Author Archives: Bob Evans

Sunday Night Movie: Speed Racer (2008)

I had an amount of curiosity concerning this film when it was released. As a child I had watched the American-ized version of the television show and been entertained by the impossible antics of Speed and his racing family. My interest and fond memories people were not enough lure back into the theater for this baby-boomer bit of nostalgia. I had frederic_speed-racer-2008seen far too many properties from the baby-boom picked up and turned into utter dreck by producers, writers, and directors who had absolutely no respect for the original source material. So Speed Racer waited until I got around to it on Netflix, because that is one thing the service is great for, taking risky experimental leaps in your cinema viewing.

The Wachowskis; the sibling duo responsible for The Matrix franchise and the film adaptation of V for Vendetta, directed the film. Speed Racer displays all the visual style and experimentation one should expect from the Wachowskis. The story is simple, Speed and his family are a small independent racing team and motor car company. (Pops, play by John Goodman, builds the race cars in his home garage.) Speed’s older brother has been disgraced and killed in an earlier off road race. Speeds own inherent talent has brought him to the attention of a major motor-company mogul Royalton, played with villainous flair that seemed to strike a resonate cord reminiscent of the acerbic Christopher Hitchens by Roger Allam. Royalton tries to seduce Speed into signing on a corporate racer, and when rebuffed turns his energies to destroyed Speed and the Racer family.

If you have watched the 60’s animated show you know that the program constantly dealt in absurd impossibilities, cars that leap great distanced thanks to powered jacks, fantastic weaponry, amazing capable pet chimps, and so on. Adapting this sort of material into a film usually calls for eliminating as much as possible these cue that are acceptable in animation, but shattering to suspension of disbelief in photography; this was not the approach the Wochowskis employed. Rather they embraced the animated style, integrating into it the live-action performers, mixing CGI that had been rendered to reflect the style of animation and not photo-realism, while layering in the actors as real people. (Even Chim-Chim the chimp is real not a CGI character.) The final product is both mad-cap over the top, and layered with character moments and performances.

The film disappointed at the box officer and I think the stylistic approach is the final culprit. The animation elements, I believe in form the viewer the accept one level of reality and the live-action performances ask the viewer to accept quite a different level of reality. The dichotomy of these two very different expectations creates a jarring effect that is quite deleterious to suspension of disbelief.

That said, if you can find a way to let your mind work on the two levels simultaneously, the film has surprisingly entertaining moments. It was clearly crafted with an eye towards the source material. From my memory the Wochowskis nailed every major plot and character element of the show, while adding a level of story that the television program never explored. It was a bold, brash experiment that failed, but I salute them as artists for their vision and the risk taking. They could have made a bland cookie-cutter film, but instead that took real risks and that should be rewarded.

Share

The Two Most Influential Science-Fiction Films of the 1970’s:

There has been a rather lengthy hiatus in this series as I dove into edits of my novel and composing a new short story, but I have returned to the topic, coming around to perhaps the most important decade in SF cinema except for the 1950’s.

First up I’ll discuss the moon-sized shadow eclipsing all SF films of the 70’s and later;

Star Wars (1977)Original-Star-Wars-Poster-1977

I think it is difficult for people who came of age later to appreciate just how monumental Star Wars was in the history of cinema. It is part of the triumvirate that created the block-buster phenomena that Hollywood continues to chase to this very day. (The other two films being JAWS and THE GODFATHER.) Science-Fiction simply had never been as big as Star Wars before and that sort of success casts a might long shadow.

Looking at SF films of the 70’s everything before Star Wars gets lost in the uproar of that space fantasy and everything after it is compared to it. While Hollywood had been moving in fits and starts towards adult science-fiction in the 1970’s with film such as The Omega Man, The Andromeda Strain, and Logan’s Run, the arrival of Lucas’ baby shunted all that aside for a generation as the studios chased after the next massive box-officer adventure.

However the influence of this movie reaches far beyond the pale imitations hurried into production and the senseless pursuit of massive runs, how we watch , hear, and make films changes because of George Lucas.

Today’s theaters packed with digital projectors, multi-channel sounds systems, and comfortable seating owe a great deal of their evolution to Lucas’ and his foresight and insistence on exhibition as well as film production. Behind the scenes, Lucas’ advanced the technology of film making more in the twenty years post Star Wars that in all the years following the introduction of synch-sound, Digital effects, digital processing, non-linear editing, these are tools that make todays production look vastly different to films short and edited traditionally. When you shoot a home video on your camera phone and edit it on your home computer you are participating Lucas’ revolution, it’s that massive.

Selecting a second film for the 1970’s is a very tough thing. Any film produced and released before Star Wars pretty much had any lasting impact erased by the tidal wave that is Star Wars, any film made after Star Wars nearly always is following and in some case just bolding stealing, from Lucas’ massive hit. Personally I came down to two post Star Wars films for my second choice; Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Alien. Alien has been copied endlessly since it’s stellar release in 1979, but I think the broader impact it had was that in theatrical films it pretty much, singlehandedly, destroyed the professional explorer set-up. Before Alien interstellar travel was the domain of military and para-military experts, after Alien’s ‘truckers in space’ approach the professional explorer for all practical purposes vanished from feature films.

However I am going to go with

sttmpuniformsStar Trek: the Motion Picture (1979)

After the success of Star Wars Paramount decided that the pilot that they had been planning for a new Star trek television series needed to be a feature film. The script wasn’t in great shape, and Roddenberry wasn’t an experience hand at feature film production. The $20 million dollar budget quickly vanished as the studio spent $40 million, the script was re-written as they filmed, and the production was troubled from the set to the special effects, but still the film was a hit, spawning a franchise of feature films that continue to this day, but I would argue that is not the lasting effect of Star trek: The Motion Picture.

The lasting effect came from the firing of Gene Roddenberry. Now out of the loop in the feature film department, he returned to his true love, television but this time with a Radical concept, a television show that would be sold directly to the stations, instead of a network, Star Trek: The Next Generation.

The success of the show paved the way for a flood of directly syndicated programming, most of it genre, laying the ground work for the fertile and rich television landscape we have to day in SF and fantasy. I don’t think we would have any of this with Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

Share

The Dog is Gaining on the Car.

The mid-term elections are only a few weeks away and it looks as thought life might get interesting. Nate Silver, last I looked, was giving the Republicans about a 65% chance of taking control of the Senate. Given the sweep of governorships the Republican won during 2010, a critical redistricting election cycle, the baked in advantage from rural districts outnumbering urban ones, and the Democratic party’s base for not showing up on off-year elections, it looks all but certain that the Republicans will retain control of the House. I see no signs of a wave election, for either party, and if forced to guess I would hold that in November the Republicans will have control of the Legislative branch of the United States Government. I am not sold that this is going to work out all that well for the Republican Party in the long term. If they want to move legislation from bill into law they will have to pass bills that the President can sign. Right now, with the Democrats controlling the Senate, the Republicans have been having a responsibility free ride in their legislative actions. They can pass repeals of the ACA all they like, knowing perfectly well that the bills will die in the Senate, with the majority of American unaware of their existence. Once they control the Senate the landscape changes, but the internal dynamics of the Republican Party does not. The Tea Party base will brook no concessions, no compromises with President Obama, but to pass bills into law they will have to compromise. The Hassert rule, which is really more of a guideline but they adhere to it like it was the 11th Commandment, means nothing gets out of the House unless the Tea Party faction is happy with it. You cannot make them happy with compromises and you can’t violate the rule, leaving the Republicans in a position where their options are to pass nothing, or pick fights with the President, fights that they will lose. Why will they lose those public relations fights? Because it is easier for the White House to stay on message then it is far the vast number of Representative and Senators to do that same. Because the President will offer compromises, just as he already has on Social Security (offending his base) and the Republicans will be forced to publicly reject them. Because it it the Republican’s philosophy that government is the problem and when government is locked up in a partisan fight people tend to assume that the Republicans like it that way. If this goes on for two years, the Republican nominee will have a headwind he or she will not need. They may very become the Dog that caught the car and asked, now what?

[Update: apparently Silver’s latest projections have the Republican Take-over down to 53%. Interesting]

Share

The Brain Will NOT Turn Off

So John Scalzi, SF author, had a book event at Mysterious Galaxy last night, and even though I was suffering a sore throat my wife and I attended. It was funny, and fun, and well worth the time, however that’s not the point of my post.
Mysterious Galaxy is also the locale where my writers group meets, thank to the lovely hosting from the store. at the meets we take turns reading about 1500 words from out works and listening to feedback from the other members.
John read out about 1500 words of a new piece and i could not for the love of god shut down the critique parts of my brain. I did not say anything, I do have self-control no matter what some people may think, but my minds raced along making notes just as it would for anyone in my writing group.
‘hmm too many dialog tags’
‘it’s a little info dumpy in the middle that can probably be crunched down’
‘overall a good scene that clearly advances the plot, just needs a bit of tightening.’
I am sure the last thing he needs to hear is my opinion.

Share

Sunday Night Movie: Battle for the Planet of the Apes.

I am quite tardy in posting this essay, but I did finish the original franchise out as I had intended.

battle-for-the-planet-of-the-apes-noah-keenSo after the racie war implications driving the plot of Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, 20th Century Fox, fearful that they had driven the kiddie away, took the next, and final, installment of franchise in a lighter and more optimistic direction. The screenwriter for the previous two sequel relinquished his duties, in part due to the dark nature of his proposed script and in part to ill health, while the husband wife team that penned the screenplay for The Omega Man came onto the scene.

In many ways this film is the most direct sequel of the entire franchise. Where Beneath the Planet of the Apes introduced a new astronaut the Ape Planet, nothing in the first film set up the silly concept of a rescue mission. Escape from the Planet of the Apes heavily violates continuity by introducing an unknown Ape genius “Milo” who is able to repair and launch Taylor’s crashed spacecraft. Conquest played buffet with elements put forth in Escape, picking and choosing what they wanted to tell a story with some of the same characters, and throwing away anything that didn’t fit. (retconning long before the term became standard in fandom.) That is not the approach with Battle for the Planet of the Apes.

Battle takes the situation and characters established Conquest and continues the story, playing mostly fair and extrapolating from the scenario already in motion. Despite this, or perhaps even because of it, Battle for the planet of the Apes is the least ambitious, least transgressive, and least daring of the franchise. The budget was again cut, and the situation reduced to the most simplistic elements. A colony of apes, lead my Caesar from Conquest, is building an ape community with humans as second-class citizens, but not slaves or property, amid the ruins of a nuclear war. Racial animosity against the human divides the apes, while a colony of surviving humans, scarred by the constant exposure to radiation in the bombed out city, led by a brutal security man from Conquest, plots a war of ape extermination.

The too small budget hampered the production, reducing the screenplay to one rather lackluster battle and a few set locales. The film ends on a note of optimism, putting it in direction conflict with the tone of the series while implying that the events of the first film were no longer possible.

While the franchise limped on with a short lived and poorly conceived television series, this film represented the end of the series until the terrible attempt at a reboot with Tim Burton’s Planet of the Apes. That failed and the franchise again went dead until the next film Rise of The Planet of the Apes, a success which in many ways was a rebooting of Conquest in that it told the story of how the planet got started on the path toward humanity’s fall and the rise of the apes.

This year saw the next film in the new franchise, Dawn of the Planet of The Apes, and in reality it is a rebooting of Battle, but done with real style, a real budget, and far better written. I will be interesting to see where this new franchise series goes.

Share

Sunday Night Movie: Conquest of the Planet of the apes

Now in my re-watch of the original Planet of the Apes franchise I have arrived at my conquest-the-black-mans-burdenfavorite film of the series, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes. While I love me Planet of the Apes and it is wonderful film, more often than any other in the franchise I will pull out the blu-ray of Conquest and sit back to watch it over and over. Once I did get it on Blu-ray I also stopped watching the theatrical cut and exclusively watch the unrated directors edition. When the film was released in 1972 they had hopes of getting a ‘G’ rating, but thee scene of revolution were so intense the studio feared they might get an ‘R’ and ordered the ending re-written and the footage edited to be considerably less graphic.

Conquest is set twenty years after the end of Escape from the Planet of the Apes. During the twilight years of Bush 41’s presidency (that’s snark because the film is set 1991, now more than twenty years in out past) apes have become a slave population, having 1991thumbnailImageprogressed from pets, replacing the cats and dogs that died in a global pandemic into a servant and slaves. Armando, the kind hearted circus owner last seen saving the time-traveling apes’ baby has returned to the city, bring the circus for a need tour, and along with it the now adult intelligent ape Caesar. (Whom was named Milo as a baby in the last film but hey retcon is nothing new.) thing go badly and before long Ceasar is a slave himself, alone and friendless, subject to the same brutal treatment as his ape brothers and sisters, including the producer’s wife in appearance number 3 in the ape movies. In the end Caesar lives up to his new name and leads a revolt overthrowing the fascist power structure in a brutal, bloody, and revenge filled night. The film ends with images of the city burning and nearly all of our principle human characters dead.

It is grim, dark, and very deliberate metaphorical statement on violence generating more violence. This is an example of 70’s cinema that I truly enjoy. It is dark, it is grim, it is cynical, but it is also stuffed with ideas. This is a film that using the pretext of science-fiction and adventure tries to talk about the very real troubles and issues plaguing the United States then and today. SF films of the 70s really began to turn to adult themes and ponder serious questions, and even a film such as this one, with limited budget and an eye firmly fixed on the bottom line, did not jettison the idea for the spectacle. Today all too often SF movies are nothing more than extremely big budgeted action films devoid to content and thought. (I’m looking at you Transformers and pretty much anything from Michael Bay.) If you have not seen this film, or it has been many years, get the blu-ray and watched the uncut version. It’s quite a shocker. (next up, shudder, Battle for the Planet of the Apes.)

Share

Sunday Night Movie: DOUBLE FEATURE Beneath the Planet of the Apes & Escape from the Planet of the Apes

The double feature does not represent a long night at the home video screen but rather last week’s and this week’s Sunday Night Movie feature combined into a single essay.

After watching 1968’s Planet of The Apes the idea struck me that I should watch all five of the original Ape movies in order. A coupe of years ago I scored a blu-ray box set that had all the films and tons of bonus feature, so logistically I saw no issues. That said I knew that meant I would be watching the crap with the imaginative. Oh well, I decided to do it.

 

beneath_1Beneath the Planet of the Apes is the hastily consider sequel to 1968’s smash box-office success Planet of the Apes. However due to financial troubles at 20th Century Fox and boardroom infighting the film suffered from a trouble production from the get-go. Heston, the star of the first film hated the very idea of any sequel and only reluctantly agreed to participate as a favor to Daryl Zanuck, but even this came at the price with Heston insisting that his character of Taylor — spoiler alert stop reading if you care, serious stop reading — be killed off in the story.

The plot of Beneath is one that makes little to no sense. Another crew has been dispatched following Taylor’s into space. Now Taylor’s team knew that they were on a one-way trip into the future, proving Dr. Hasslien’s theories. In this film Brent (James Franciscus) and his crew have been dispatched to find Taylor. (Apparently Landon, Dodge, and Stewart were utter berks and no one wants them back,) Brent crashes, and has a much abbreviated repeat adventure of Taylor’s first encounter with ape society. Escaping the apes, he and the mute animal/human Nova go into the forbidden zone searching for Taylor. They find mutant humans with psychic powers who are at war with the Apes. (First appearance of the Producer’s wife as the mutant Albina.) Taylor and Brent find each other, have a manly fight (thanks, mutants!) and then are caught there when the Ape army arrives. Everyone panics, there’s lot of gunfire, and a nuclear device that is over 2000 years proves that there is no beating American manufacturing when it goes off and destroys the world.

This film was a hit. It practically  relaunched the idea of major studio, major money sequel. Except for the Universal horror franchises, series films before Beneath were usually constructed like episodes, each film could be watched on its own and did not effect the continuity of other films. After the major success of Beneath, film sequels were seen not as episodes but a continuation of the same story. Quite a change.

escapeapeslandingI can clearly remember seeing Escape from the Planet of the Apes at the Sunrise Theater in Fort Pierce Florida. That was 1971 so I would have been 10 years old, and I remember laughing a full belly laugh as the ‘unmasking’ scene at the film’s open. Escape faced the challenge of crafting a continuation of the story when in the pervious film not only did your principle characters get killed, but the entire freakin’ world was turned to ash as a gravely toned narrator informed the audience that the world was now dead.

Hollywood turned to the now familiar trope, time travel. Thee apes, apes that in the first film believed flight to be a physical impossibility, have figured out the operation of an advanced spacecraft repaired it, launched it, and through a freak incident are thrown back in time to 1973. So instead of a story about men on a planet of apes, it is a story of apes stranded on a world of fearful humans. While there are a number of comical bits, this film does plumb interesting depths. What actions are morally justified to prevent a terrible future from coming into reality? What is the place of the outsider?

Something I only noticed on this viewing is the continuity of a secondary character. In Planet of the Apes the flight is done in part to prove Dr Hasslein’s theories, but not much more than that is mentioned of the good doctor. (Clearly a script stand-in for relativity and Einstein.) Beneath mentioned the good doctor not at all, but in Escape he is a principle character. (Played wonderfully by Eric Braeden, who also star in another 70’s SF film in my library, Colossus: The Forbin Project.)

The ape time-travelers quickly transit from curiosities, to celebrities, and into hunted fugitives. Though they find allies, second appearance of the producer’s while as a kind and sympathetic vet, in the end there are more enemies than friends. Like so often in film of the 1970’s it ends darkly, but the producers this time left themselves a thread for another film and this upcoming Sunday I’ll watch Conquest of the Planet of the Apes.

Share

Mini-Review: Guardians of the Galaxy

So this weekend Phase Three of the Marvel Cinematic Universe launched with the release of Guardians of the Galaxy. (Phase One lead up to Avengers, Phase Two leads to Avengers: Age of Ultron.)

hr_Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_46Guardians of the Galaxy (GotG) must count among the strangest concepts ever used to launch a major franchise. GotG concerns a collection of criminals and riff-raff that are thrown together with conflicting motives with the fate of the galaxy resting on their actions.

There is one actual human character for the audience to identify with, Peter Quill, and the rest of the main character cast are various aliens. Some or rendered with traditional make-up effects while other exist solely as CGI creations. When major characters include a modified raccoon and a talking-tree, you know that you’ve taken a journey to the far reaches of high-concept. The amazing thing is that it all works.

My reaction to GotG is very similar to my initial reaction to 1977’s Star Wars. This film is also a space-opera, not science-fiction, and one it gets going it never slows down. The action speeds like a meter heading for planetary impact. The non-stop action however is masterfully paced keeping from numbing the audience and allowing enough space so that each and every one of the major characters has moments to shine not only in physical prowess but also in heart-touching scenes of inner motivation.

This is a film I keeping thinking about not in a deep philosophical manner, but rather in a ‘wow I had fun’ mode. Your mileage, of course, may vary, but if you remember the sense of scale and deeper universe that the original Star Wars created while giving  thrilling action then this film is for you.

My biggest complaint is that for the first time the post-credit scene exists entirely for laughs and in no way sets up another story in this expanding universe.

(This post has been edited because the author is overly fond of typos.)

Share

The Two Most Influential Science-Fiction Films of 1960’s

Even though the 60s, or at least the start of the 60’s, now lies fifty years in the past, we are rapidly approaching SF films that are well known, and quite familiar to a larger audience. This of course makes the selection of just two as ‘most influential’ even more fraught with controversy and argument. Good!

The 1960’s is a rich field to for SF movies, particularly if we keep in mind a wide definition of SF that may include many films not generally thought of as part of that genre.

For example Dr. No, released in 1962, not only launched the Bond film franchise that runs strong to this very day, but it also birthed the entire super-spy genre which morphed, with Tom Clancy’s help, into the techno-thriller genre, a genre that is SF wearing fancy dress. By any reasonable observation and definition Dr. No is both SF and influential. So read one and see how I have selected one films that I think will scarcely surprise anyone, and another that will be received quite the opposite.

2001: A Space Odyssey – 1968

2001-a-space-odyssey-originalStanley Kubrick’s brilliant and baffling masterpiece, 2001 is truly not only one of the most influential SF films of the 1960s, it is one of the most influential films of any genre of all time. It is groundbreaking in its style, scope, depth of concepts, technical mastery, and sheer artistry. Coming at the end of the decade, this movie raised the bar on what could be expected of a science-fiction film. Where Forbidden Planet brought in literature, 2001 demonstrated that SF, the genre of ideas in print fore decades and decades, could also be the genre of ideas on the silvered screen. Eschewing a traditional plot driven narrative, this film took us from the dawn of humanity through its eventual evolution beyond the cradle of Earth. It did this will a level of technical competence that forever changed what would be expected of a major SF film and set the stage for the dazzling spectacle in the next decade of Star Wars.

Co-written by one of the grandmasters of hard SF (science-fiction that is devoted to scientific accuracy) Arthur C Clarke, 2001 took a solid believable ground in science, capturing the realities of projected space-travel with a near documentarian style, and made this all accessible to the general public. I have twice seen this film screen in theaters and both times the audience is held in its powerful and hypnotic grip. While I prefer my films to have a more traditional narrative, I can see and appreciate the art, power, and brilliance exhibited in the film.

My second film, released the same year, is about as far as you can get from 2001: a Space Odyssey. This movie is a film assembled by amateurs, shot on grainy poor stock, limited in scope, with a traditional narrative about survival, and yet it is a small independent film that shook the foundations of film making and spawned a new genre unto itself.

Night of the Living Dead – 1968

What, I hear you scream, that’s not a science-fiction movie, that’s a horror film, a zombieNight-of-the-Living-Dead film! Yes it is both of those things, a horror film, just as Frankenstein was a horror film, and it is not just a zombie movie it is the progenitor of all modern zombie movies. It is also, quite clearly, a science-fiction film. First off, co-writer and Direct George A. Romero has mentioned in interviews that the inspiration for this film was Richard Matheson’s novel, I am Legend, a story about a world overrun by scientifically explained vampires. In the film Night of the Living Dead, quite unlike Romero’s other zombie films, there is a clear explanation given for the rise of the dead and their transformation into murderous cannibals – radiation from the Venus probe. This radiation is what ‘activates’ the ghouls’ brains (the term zombie is never used in the movie and was grafted onto these revenants later) and it is what destroyed the brain destroys the ghouls. The cause and explanation is grounded in a scientific reason, though it is terrible science. So, like Dr. No, this is a movie that one rarely thinks of as SF, but clearly falls within those borders.

It’s influence would be hard to overstate. It has been called the most successful independent film of all time. (Only a mistake in the editing room prevented Romero and company from being richly rewarded for their creation and instead plopped the film directly into the public domain.) Where Dr. No spawned a single franchise and a fad, that quickly died out, in super-spy movies, the zombie films not only continues to be popular, the tropes of the zombie movie can often be found in other films far afield. The scene in Burton’s version of Sweeney Todd where the ‘mental’ patients attack their doctor is straight out of any zombie movie. The very concept, one that didn’t exist in 1967, has fully permeated our society today. Quibble all you like, I do not see how you cannot rate this as one of the most influential SF movies of the 60’s or of all time.

Share

Sunday Night Movie: Planet of the Apes(1968)

I guess my essay series on influential SF films has –eh hm – influenced my selection for this week’s Sunday night Movie.
planet-of-the-apesReleased in 1968 Planet of the Apes would certainly be on the short list for best SF movies of that or any decade, but I can tell you that it is not one of the two films I selected as most influential from the 1960s.
While Planet of the Apes spawned 4 direct sequels, two television series’, 1 re-make and 2 sequels to the remakes, I would say that it’s impact beyond the franchise is limited primary to its advancement of special effect make-up.
The said it is a marvelous piece of political parable, taking the explosive issues of race relations and dealing with it under disguise of SF adventure.
The film concerns a crew of astronauts launched from Earth in the early 1970’s, ah the halcyon optimistic days when we simply assumed that our trajectory in space exploration would bend upward as sharply as a Saturn V thrusting for the moon, that through traveling at near the speed of light and by the use of cold-sleep, find themselves thousands of years in the future, crashed on a planet orbiting a star in the constellation Orion.
The surviving crew is made up of a scientific idealist who would ‘walk naked into a volcano’ if it meant he learned something no one else every knew, a egotist for whom glory has driven him to this one-way mission, and a misanthropist for whom mankind is something to be despised and dreams of finding something better than humanity amongst the stars.
Aside from a crashed ship, limited supplies, and inter-personal conflict, the mission is threatened when the crew discovers that this planet has humans, but one that have never progressed beyond mute animals, and that the dominate life are apes.
Captured and experimented upon, it reduces down to one survivor who eventually unlocks the puzzle of the planet, and despairs as the answer.
Truly a classic film, this one is well worth the viewing, and I am quite happy to have it on blu-ray. (As part of a boxed set containing all five of the original films.) If you have never seen it, crawl out from under that rock you hide under and do see it at once.

Share