There was a time, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when science fiction films seemed to be emerging from their cult status, and into the mainstream as films that could express the deepest and highest aspirations of mankind in ways that mere literary sci-fi could not. There were a plethora of intelligent films in that era.
Yes, there had been intelligent sci fi in the decades before. In the 1930s, there was William Cameron Menzies’ Things To Come, based upon the H.G. Wells tale. The 1950s saw such sci-fi films as The Day The Earth Stood Still, On The Beach, Forbidden Planet, The Incredible Shrinking Man, and Invasion Of The Body Snatchers.
But it really was the late 1960s that saw sci-fi reach a greatness besides mere ‘genre greatness.’ Genre greatness is where one can say that a film was a great film noir, sci-fi, romance, etc. But truly great films transcend their genres and become great art regardless of what art genre they originate from.
In this era there were folks who specialized in quality A science fiction films, unlike the B quality sci fi films of the past. These included heavyweight directors like Stanley Kubrick (Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb, 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange) and superstar actors like Charlton Heston (Planet Of The Apes, The Omega Man, Soylent Green).
But there were also many other quality and literate sci fi films like Slaughterhouse 5, The Andromeda Strain, Westworld, THX 1138, Silent Running, and Logan’s Run, just to name the best known. Then came the puerile Star Wars series (from George Lucas, who inexplicably also made the wonderful THX 1138), and sci-fi has never again reached the heights of that Golden Age which the Star Wars franchise killed off.
Yes, there have been a few exceptions- the first two films in both the Alien and The Terminator series, and the 2001 sequel 2010: The Year We Make Contact, but that’s about it. Star Trek does not count, since its franchise films were merely a leveraged television phenomenon.
However, one of the truly terrific sci-fi films that has been criminally neglected critically, is director Joseph Sargent’s hour and forty minute long Colossus: The Forbin Project, based upon D.F. Jones’ 1966 novel Colossus, and adapted for the screen by James Bridges. The film was shorn of any real star power, but the very fact that it lacked A List Hollywood names lends it an authenticity and believability that still carries through today.
Despite this and the also well made The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3, in 1974, Sargent never made it to A List director status. Yet, Colossus: The Forbin Project is one of the rare genre films that mixes subgenres and succeeds. It is a Doomsday film, which is a vast range including films like On The Beach, Planet Of the Apes, Soylent Green, and The Omega Man, but it also a Frankenstein/Amok Computer film, as well.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Ray Ellis
You are kidding, aren't you?
2 - Dan Schneider
No. More specifics?
3 - simon
I agree with most of what you write but I don't think the central performance is strong.
Here's a man who basically destroys mankind single-handedly and yet he never begins to convey the weight of that incredible act.
For a lot of the film he just acts as though he's a bit annoyed that he can't get his computer back to normal and when it all falls apart why doesn't he become a pariah to the populace and to many of those he works with..
4 - Dan Schneider
I think it's clear that Braeden's character is obsessive. Of course, his life will take precedence. Also then film is about a crisis- and not existential angst.
I think you're imbuing how you'd want a film HERO to act, rather than dealing with the one given.
Not everyone will be Ah-nold. In fact, most will likely be petty and selfish. Braeden's character is more realistic, in that measure.
In short, your argument seems more w the screenwriter than actor. Braeden kills the material he's given, and, after forty years of wiseass heroes, his 'realism' might seem odd. I think it;s refreshing, and good.