by Mary
Shelley.  I few years ago, I saw a TV movie starring Michael Sarazin
that stayed true to the original story.  It was very impressive.  My
favorite scene was near the end when Dr. Frankenstein's creation
applauded him, thereby showing his ability to manifest forgiveness.
A definite yes for this one in the sf category.

Jerry,

I would never claim that "2001" didn't have any flaws, but it's still my
favorite SF movie.  I can respect other opinions; if we all felt the same
way, there would be no need for a NOTESfile.

I'm interested in discussing the idea that some of the flaws were things
that Kubrick did deliberately.  For example, the scene where Dr. Floyd is
conversing with some Russian scientists in the corridor of the space station
has always struck me as badly paced and stiff.  Do you think this was
deliberate, or am I misinterpreting it?

What flaws in particular were you thinking of?

					-- Roger

Mostly, I was thinking of exactly what you pointed out. Much of the dialog
was delivered very flatly. Even worse than the scene that you mention, was
the conversation between Lockwood and Dullea, where HAL reads their lips:
"Well, what do you want to do?" "I don't know; what do *you* want to do?"
I think that Kubrick intended to give us a bored/boring lifestyle to the
characters. Maybe to insert a "dehumanized society" motif, or perhaps as a
comment that humanity has reached the end of its current evolutionary step,
and is stagnating until it as a chance to go on.
	I see the ending as flawed, too. I understand the bit about Dullea
always catching sight of an older version of himself until he hits the Star
Child phase. Ontology recapitulates phylogeny: the evolution of a fertilized
egg to an aged human being matches the stages of evolution of a species. In
this case, Dullea's aging represents his evolution into a higher form of
life. However, the setting of the Louis Seize hotel room just looked silly,
like it was trying to pretentious Art. OK, I can see him doing that on pur-
pose, but it just got in the way.
	I'd try to think of other examples, but my brain hurts.

--- jerry

"Metropolis" is a REAL SF movie.

		bob wyman

SORRY, GOOFED THE FIRST TIME!!! Well, this is probably the first time Canada
gets into the act. My name is Otto, and I work in DEC's Canadian Headquarters,
Kanata (a suburb of our capital city, Ottawa). KAFSV2, for those who haven't	guessed, is KAnata Field Service Vax 2. Anyway, enough of the intro's...

SF is where it's at, eh! Being a true Trekkie, my idea of good SF films is
all three STAR TREK movies, particularly III. But I was also very impressed
by the made for TV film 'LATHE OF HEAVEN'. Not many people I've talked to have
seen it (or even heard of it). Seeing it mentioned here prompted me to respond.

I hope to see LAST STARFIGHTER soon, and hope to see more stuff here as well.

NOTES is great!!!.....

bye.

Welcome to Otto.

Blade Runner is, I believe, a superb science fiction film. Yes, it is a 
detective story, in terms of plot, and yes, it is violent. (The video tape
is much more violent than the original film. Apparently the distributor
felt that the only thing, or one of the major things, which appeal to the
"average" buyer is violence and gore. I hate that mentality, even if it
is accurate. Maybe in the future half a dozen versions of a film will be
released, one for morons who like violence, one for morons who are voyeurs,
one for people who can think and don't like gratutitous violence, etc...).

Anyway, after that long digression, I've always felt that the mood/atmosphere
of Blade Runner, combined with a story of real drama, make it extrodinary
in the genre'.

2001 is also an extrodinary movie, particularly for 1968. It is, however,
slow and boring. I think the acting is deliberately wooden, and the lines
deliberately banal. This is typical Kubrick style: he believes in
subtlety, sometimes to the expense of comprehension. A Clockwork Orange
is a more active film, and more violent, but the "message" is subtle.
Barry Lyndon is so slow, flat, and non-involving that Kubrick added a
title at the end to explain it. He is to Spielburg what North is to South.
Unfortunately, his films tend to get a bit too subtle, obscure and obtuse,
and may be too shallow- not enough richness to support a complex idea.

It could probably have 30 to 60 minutes edited out of it and be a "well-
paced" story, but that would detract from Kubrick's point.

Star Trek I could have 30 to 60 minutes edited out and not detract a thing.

Maybe that's a criteria for good filmmaking- if you can't edit it shorter
then the pacing is okey.

John O.

I HAVE TO AGREE WITH OTTO, ALL THE STAR TREK FILMS WERE GREAT SF.
2001 HOWEVER WAS BY FAR THE WORST SF FILM OF ALL TIME. THE STORY IS SLOW
AND THE PLOT REMINISCENT OF A DAYTIME SOAP OPERA.


                                     ERIC

As a kid, movies like "Godzilla", "Rodan", and "Gorgo" were *real*
science fiction.  I'm not sure if I would say so today.  I haven't any
of these movies in years, but I remember the last time I was "Godzilla"
I was shocked at how phoney the special effects looked.  How could I
have overlooked that as a kid?  I guess kids can get into the story and
not be bothered with "details". 

As far as I'm concerned "War of the Worlds" is the best science fiction 
movie of all time.  It's a classic.  The special effects are still 
impressive. The acting was decent. And most importantly, it's still 
enjoyable to watch.

Not to defend the "SF-ness" of Godzilla or Rodan, but it's not really
fair to imply that they weren't SF simply because of phoney special
effects.

Besides, one or two of those Japanese monster movies were vaguely SF.
Most of the monsters were long-lost "dinosaur" type creatures, while
some were aliens (or imported creatures, anyway) from some other planet.
Many of them really didn't want to get into a fight with us, and it was
more the human aversion to 500 foot behemoths with immense teeth which
caused the narrow-minded humans to attack THEM.  Although it wasn't
treated primarily as a call for open-minded tolerance, the message could
be easily inferred.  As I remember, Godzilla and Rodan even helped to
protect us from some nasty space-creatures once (oh my, now THAT was an
hilarious movie!)

2001 was a landmark in SF movies, mostly.  It really wasn't extremely
strong SF, from any point of view, but it was a nice story, and it was
well presented on screen, with class and dignity, and a reasonable amount
of humor.

The Trek movies have been good SF movies, too -- but again, they haven't
been very strong SF.  They weren't intended to be.  It's our old Star
Trek friends waving hello at us after all these years, and that's enough.
For now.  ST IV had better start being SF, however, or those waves will
start to wear thin.  So far, the TV series was much better SF than the
movies, regardless of the fact that they weren't as well presented.

Brainstorm was a good SF story told in a good SF movie, but it had a pretty
narrow scope.  

Basically, I guess I'm really still waiting for a good movie which is also
good, solid SF.

	/dave

It never occurred to me to claim Godzilla and his ilk weren't sf because of
phoney special effects. There isn't a reasonable scientific explanation (even
at the time they movies were made) of their existence.

Could you please explain why you don't think 2001 is strong sf?

--- jerry

Well, I think we've been straying from the idea of what constitutes a
"real" SF film.

	Ben Bova pointed out that the first SF film to win an Oscar
for other than "Best Special Effects" was _Charly_, which you might
recall was derived from "Flowers For Algernon."  A >real< SF film
is, or ought to be one in which, like a SF book, story, or essay, is
not at variance with science/technology-as=known-at-the-time.  Thus,
_The Fly_ couldn't be SF simply because of the square-cube law, diff-
erent biochemestries, exoskeletal/endoskeletal interfacing difficulties,
nerve coupling, etc.  _Destination Moon_ did its damndest to be atrue
SF film, and ended up as a rather colorless lecture on how to get to
the moon given an atomic rocket.  the basic flight almost exactly
followed Woody Woodpecker's in the film-within-the-film.

	"Real" films?  How about _Things To Come_?  H. G. Welles was a
direct contributor to the screenplay, after all.  Nowadays, we know
the "space gun" was a silly idea, but since the mechanism wasn't outlined
in detail, it was still a _possible_ future.  _The Twonky_, grade B-
though it was, could qualify.  It was even taken from a Kuttner short of
the same name.  

	There aren't many films that could qualify to the standards we 
usually hold books to, but there are some.

SK

    	2001: A Space Odyssey is THE BEST SF MOTION PICTURE EVER MADE!
    
    	(an unbiased opinion.)
    
    	Larry
    

    re "ontology recapitulates phylogeny" (.9)
    
    please excuse the small flame to follow.
    
    that may be a catchy phrase for people who likes big words (like
    high school biology teachers) but it isn't really true.
    
    Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay about this phrase (collected in
    _Ever_Since_Darwin_). His argument is that when you actually look
    carefully at evolutionary stages, the exact opposite occurs. Let
    me explain; "ontology...." states that the adult forms of evolutionary
    precursors are mimicked during the embryonic devolopment of a species.
    What appears to actually happen is that the adult form mimics the
    childhood form of its evolutionary precursor. He goes on to verify
    this statement with the similarities between adult humans and infant
    chimpanzees (large skull, small jaw, non-opposed big-toe, etc).
    
    This view "explains" why the starchild of 2001 assumed the form
    of a human fetus.
    Maybe the scene in the hotel room was based on "ontology ..." but
    even that would be stretching it, since he didn't actually go through
    any "recapitulation" of previous evolutionary stages.
    I once had that sequence of time confusion in the hotel room
    "figured-out", but I think I was insane at the time and I can't
    remember (it made perfect sense at the time).
    
    By the way, 2001 is indeed the best SF movie of all time. It may
    not be the best SF story of all time, but it IS the best movie.
    
    sm

    Just by the bye, that should be "ontogeny," not "ontology."
    
    ESW

    yeah, then it would be "ontology recapitulates philology", which
    has a nice ring to it too.  "I speak therefore I am"?
    
    len.
    

    Help stamp out philately?
    

    Re: .3
    
    Just happened to be doing some old note browsing...
    
    Jerry, do you have ESP?  Pretty good intuition to mention Cronenberg
    and The Fly in the same sentence 2 years before Cronenberg's remake
    of The Fly was released...
    
    Dave
        

    re:.26
    
    How about that? I'm sure that I wasn't aware then that Cronenberg
    was going to remake THE FLY, or I most likely would have mentioned
    it. Bee-zar.
    
    --- jerry

I saw an interesting SF movie called The Quiet Earth.  It is 
available in any VCR tape rental store.  The premise: scientists
from different nations are working on a secret method of deriving
energy inexpensively by using the Earth's magnetic field...but they
screw up.  They screw up not so much in their methodology, but in
the fact that certain nations involved were still paranoid about
sharing research with the others...they wanted it all for tthem-
selves.  Their screw up results in altering physical constants in
the local universe, G, etc.   The upshot is that everyone is
instantly vaporized - except whoever was between here and there -
that is, people who were dying at that exact moment.  So, 3 people
were left in an area that was probably England.  The 3: one of
THE scientists (a man), a naturalist-cultist type (a man), and a
woman.  Guess who gets to carry on the species.  This movie has
interesting ideas, not so much special effects.  The last scene
is neat, though not spectacular in FX:  this local corner of the
universe, with new physical constants, ends with Saturn rising as
waves lap upon the beach.
- Jim
                    <<< Note 104.11 by KAFSV2::HASIBEDER >>>

    Seems that's been discussed in here somewhere.  Try a search...
                                                          
    							Don

    	See Topic 570.
    

    I was looking thru the cable guide last night and I noticed that
    Cinemax will be showing a movie called Heavy Metal 2 nights this
    month.  Did anyone else notice this?  Is this really the Heavy Metal
    discussed somewhere else in here (which I could not find BTW)
    
    It will be on at 3:45 am on the 6'th and 4:05 am on the 18'th (I
    think)

                dont know  what  was  discussed here earlier, but
                the one showing  is  the  r  rated  cartoon/scifi
                movie that you cant get anywhere on videotape.\
                
                - rob 
                

>>                dont know  what  was  discussed here earlier, but
>>                the one showing  is  the  r  rated  cartoon/scifi
>>                movie that you cant get anywhere on videotape.\
                
>>                - rob 
                

I have yet to see this movie available on videotape...  There was just a 
discussion in USENET on alt.cult-movies about it being available on video.
The consensus was that it is NOT legitamately availble for sale or renting.
This apparently stemmed from a legal dispute over some bit or piece of
music used in the film.  See alt.cult-movies for the details.

Definately recommend it!  Definately tape the flick!

brad

Article: 2411
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews
From: leeper@mtgzfs3.att.com (Mark R. Leeper)
Subject: REVIEW: Neglected Fantasy and Science Fiction Films
Organization: AT&T, Middletown NJ
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 15:30:17 GMT
Sender: ecl@mtgpfs2.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
 
[Followups to rec.arts.sf.movies.  -Moderator]
 
                Neglected Fantasy and Science Fiction Films
                       Film comment by Mark R. Leeper
		       Copyright 1994 Mark R. Leeper
 
     One of the things I like to do occasionally in my film reviews is to
make reference to some very good film that I doubt most of my readers have
heard of and that I would like to call some attention to.  There are a lot
of decent films, and a handful of very good ones, that at this point may
exist only in the film libraries of obscure television stations, and when
these few prints disappear the films will be gone.  I would like to generate
some interest in four of these films, if not to help save them, at least to
alert people that if you do get a chance to see these films, it is a rare
chance and you should give them a try.
 
     Of course, there are a lot of obscure films that are showing up on
videotape today, many of them very poorly-made films, and it is ironic that
some terrific films are being over-looked, but in each case I think I can
understand why some producer would think the film would not sell well on
tape.  There are three science fiction films and one horror film.  However,
none of the film has special effects.  Particularly for science fiction,
people have come to expect visual effects.  I guess they feel that if they
do not really enjoy the story then at least there will be something
interesting to watch.  These films are just actors in front of a camera,
perhaps with a very rudimentary make-up effect thrown in (but very little).
Three of the films are in black and white and unfortunately that is also
considered to be a strike against a film.  I still recommend these films
highly to watch for.
 
            THE MIND BENDERS (1962) (directed by Basil Dearden)
 
     This film combines Cold War thriller elements with science fiction and
a compelling human story.  A scientist working on sensory deprivation
commits suicide and is discovered to have been passing secrets to the
Soviets.  Was he to blame or could his mind have been twisted while under
the influence of the sensory deprivation tank?  The government decides to
experiment to find out.  Another scientist working in the same field (played
by Dirk Bogarde) is very devoted to his wife and family.  Can they change
that in his personality while he is in the tank?  This film is well-acted,
enthralling, and atmospheric.
 
             UNEARTHLY STRANGER (1963) (directed by John Kirsh)
 
     A secret project is working on space exploration right in the heart of
London.  The approach to exploration is a novel one.  Rather than sending
the whole human into space, they are working on a sort of technological
out-of-body experience.  Project your mind to another planet and there have
it take on physical form ... invasion by mental projection.  The rub is that
scientists on the project are being killed in some mysterious way involving
super-high energy.  And the wives of some of the scientists seem to have no
background that project security can trace.  The script is tense and the
acting is quite good, with a cast that includes John Neville (A STUDY IN
TERROR, THE ADVENTURES OF BARON MUNCHAUSEN) and Jean Marsh (UPSTAIRS,
DOWNSTAIRS).  (This film is so obscure that Leonard Maltin's usually very
complete MOVIE AND VIDEO GUIDE overlooks it.)
 
               DARK INTRUDER (1965) (directed by Harvey Hart)
 
     This film is only 59 minutes long and originally was intended as a
television pilot, but was released to theaters to play with films such as
William Castle's I SAW WHAT YOU DID--which it far out-classed.  Leslie
Nielson plays a detective in late 19th Century San Francisco whose foppish
appearance hides a man very knowledgeable and adept in matters of the occult
and the supernatural.  A series of unsolved murders and a friend's blackout
spells may be connected and have some occult significance.  Mark Richman and
Werner Klemperer also star.  The latter, best known as the gullible
commandant from HOGAN'S HEROES, does a terrific job in a sinister role.
 
              QUEST FOR LOVE (1971) (directed by Ralph Thomas)
 
     This film is loosely adapted from the short story "Random Quest" by
John Wyndham.  Colin Trafford (played by Tom Bell) is a  leading scientist
at Britain Imperial Physical Institute when one of his experiments goes
wrong.  Suddenly he finds himself in a parallel London in a parallel Britain
that has not been to war since the Great War in the early part of the
century.  Trafford here is not a physicist, but a popular playwright.  He is
also now married to a beautiful woman (played by Joan Collins) whose life he
has made miserable with his selfish ways and his philandering.  Can Colin
convince the world he is the playwright while convincing his new wife that
he is different?  Then there are plot complications that lead to a fast-
paced climax across parallel worlds.  Denholm Elliot also stars in the story
which is part science fiction adventure and part love story.
 
     Of these four films only the last is in color.  At present, the only
one available on video, UNEARTHLY STRANGER, is offered only by a tiny
specialty house, Sinister Cinema.  Of the four, only QUEST FOR LOVE has
played on New York area television in the last fifteen years.  I would much
like to get my hands on copies of THE MIND BENDERS or DARK INTRUDER.
 
           ADDENDUM FOR BOSKONE 31: ADDITIONAL FILMS TO LOOK FOR
 
                                FAUST (1926)
 
     Director F. W. Murnau is better known for NOSFERATU, but there is a lot
of good visual fantasy in this film version of the famous play by Goethe.
There is a terrific image of the Devil spreading his cape over a village,
and many other visual surprises throughout.
 
                            THE MAN WHO LAUGHS (1928)
 
     The story could be better, but Conrad Veidt is terrific in the role of
a man whose face is carved into a huge involuntary grin.  Veidt conveys a
full range of emotions through his eyes alone.  The grinning Veidt was the
visual inspiration for Batman's foe The Joker.
 
                                THE DYBBUK (1939)
 
     At times this is very slow but also at times a very effective horror
film.  This was a low-budget film done in Yiddish.  The "Dance of Death"
scene had become an eerie classic.  The story deals with a man's soul
returning from the dead to possess the woman he loved.
 
                            THE SEVENTH VICTIM (1943)
 
     Other Val Lewton films get more attention but this film is blacker and
bleaker than anything every done in film noir.  This is a solid mood piece
that stands above Lewton's other films.  A woman searching for her sister
runs afoul of murder and Satanists.
 
              NIGHT OF THE DEMON (a.k.a. CURSE OF THE DEMON) (1957)
 
     This film has gotten some attention because of an allusion in a song in
the ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW but it is rarely seen.  That is a pity because
it is quite a nice little supernatural thriller.  It suffers a little from
showing the audience too much too soon, but it still is suspenseful and
well-written.
 
              NIGHT OF THE EAGLE (a.k.a. BURN, WITCH, BURN) (1962)
 
     When Richard Matheson and Charles Beaumont co-write a screenplay based
on a novel by Fritz Lieber, you just naturally expect a good thriller.  This
story about an empirical college professor discovering that his wife and
several other professors' wives around him are actually witches is very
well-produced.
 
                                DEVIL DOLL (1963)
 
     This is a wildly uneven film, but it has many very good moments.  There
have been several attempts to do the stories of ventriloquist dummies who
have lives of their own.  This is the most intriguing treatment of the
theme.  For once the secret of the dummy is not a let-down.
 
                            CRACK IN THE WORLD (1965)
 
     The first and last ideas of this film are pretty silly, but in between
this is a fairly exciting super-disaster film.  Some of the visuals are
spectacular.  There is also some complexity to the characters.
 
       QUATERMASS AND THE PIT (a.k.a. FIVE MILLION YEARS TO EARTH) (1968)
 
     This film is finally getting a cult following and some recognition.  It
is much better known in Britain.  The model of what a science thriller
should be, it unfolds like a science fiction detective story uncovering a
discovery that has greater and greater implications about the nature of
mankind.  This is one of the great idea films of science fiction cinema.
 
              THE DEVIL RIDES OUT (a.k.a. THE DEVIL'S BRIDE) (1968)
 
     Richard Matheson's adaptation of the black magic novel by Dennis
Wheatley takes a science fiction-like approach to Satanism.  It is fast-
paced and at times fairly intelligent.  Also worth seeing is Hammer Films'
other adaptation of Wheatley black magic, TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER.
 
               WITCHFINDER GENERAL (a.k.a. CONQUEROR WORM) (1968)
 
     A vital and well-made historical fringe-horror film about one of the
great villians of English history, Matthew Hopkins.  Even Vincent Price does
a reasonable acting job.  The original musical score is actually quite
beautiful, though there is a version with an entirely different and much
less enjoyable score.
 
               SATAN'S SKIN (a.k.a. BLOOD ON SATAN'S CLAW) (1970)
 
     In some ways an imitation of the style of WITCHFINDER GENERAL.  A 17th
Century English ploughman turns up the remains of a demon and the artifact
exerts satanic influence on the children of the region.  This is a very
atmospheric film with an authentic historical feel.
 
                           COUNT YORGA, VAMPIRE (1973)
 
     This low-budget horror film redefined the concept of the vampire.  As a
reaction to the staid, hypnotic, and slow vampires of British horror films,
this film makes most vampires fast moving predatory deadly animals who hunt
in packs.  At the time this was pretty scary stuff and the film still has a
lot of its impact.
 
                                 PHASE IV (1974)
 
     Two mutually alien intelligences in the beginnings of a serious war.
It is really more about how each side collects information about the other
and uses its physical differences against the other.  Ants somehow develop a
gestalt mind and prepare to make themselves the masters of the world.
Visually very impressive with direction by visual artist Saul Bass (best
known for creating striking title sequences for other directors' films).
There is also some terrific insect photography.
 
                                   WHO? (1974)
 
     This fairly accurate adaptation of Algis Budrys' novel had film stock
problems (!) and could not be released to theaters.  That is a genuine pity.
Cold War story of its near future has a scientist important to military
defense in a bad accident.  The East Germans get ahold of him and return him
to the West more prosthetic than living matter.  Now the problem is, how do
you prove that he is who he says he is?
 
                              THE LAST WAVE (1977)
 
     Australian Peter Weir build his reputation on this strange, mystical
film about a lawyer who finds he might be the fulfillment of an Aboriginal
prophecy.  Images of nature out of balance and an intriguing story make this
story a real spellbinder.  This is a hard film to pigeon-hole and the
intelligence of the writing never flags.
 
                               DRAGONSLAYER (1981)
 
     Lots of films try to do Medieval high fantasy, but this is probably the
best.  With the death of a great magician, his young apprentice must see if
he has mastered enough of his master's art to destroy a terrific dragon who
is ravaging the countryside.  There are lots of nice touches in the script
and the dragon is the best ever created on film.
 
                               KNIGHTRIDERS (1981)
 
     George Romero says he got this out of his system and never has to make
another film like KNIGHTRIDERS.  What a pity!  This was one of the best
films of its year.  Superficially this is the story of a traveling
Renaissance Fair that features jousts on motorcycles.  But it has some
terrific characters and a theme of the struggle between integrity and
commercialism and between idealism and practicality.  And late in the film
the viewer realizes that the film has also been doing something else all
along.
 
                                LIFEFORCE (1981)
 
     Very few fans are willing to look beyond the naked woman and the
zombies to see what is one of the most bizarre and audacious concepts for
any science fiction film.  Vampires, we learn, are really beings that leak
lifeforce into the atmosphere like a tire with a slow leak leaks air.  They
must replenish the force regularly or they die.  Much as we put bacteria
into milk to multiply and make yogurt or cheese, some huge,
incomprehensible, amoral, alien race seeds earth with vampires.  The numbers
of these numbers will increase exponentially, leaking more and more
lifeforce into the environment so the aliens can vacuum it up.
 
                          A CHINESE GHOST STORY (1987)
 
     Hong Kong is making their own horror film movement for their own
audience.  There films are fast-paced, usually liberally laced with comedy
and martial arts, but also having some interesting horror concepts.  No one
such film is all that terrific (at least among the films I have seen so far)
but some are astonishing and full of unexpected touches.  Look for the
CHINESE GHOST STORY films, WICKED CITY, and MR. VAMPIRE (which must have a
different name in China since it is really about Chinese "Hopping Ghosts").
 
					Mark R. Leeper
					att!mtgzfs3!leeper
					leeper@mtgzfs3.att.com

    Saw this over the week-end. Based upon "La Jette" (sp?)
    
    An interesting twist on the time-travel scenario/paradox. 
    
    I recommend it, but if you go be prepared to pay close attention
    to everything; there are many subtle links throughout the movie.
    
    Dave

    Has anyone heard if/when "Starship Troopers" will be released?
    
    Dave

Looks like Nov. 7th, 1997 (from one of the web pages found through an 
Altavista search:)

http://www.islandnet.com/~corona/films/details/startroop.html

PeterT

    Talk about 'coming attractions'... I saw the preview in November!
    
    Thanks,
    	Dave