Logan's Run (1976)

I remember seeing this one at the movies, back when I was obviously too young to know any better...

One thing I do remember is that you got to see Jenny Agutter's tits, which impressed 13 year old me no end. Of course, for a while there, you got to see them in any movie she was in, which was certainly no hardship! She was, and still is, a very attractive woman, as well as being a more-than-capable actor.

Michael York, who plays Logan, was always one of those actors whose appeal eluded me - He reminds me a lot of Charlton Heston; they seemed to get the lead roles in a lot of the films I ended up watching, but neither of 'em ever bother to act, or if they are, they only know one "character". I find them both irritating to watch, but not irritating enough to spoil a film; in fact, I often find myself laughing at them (in all the wrong spots) more than anything else!

The director, Michael Anderson has some good films in his resumé (he directed The Dam Busters, one of my all time faves). This just isn't one of them.

Faults? Where to start... Let's start with the city. I know we're a little spoilt these days; CGI cityscapes can look amazingly realistic (but they don't always - This is one place where cheap CGI work can really show). The city in Logan's Run never, ever, looks like anything other than what it is; a large model. The most obvious detail is the trees; they are so obviously from a model train supply house. The lack of detail on the buildings also doesn't help with the illusion - Everything looks small; given the low quality of the model-making, you'd think they'd minimise your exposure, but they actually seem to go out of their way to show the outsides of the buildings. Oh well, it was 1976...

The "Carousel" sequence has also aged badly - While there was only one point where I could actually see the wires (there may be more), it was still very obvious that the people were on wires, if only due to the limited range of movement available to them. The force-field effect probably helps to hide the wires, just not well enough. Not as bad as the wires in The Black Hole, though, which is something, at least.

There are several points during their encounter with Box (the robot) where you can see the face within the silver mask, which is less excusable than some of the other technical mistakes; this is the sort of thing which could be easily fixed, even with 1970's SFX technology, if only by reshooting those scenes... And don't even get me started on the terrible super-imposition of the ice-cave collapsing around them. AWFUL!

One thing I noticed, more than anything else, was the pace. It really did feel incredibly slow at many points. What makes this most interesting is in comparison to the original book; William F Nolan's novel is probably the quickest read I've ever found - I can finish it in a couple of hours, easily. The film seemed to take MUCH longer! I can only hope that the upcoming remake sticks a little closer to the book, and doesn't just try to copy the movie version.

The one saving grace of the film (apart from the aforementioned Jenny Agutter's lovely anatomy) is Peter Ustinov, who is pretty much the antithesis of York or Heston; any film he's in, I know I'm at least gonna find him enjoyable. Not enough to save a really bad film, but certainly enough to make it a little bit more tolerable... He gets a strange mixture of really, really good lines, and some truly God-awful ones in this film.

So much for my blast-from-the-past. It's funny how often a film you really enjoyed as a child/teenager turns out to be virtually unwatchable 35 years later... Some of it is the effects, but I often find that a good enough film can transcend this. There are many films from more than 70 years ago that still hold up extremely well, even though there effects are quite laughable - The most important part of ANY film is story. And that's were Logan's Run fails; they took some of the great central ideas from the novel, and ignored what made it good, somehow. I honestly don't know how they managed it. I do know, however, that next time I think of watching it, I'm gonna try to remember to read the book instead. Far more entertaining. And quicker.

Diary of the Dead (2007)

George Romero proves he's still the undisputed master of zombie films...

I've never seen a Romero film I didn't like. The man is brilliant; often hampered by a ridiculously low budget and a cast of complete unknowns (or actual non-actors) actors, his ideas & execution always manage to transcend these limitations. Taking the idea of "found footage", he re-boots his vision of the zombie apocalypse, only this time in the form of a video documentary, filmed by a group of survivors.

Diary of the Dead starts with the filming of a student project, with a particularly amusing reference to the current "fast zombie" trend; this had me cracking up - I had to pause the DVD & replay it, just to hear the rest of the dialogue! The filming is interrupted by the news of strange goings on... And everyone scatters to try to find out what's going on, and to seek safety in familiar environments.

We end up with a sort of "found footage road movie", more than anything else; as the main characters proceed across country to reach a variety of "safe" destinations, they encounter a fair sampling of the kinds of unpleasantness you could expect when law and order break down. These are, of course, extremely well-handled by Romero, and have that feeling of gritty realism that is a hallmark of his films.

One of the most interesting inclusions is the (sparing) use of CGI to add to the usual makeup effects; as noted by Rick Baker when making An American Werewolf in London, you can add makeup to a person, but you can't take stuff away (he had no option but to use a puppet for the final encounter with the decomposing Jack in the theatre scene), and this is where CGI has a distinct advantage. There are several scenes where CGI is used to great effect in this regards; one involves a zombie's head partially dissolving, and the other... Well, let's just say it's quite disturbing, and you really can't miss it! Of course, like all of the best well-executed CGI effects, I may be wrong; maybe it isn't...

Anyway, if you're a Romero fan, or if you like your zombie movies, this is an absolute must-see. I won't say it's better than it's predecessors, but it's certainly on a par. Given that this is his 5th "Living Dead" film, that's saying something.

Outlander (2008)

They spent $50 million on this film, and then, apparently, just hung it out to dry. The distributors certainly didn't seem to do anything much to try and get their money back. With a total, worldwide, gross of just under $7 million, they'd better hope that it sells a lot on DVD/Blu-Ray. Oh, no, hang-on. I've never heard of it. And, neither, apparently, has anyone else...

Why is it that some films, for whatever reason, just disappear into the crowd? I've heard that it costs about as much to distribute and advertise as it does to make a movie; while not strictly true, the real blockbusters certainly have millions spent on their advertising budget. Long before Avatar came out, there wasn't a single person in the western world who didn't know it was coming. So, if you have confidence in your product (or, maybe, if you just think you can bluff your way to at least some initial returns on your investment), you have to spend some money and effort getting it into the public consciousness. If you have no confidence, you can always let it sit on a shelf for a year or two while you try to work out what to do. What you shouldn't do, however, is just release it to a couple of theatres, and then forget all about it.

The most surprising thing, when confronted with a film that you've never even heard of, is when it turns out to be, not just good, but bloody great fun. We're not talking Gone With The Wind, here people; it'll never make anyone's top 10 list. But it sure as hell at least deserved a chance to make its money back. When Amazon suggested I buy Outlander, I figured "Well, the DVD's got a spaceship on the cover - I might just check it out and see if it's any good".

The basic plot is pretty simple - An "alien" (played by James Caviezel, from the excellent remake of The Prisoner) crashes into a lake in Norway, around about 700 AD, and ends up being taken prisoner by some of the locals. When it turns out that one of his enemies stowed away on his spaceship, and is now killing the locals, they all join together to fight back.

I use the term alien loosely, as humans are, supposedly, descended from an earlier, abandoned, alien colony. Seems improbable, but, what the hell, it's as good an excuse as any for allowing the main character to be both a technologically advanced alien and a human at the same time. In reality, this is probably the only completely implausible element in the story, harkening back to an earlier age of science fiction, when we had less of an understanding of evolution and genetics.

At any rate, the cast is good (including John Hurt and Ron Perlman), the script is reasonable, and the action sequences are well put together. The effects are above average, and the depiction of the Norse way of life had the feeling of authenticity to it. All-in-all, I just can't understand why the studio didn't realise that they had a winner on their hands. People that stupid deserve to lose money!

Still, the other people involved don't, so, do them a favour and, if you like a bit of science fiction with your viking action, at least rent the film. Personally, I'm going to take Amazon's advice and buy it. I liked it that much. In fact, I'd have to say that it's the best viking science fiction film I've ever seen, and their should be more of 'em (more than one, at least!).