Ambush Bay (1966)

Director:Ron Winston

Writers: Marve Feinberg, Ib Melchior

Composer: Richard LaSalle

Starring: Hugh O'Brian, Mickey Rooney, James Mitchum, Peter Masterson, Hary Lauter, Gregg Amsterdam, Jim Anauo, Tony Smith, Clem Stadler, Amado Abello, Juris Sulit, Max Quismundo, Bruno Punzalan, Tisa Chang, Buff Fernandez, Joaquin Fajardo, Limbo Lagdameo, Nonong Arceo

More info: IMDb

Tagline: Their top secret mission paved the way for the man who said "I Shall Return!"

Plot: A Marine unit on a Japanese-held island in the Philippines tries to hook up with local Filipino guerrillas.

My rating: 4.5/10

Will I watch it again?  No.

It looks good, that's about it.  I'm surprised it's not better.  The pacing is slow, and I can dig it when the film calls for it or it's an interesting picture, but the drag isn't because it's necessary; it's just plain slow.  Most everything about it is mediocre.  The acting is sometimes stilted, leaving me wondering if one more take or two couldn't have gotten a better line reading but there's enough of it that makes me think otherwise.  It's neat seeing Mickey Rooney as a combat soldier and he acts his butt off (as per usual) but he's delivering some of his lines in the best tradition of a 1940s gung-ho picture made to boost the morale of the American people and her soldiers.  I'm not sure how dated that kind of dialogue was in 1966 but, in this film, it only sometimes works.  Don't get me wrong, I love that kind of dialogue when it's in those 1940s pictures or when it works with the film no matter what year.  The music even feels like it's a romantic war film with the lush strings.  I wanted to like this film more but it didn't happen.  My scale, by the way, is such that a 5/10 is obviously right down the middle, an 'OK' at best film.  Anything below that caused me boredom.  The more I look at how much longer is left, the lower it is.  This is one of the lesser major studio 1960s WWII pictures.  You're better of looking elsewhere.  The MGM DVD looks great.  It's got the fullscreen and widescreen (not anamorphic) versions along with the film's trailer as the sole extra.

The Postman (1997)

Director: Kevin Costner

Writers: David Brin, Eric Roth, Brian Helgeland

Composer: James Newton Howard

Starring: Kevin Costner, Will Patton, Larenz Tate, Olivia Williams, Rames Russo, Daniel von Bargen, Tom Petty, Scott Bairstow, Giovanni Ribisi, Roberta Maxwell, Joe Santos, Ron McLarty, Peggy Lipton

More info: IMDb

Tagline: The year is 2013. One man walked in off the horizon and hope came with him.

Plot: A drifter with no name finds a Jeep with the skeleton of a postman and a bag of mail and dons the postman's uniform and bag of mail as he begins a quest to inspire hope to the survivors living in the post apocalyptic America.

My rating: 7/10

Will I watch it again? No.

I've heard nothing but bad things about this picture since it came out.  It's not that bad.  Having just seen it for the first time, the only negative thing I've got to say about it is that it's probably twenty minutes too long but the film doesn't drag that much and it didn't feel like a three hour movie.  I like Costner's character. He felt more like a regular dude whose deceit set him on an unexpected path.  We don't get much in the way of a back story for him, the war or anything else and I liked that.  I dug the ending, surprisingly, with the one on one fight between The Postman and General Bethlehem.  It's predictable but it wasn't all that bad.  The Pacific Northwest scenery is gorgeous.  I would love to live there.  There's probably a 2 hour movie hiding in there somewhere but I think, despite the lag around the two thirds mark, it works pretty well.  The slow evolution of The Postman worked. 

Rocketship X-M (1950)

Director: Kurt Neumann

Writers: Orville H. Hampton, Kurt Neumann, Dalton Trumbo

Composer: Ferde Grofe Sr.

Starring: Lloyd Bridges, Osa Massen, John Emery, Noah Beery Jr., Hugh O'Brian, Morris Ankrum, Patrick Aherne, Sherry Moreland, John Dutra, Kathy Marlowe, James Conaty, Sam Harris, Judd Holdren, Stuart Holmes, Bert Stevens

More info: IMDb

Tagline: ZOOM through the Universe the Screen's First Story of Man's First Conquest of Space! GASP at the Daring Courage of Four Men and a Girl as They Thunder Between Planets on a Runaway Rocket! You've Read About It! You've Heard About It! Now SEE it!

Plot: Astronauts blast off to explore the moon. Because of craft malfunction and some fuel calculations, they end up landing on Mars. On Mars, evidence of a once powerful civilization is found. The scientists determine that an atomic war destroyed most of the Martians (who surprisingly look like humans). Those that survived reverted to a caveman-like existence.

My rating: 5/10

Will I watch it again? No.

I love it.  They give a press conference, with the crew, announcing the mission 15 minutes before takeoff.  Space travel is easy. 6 minutes before takeoff and the crew is still shootin' the shit outside.  The optimism of 1950 seems alien to us future-folk.  If you're looking for a great sci-fi outer space classic, this isn't it.  Let's break it down.  It's 77 minutes long.  The first 10 minutes is a lengthy press conference explaining the details of space travel and the ship that's taking these kids to the Moon.  At 15 minutes they finally take off.  For the next 35 minutes they're traveling through space, talking a lot about stuff that doesn't really mean anything and narrowly avoiding meteors (as they fly by you'll notice it's the same meteors after each set of 3 fly bys). Once on Mars it's another 10 minutes before they discover the Martians.  We've only got about 15 minutes before the picture ends.  They fight with the cavemen Martians, during which we get to see one of their hot Martian women, and then it's BLAST OFF!  Back to Earth which takes just a few minutes...BEFORE THEY FUCKING CRASH TO THEIR DEATHS ON EARTH!!!  But wait, it gets shitty.  We're told there were two survivors (presumably Floyd (Bridges) and Lisa (Massen) who professed their love for each other minutes before the crash).  I call shenanigans.

To answer Lavinia from Trbovlje, Slovenia...it looks about like that.

Crazy-eyed Martian broad.

I dig that they went sepia tone once they reach Mars but cool turns to laughs when you see them with their skin exposed.  I guess 1950 American kids were naive enough not to know that IT'S COLD AS FUCK ON MARS AND THE ATMOSPHERE IS SO THIN THE RADIATION WOULD BE DEVASTATING!!!  But, hey, who's nitpicking?  The science is so bad I started getting flashbacks of PROMETHEUS (2012).  Grofe's music for the Martian battle was great.  Good stuff, there.  But that only lasts for a few short minutes before it's time to go home.  At first I thought the ending was ballsy as shit until you learn that two survived.  When you see the rocket hurling toward the planet doing at least 75MPH you'll see that there's no fucking way anybody's walking or crawling away from that one.  They'd be pulverized into atoms.   But, hey.  With these 50s sci-fi pictures, sometimes you dig 'em and sometimes you don't.  This one's right in the middle.  Watch it for the few minutes on Mars and the bullshit cop out ending.

Planet of the Apes (2001)

Director: Tim Burton

Writers: Pierre Boulle, William Broyles Jr., Lawrence Konner, Mark Rosenthal

Composer: Danny Elfman

Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Tim Roth, Helena Bonham Carter, Michael Clarke Duncan, Paul Giamatti, Estella Warren, Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa, David Warner, Kris Kristofferson, Erick Avari, Deep Roy, Rick Baker, Charlton Heston

More info: IMDb

Tagline: The battle begins November 20th

Plot: An Air Force astronaut crash lands on a mysterious planet where evolved, talking apes dominate a race of primitive humans.

My rating: 5.5/10

Will I watch it again? No.

Alright, so I'm burning through the sci-fi DVDs on my shelf, going through every one I haven't seen since 2007.  I saw this in the theaters with my dad and we were both amazed at how bad it was.  I can't remember what we didn't like specifically but we left the theater with a bad taste in our mouths.  Maybe the expectations were too high.  Well, now that I've revisited it, it all came back to me.  Wahlberg was a poor choice for the lead.  Heston was ideal in the '68 film.  Sorry but I have a tough time separating the two films.  As a film to stand on its own, this version is OK.  It's a standard, by the numbers action film with very little imagination.  As a remake, it's terrible.  The '68 film is superior in every way. 

How retarded is it that Leo (Wahlberg) is honestly trying to teach a chimp how to fly a spaceship?  And that's just in the first 3 minutes. It gets worse when that chimp arrives at the end to save the day at the precise moment he/she needed to.  That's bullshit.  A huge mistake is letting the humans talk. Visually, it's a dark film, the complete opposite of the original. We finally get some daylight desert shots in the last hour but even most of those are graded darker.  Carter and Giamati stole the show in the acting department.  At the opposite end of that scale you've get Estella Warren as the hot cave girl, Daena. She's just horrible, and it's obvious she's wearing makeup.  The story bears little resemblance to the original film as does about everything else (including the names) so the only thing they've got in common is that the planet (or at least these few square miles of it) are run by apes.  The ending was neat with Marky Mark's discovery at the, ahem, Lincoln Memorial.  And it's nice to see David Warner and Charlton Heston in the picture even for just a little while.  What's more, this in no way feels like a Tim Burton picture.  I remember years before this it was talked about Oliver Stone directing a PotA movie with Arnold Schwarzenegger in the lead.  That sounds a lot more interesting than this film.   The original was special.  It touched on a lot of social issues, gave us some great science fiction and managed to be a damn fine entertaining picture that's loaded with surprises.  This one's only surprise was that it's worse than we thought it'd be.  RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (2011) managed to correct that and deliver something fresh and intriguing and its sequel, coming out very soon, DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (2014), looks to be one hell of a ride. One thing every APES picture has in common...outstanding makeup effects.

Omega Doom (1996)

Director: Albert Pyun

Writers: Albert Pyun, Ed Naha

Composer: Anthony Riparetti

Starring: Rutger Hauer, Shannon Whirry, Norbert Weisser, Tina Cote, Anna Katarina, Jill Pierce, Simon Poland, Cynthia Ireland, Jahi J.J. Zuri, Early White

More info: IMDb & www.albertpyun.net

Tagline: Robots rule the Earth. Only one man can stop them.

Plot: After earth is taken over by an army of robots, the small number of humans left are forced into hiding. In the nuclear winter, only droids walk the face of the earth, in fear of the rumored human resurgence, and in search of a hidden cache of weapons. One robot, his evil circuits destroyed, enters a small town where a robot civil war is taking place. He tries to convince both sides to join forces in search of the weapons, all the while having a hidden agenda, and an affinity for one of the local droids.

My rating: 6/10

Will I watch it again? No.

What you've basically got here is YOJIMBO (1961) (and then A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS (1964) which this film has a riff on the "apologize to my horse" bit) in a post-apocalyptic world with humanoid robots calling the shots...that is until badass motherfucker Rutger Hauer, I mean Omega Doom, walks into town.  Hauer is his usual action flick, soft talking badass schtick which works well for the picture.  Norbert Weisser as The Head was great and he added some much needed comic relief.  Most viewers, myself included, will take issue with the picture's pacing. It's in need of a good bit of tightening.  It's not that bad of a picture but editing it to pick up the pace would do wonders.  Just shaving off ten minutes by turning the screws a little could fix that, but then you wouldn't have a near-90 minute film which, for some damn reason, seems to be the magic number for most pictures.  Another annoyance was the constant sound of the droid's servo gears or whatnot.  It's all over the place.  You'd think this problem would have been fixed by then.  This isn't the 1930s for cryin' out loud.  It could have used a better score, one that wasn't filled with slow, undercurrent pop/rock guitar riffs.  There are cues that I really dug but the overall vibe didn't help the film's biggest offender, the pacing. It's one of the better minor films Rutger Hauer made and it's not as bad as the internets are want to tell you.  Fans of BLADE RUNNER (1982) will have some fun with some off-the-beaten-path references.

Morons from Outer Space (1985)

Director: Mike Hodges

Writers: Griff Rhys Jones, Mel Smith

Composer: Peter Brewis

Starring: Joanne Pearce, Jimmy Nail, Paul Bown, James Sikking, Dinsdale Landen, Tristram Jellinek, George Innes, Mel Smith, Griff Rhys Jones, John Joyce, Mark Lewis Jones, Leonard Fenton, Andre Maranne, Moanna Dickens

More info: IMDb

Tagline: An incredible saga or love & hate that spans an entire universe.

Plot: Four holiday travelers from the planet Blob have somehow lost control of their rented spaceship and crash-landed on Earth. At first, the military and scientific teams assume they are higher life forms. But not for long. Idiocy is hard to hide. The stranded wayfarers are complete morons, content to drink their green beer, sing ear-splitting pop songs and talk to trash cans, which they assume are the planet's leaders. But not until an enterprising journalist decides to market their dazed innocence and turn them into glitzy superstars do they find their true mission to Earth.

My rating: 5/10

Will I watch it again? No.

It looks like they got shafted on the poster art.  It's interesting that this is from the same director as GET CARTER (1971), FLASH GORDON (1980) and CROUPIER (1998).  It's a silly and moronic film that's amusing every once in a while.  I probably laughed a couple of times.  The CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND (1977) gag with the organ was hilarious but that's about it.  The comedy is rather playful and fun and I can easily see how it can appeal to folks. Being a British film helps.  George Innes (as Stanley) took the cake for me.  He was great.  I'd swear I've seen him before but I couldn't find anything in his extensive credits that I recognize him from.  Maybe SHINER (2000) which I saw recently.  It could also be that he looks and sounds like Topol from the early 80s.  For the most part the film just kind of sat there, going through the motions for laughs only I didn't find it all that funny.  It's silly and harmless and that's about it.

Nightfall (2000)

Director: Gwyneth Gibby

Writers: Isaac Asimov, Michael B. Druxman, John William Corrington, Gwyneth Gibby

Composers: Brad Segal, Nic. tenBroek

Starring: David Carradine, Jennifer Burns, Winsome Brown, Joseph Hodge, Ashish Vidyarthi, Pradeep Singh Rawat, Tony Mirrcandani, Sushant Kumar, Smita Hai, Varun Vardhan, Malini S. Paul, Lalith Sharma, Manosh Sen Gupta

More info: IMDb

Tagline: The greatest science fiction story of all time.

Plot: When a distant planet's six suns slowly disappear, the population is overwhelmed with fear and superstition.

My rating: 5/10

Will I watch it again? No.

If you watch the trailer and think this is a straight-to-video type of picture you'd be right.  It is but it's not horrible like the internets say it is.  It's not good, either.  From what I gather the story is much, much better and this film version takes an awful lot of liberties.  After watching it I can see how.  It feels like there's a really good concept here but the execution of it turns it into a low budget actioner that takes place on another planet. That's about it.  The acting is what you'd expect for something like this and even Carradine has moments where he fluctuates from pretty good to autopilot. I picked this one up for a buck somewhere; the cover looked good, Carradine's in it and it's a sci-fi flick based on an Asimov story.  I expected more than what it delivered and you should, too.