Colossus: The Forbin Project

A Supercomputer Movie That Will Make You Think

Last night I couldn't help but re-watch "Colossus: The Forbin Project", because it beckoned to me as an island of sanity in a sea of miserably mediocre movies.When recent movies fail me in the imagination department, I revert back to the "old standards" of science-fiction movie excellence. "Colossus" is one of those beauties that often gets passed up in the lists of greats - and it's only because it was eclipsed by "2001". It's a crying shame that more people don't know about it. I'll do my best to convince you, if you haven't seen it.

Forbin

Leading the cast is a fellow with a slight but indeterminable accent. For 1970's standards, he's positively metro-sexual, sporting hair that's never out of place, suits that are always perfect, and of course, he loves a dry martini. As a scientist, he's a quiet fellow with great leadership skills. Back in the 60's and 70's there was no word for computer engineer. In fact, there were very few "computer scientists". When one spoke about them they were considered to be mathematician crackpots, fellas who spent their time writing programs that took forever to load, and then calculated things like how stocks and bonds were doing on Wall Street. They rarely had government backers, being funded mostly by famous universities.

As Forbin, Eric Braeden pulls off the role with quiet dignity. He impresses us, grabs us with his hushed manner of speaking, and draws us into his strange world of computing, scientific family, and government approval. We want to know who this man is, how he became what he is, and where he's going.

The rest of the cast is a mad jumble of familiar faces! Marion Ross, who we all remember from "Happy Days", Georg Sanford Brown, from "The Rookies", "Roots", and "Nip/Tuck", Martin E. Brooks, from "The Six Million Dollar Man" (remember Rudy?"), William Shallert, who was in so many series that I dare not go into it; and James Hong, from "Kung Fu" and "Blade Runner" - and a million television series appearances. It feels like family.

The surprising supporting actor is Susan Clark, who plays Forbin's right hand gal, Dr. Cleo Markham. She's very '70's, with her hairstyle, makeup and dress being so perfect it almost hurts. She's pretty and accomplished, and in the early '70's, that was saying a lot. Women were rarely portrayed in this manner.

It felt a little like Star Trek. In fact, it seemed like it had been written by Roddenberry. But Colossus: The Forbin Project was based on the novel, "Colossus", by D. F. Jones. There are two more books in the series, and one has to wonder why they haven't been done as well. Actually, there's a remake doddering around in someone's house, waiting to be re-written again. Producers have shown interest, but the writers can't seem to make it work. I'd like to see it made, but Will Smith as Forbin? Oh, right, they decided to go with "I, Robot" instead.

I can recall watching this film as a kid and being absolutely terrified of Colossus' new synthesized vocal box. Back then, something as robotic-sounding as that was so new as to seem satanic. I genuinely frightened for Forbin, and for humanity.  Certainly I'd never head David Bowie's take on the super-computer, "Savior Machine" (1971), in which a supercomputer took over the world, but I'd seen "2001: A Space Odyssey", in which Hal 2000 wreaked havoc. This was another of those "computers will destroy the world" movies, but in the end, it seems that Forbin will be the only one to suffer noticeably from his interaction with Colossus. The rest of humanity would reap the benefits of lack of war, sickness healed, and famine obliterated, while dealing with being watched 24/7. Big Brother Colossus would be there, forever.

There's lots of '60's and '70's references to alcoholism, smoking, the Cold War, and sexuality in the movie. One has to laugh at the occasional carefully orchestrated nudity. The sets are pure '70's, and the feeling of nostalgia (including the use of the buildings seen in "Logan's Run") give it a '60's air of Star-Trekian futurism.

Having worked in a building with a computer server farm, I am tickled at the realism that the opening scenes give - that sterile, secure area where only the computer geeks get to go. I remember the floors in Globix that freaked me out - some of which sported large halon tanks, poised to flood the floors to prevent fires from spreading and save valuable servers. Perhaps it was the lack of gas masks that concerned me. We were all warned to evacuate as quickly as possible in case of a fire. Colossus' massive data banks were pictured in this film decades before we'd ever dreamed up server farms. It was that ahead of its time.



If you haven't seen "Colossus: The Forbin Project", seek it out on the web or in your local library. It's a film that no self-respecting science-fiction geek or computer nerd should go without.

Ridley Scott's Exodus: To Watch, or Not To Watch?

When the opportunity to watch "Exodus: Gods and Kings" came around, I joyfully clicked on it. How could I lose out? We're talking Ridley here, man. Even if it turned out to be one of his duds, it'd still be worth watching. Now I'm wondering if I've been had.

The cast is like the more recent Scott movies - grab everyone who you've worked with before and mush them into parts that might suit them, even if the roles seem mismatched. Just do it! The special effects will drown out any clamor from the audience.

I wanted Christian Bale to succeed in this, I really did. He's one of my favorite actors - or at least, he used to be. I think I liked him better when he was acting for acting's sake instead of accepting parts that are "worth his talent", or up to his salary rate. He's doing his usual great work, but underneath it all there flows a stream of insincerity - a snobbish "I can act better than you, and am worth more than you," attitude that rubs me wrong. Oh, the wav of him screaming at the lighting tech on some set that keeps turning up on YouTube might have something to do with it. I can't seem to get that out of my mind. Maybe it was the Russel Crowe-like fights on the set, or maybe it's that ridiculous whispering tone-of-voice that's ticking me off. I can't figure it out. All of it points to him possibly being a great actor who has lost his way as he swims in money.

I also watched this movie because I love the story. I've read all the scientific explanations of why the plagues happened, and how, and chuckled at the sheer coincidence of all of it. I actually believe that the big G did have something to do with it. If not that, it must be an aliens from outer-space set up. It's just to big for one man to have accomplished on his own. Beyond all the explanations is a really cool story. Of course my favorite part (along with tons of other people) is the Holy Spirit, the last and final plague, slowly pouring over Egypt like a mysterious, deadly fog. Frankly in this version, it was just a digitally added shadow.  I like the Charlton Heston-version fog effect much better. Oh, well.

Ben Mendelsohn, exuding Sir Robert Stephens

In the muddle, before things get really exciting, several actors really stood out for me. One was Joel Edgerton, playing Ramses, and the other was Ben Mendelsohn, playing the Viceroy (the slave overseer). Both gave exceptional performances. For once in my life I actually shed a tear for Ramses at the death of his son. The only explanation is that Edgerton did such a great job that he got me right in the tissue-box. Mendelsohn was nearly as good. He oozed a slimy feel that was shocking. But what really got me was his chosen accent (I think he's Aussie). For half the movie I was staring at him, trying to figure out who he was. My first reaction was, "How like the late Sir Robert Stephens he sounds!" For the rest of the film I was convinced that he might be a relative. Upon researching him on IMDB, it appears that he was just doing a character; maybe innately he was imitating Stephens. I don't know, and I'm not sure. Perhaps some of you felt it, too? If so, give me a shout. I'd like to know what you thought of him.

The Miscast of Exodus

Lastly, I have to mark off the hilariously and possibly purposefully, mischievously, and outright stupidly miscast roles: Sigorney Weaver as Tuya: I think she was there just for window dressing. And the biggest and most glaringly weird: John Turturro as Seti. I giggled and I gaped as he delivered his lines. What was Scott thinking? Was this some sort of snub, or a tribute to the religious background of acting and production of films throughout history? Why, oh why wouldn't one attempt to find an actual Egyptian to play an Egyptian king...I can't go on writing about it because it screams of sarcastic jabs at Judaism in film making. It was too obvious. I think it was nearly in the first frames of the movie. When one is confronted by something like this from the very beginning, one has to wonder if Scott was intent upon cursing it.

All in all the effects were good, yes - really good - except for the final plague, which left me disappointed. The over-all acting (oh, one can't forget Ben Kingsley; what the heck?!) was acceptable, but the execution of more important biblical references was lacking. It's all fine and good to portray G as a shepherd boy, but to have Moses incapacitated in a puddle of mud and hit on the head with a rock is just wrong. I would have liked it better if they had maintained biblical accuracy. It almost rings of the brutish snobbery of the writer that borders on blasphemy: "I can write this better than G!" One can forgive the religious comedy of someone like Mel Brooks, but when it's Ridley Scott, it just doesn't taste good.

Holmes Returns, A Little Older

I am pleased to announce a new Sherlock Holmes adaptation that debuted in Germany on February 8th, 2015. It stars Ian McKellan (more recently known for his work as Gandalf and the X-men's Magneto) as an elder version of Sherlock Holmes, who has taken up bee-keeping during his retirement in Sussex.

I have read the last adventures of Sherlock Holmes in their entirety, and particularly love "The Adventure of The Lion's Mane", in which he investigates what seems to be a brutal murder by a force unseen and unknown. By then, Holmes is quite old; he's grumpy and prefers to be left alone in his studies, which he would publish in a book on bee-keeping.

Ian McKellan has always been a good choice for Holmes. I recall that he may have played Holmes before in the theatre, but I can't be sure. Trying to research it now is impossible on the internet  with the glut of articles that have come out about the new movie. Wikipedia doesn't list him, so I'll leave it at that. I find it hard to believe that he'd turned down Holmes all his life till now, but it is possible that he avoided the role on purpose. Many people refer to "the curse" which plagues artists who portray him, however - one or two have made it through unscathed as of recently.

We're to be treated to a cameo, through the appearance of Nicolas Rowe as a matinee version of Holmes in this new movie. I'm sure that most of you recall "Young Sherlock Holmes", wherein Nicolas did a splendid job in most difficult circumstances. I will be happy to see him again. More recently he has been working steadily in "Da Vinci's Demons".

All this is likely to stir up trouble; I have seen titles on articles reading "Cumberbitches Beware", all of this leading to putting down Benedict Cumberbatch's fans. I confess, I was completely enchanted with Cumberbatch's take on Holmes, and have yet to met a person who wasn't impressed by his portrayal.

More impressive was Martin Freeman as Watson. I wonder now: the artist in this new movie is Colin Starkey, known for his work in "Inspector Lewis". One can only hope that he will be as formidable as Freeman, or Hardwicke, who worked with Jeremy Brett for many years. Of course Jude Law has been wonderful in the RDJ adaptations, sporting the look of the younger Watson, fresh from Afghanistan.

It remains to be seen if this movie will do well in theaters. I don't expect it to be widely released, as it seems to be more of an art film that a front-runner. For now we will have to wait; its film debut was at an art film festival in Germany, making the chance of getting a hold of a screener copy pretty slim.
Break a leg, Ian. Here's a link to the trailer:

Interstellar: A Modern-Day 2001

Yes, I Know Everyone Has Made That Comparison, But - 

Awwww, it was like "2001: A Space Odyssey"! Now remind me, was it the Greeks that came up with that dad-blasted word? I can't spell it, and have to look it up every single time I mention the movie. Hmph. 

I'm going to start this review out with a little intro story. 

I was blue. I needed to get out of the house, and I knew "Interstellar" had just come out. 

When I asked my husband if he'd like to go see it, he poo-pooed the idea of going out in the chilly weather. No, he didn't even want to bother driving 4.5 miles to the movie theater. Not that I blame him, his "arthur-itis" as I call it - fires up full force when it's cold and rainy out. 

I informed him that I'd ride my bike there (at 8:30pm). He merely waved and said, "Go for it, just be careful."

I like bike riding. What I don't like is crappy weather while I'm riding. But I wanted to see "Interstellar" pretty badly, so high winds and sleet weren't going to stop me. 

As it turns out it started snowing as I rode to the theater, and just seeing three feet ahead of me was rough-going.  I huffed, I puffed, and I swore, but I got to that movie house in a half hour, just in time to buy popcorn and see the trailers before the movie. That was perfect timing in my book. 

After a ride like that I really hoped that the movie was worth it. It had better be, I thought...

I was right. Here's why:

Photo by Rep at Comic-Con

1. Matthew McConaughey. academy award winner, great actor, and cute guy, especially when he trims his eyebrows. He's entirely believable as a father, an engineer, and a crack space pilot.

The Black Hole.

  

2. It's a "Space" movie. There are glorious shots of Jupiter, Saturn, and a black hole that boggles the mind. There are planets out of someone else's mind (Nolan) that are imaginative and frightening. 

TARS, photoshopped by Rames Harikrishnasamy.

3. There are new robots in it! R-O-B-O-T-S!!! how long has it been since we had a new robot? A really good robot? maybe - "Iron Giant"? (Since then "Big Hero 6" has filled the gap nicely.) These robots are COOL. You can tell I'm excited when I start talking in caps, which I never do. To be a good robot, it needs to be architectural, sleek, smarmy, and really, really useful. It also helps if you can think of them as thinking machines with personalities, and these robots have minds that can calculate and tell jokes. Wait - they have a humor factor? They also have a truthfulness factor! No more crudely logical, boring machines. 

4. The characters make mistakes. They almost seem human! I've read all the criticism of the "Hallmark Card" ethics that the youthful female astronaut "Brand" (plated well by Anne Hathaway) spouts like rainbow-colored flying ponies, but the gooey spurting about love was right for her. She's a young gal, she knows nothing about life, love, or heartache. if she yawps about her hormones, isn't that realistic? It seems like it to me. 

5. The bad guy is the most feared bad guy in all of history. Who is it? No, not Matt Damon! it's TIME. Yes, time. The theory of relativity doesn't help at all in this one. People trying to save time in order to save the human race, keep alive to see their loved ones, even beat old age - time is everywhere in this movie. Time is such a big, big baddie that I find myself wishing to be a Timelord every time i think about it. 

6. Curious casting. I won't give away all the roles, but Michael Caine and John Lithgow were very interesting choices. In some ways I think both were miscast, but they added significantly to a rather youthful group pf actors that needed someone to bounce off of. 

7. Great effects, especially the ones that were physical instead of computer-generated. We haven't seen work like this since "Alien". it seems so real - because it's gritty. Something about computer effects makes things look too good. When you've got a banged-up model that you've lit on fire several times, it makes it seem much, much more real. 

8. Astronaut Pilot Chops. Oh, boy. I won't spoil it for you, but I can safely say that I was hopping in my seat, gripping the armchair, stomping on the ground in frustration, angst, and utter joy. 

9. The Science. Nolan employed a couple of scientists for this movie, rightly so. You can't make a space movie and expect to explain black hole theory to an audience who's used to "Stargate SG1".

The fundamentals of  wormhole tech, relativity, and time are carefully unfolded step by step. Even so, some people walked out of the movie theater exclaiming "What the heck was that about?"

I have just one question for you: Why the **** haven't you seen this yet? If you're reading this and you haven't seen it, you have to ask yourself that and then find it. Yes, it's out there on the Interwebs. 

Go see it. Then come back and let's talk. 

Now I've got to get back to my original copy of "2001", so that I can be sure of my facts. :) 

The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies - A Review by a Hobbitla

A Tale Of Woe And Beginnings

I held off watching this, dreading what I might find; and alas I discovered the need for tissues and nose-honking. It wasn't as bad as I thought, though. 

When I was a child a kindly uncle of mine presented me with The Hobbit as a Christmas present. The reason? Rankin and Bass's animated television version enchanted me. I guess they noticed when I started drawing Bilbo, looking for all the world like Ian Holm, dark haired with a button nose, in a red vest with green knickers. A pipe hung thoughtfully in his mouth, with smoke curling up from it in spirals. I remember that drawing as if I'd done it only yesterday. 

I'd fallen in love with Bilbo's character - both his silly needs and his valiant heart. I was amazed by the horrors of Mirkwood Forest, delighted by the haughty Elf king, and gladdened by the silly antics of the Dwarves and their mission. So to say that I was expecting an aweful lot from this movie is an understatement. 

What I found was the usual presumptive and filled-in adventure that "The Scriptwriters" (I refuse to mention their names as they make me so crazy) love to twiddle into Tolkien's work. As I watched the "Lord of The Rings" unfold, I cannot tell you how many times I cried out in pain at the dialogue. During "The Hobbit", however, I rarely blinked. I was not challenged by the changes in the story. I liked the Galadriel scene (as I did in LOTR/TTT) , and the little bits of change that amounted to huge differences in Tolkien's work didn't phase me. 

I have to ask myself, am I getting used to this constant assault on one of my favorite writers and linguists? Have I just given up the fight? Or was it the use of the word "ere" that softened me? 

Perhaps it was Dain's Scottish accent. I will never know. 

What I do know is that Orlando Bloom's face was heavily worked on, the effects added to mask his age, that all of the elves and their armor looked wonderful, that the Dwarfen armor too was glorious, that Smaugs death was indescribably good, and that the last battle was very much as I pictured it. 

I think I liked this movie best of all the Hobbit movies. There was an enchantment about it that I had not felt about the LOTR movies. It seems to me the "The Scriptwriters" have finally hit on a balance of effects and magic that I can live with. I am now certain that they are ready to take on The Silmarillion. 

What they will do with it is a matter that I don't want to ponder. There are too many great stories too choose from. 

Either way, I'll be looking forward to whatever they choose to do, if they do. 

Right now, I do wish for it.