37) Time After Time (1979)

4 out of 5

"First, Zodiac. And now this."

Director
Nicholas Meyer

Cast
Malcolm McDowell - H.G. Wells
David Warner - John Leslie Stevenson
Mary Steenburgen - Amy Robbins
Charles Cioffi - Police Lt. Mitchell
Patti D'Arbanville - Shirley
Joseph Maher - Adams
Corey Feldman - Boy at the museum

In my post titled "My Basement Picks" over on my platform dontfastforward.blogspot.com in which I list my favorite movies, I included the 1979 mystery-thriller movie "Murder by Decree" It's a crime thriller in which Sherlock Holmes investigates the Jack the Ripper murders.  

In that commentary, I mention that Sherlock Holmes versus Jack the Ripper is a fitting and somehow familiar rivalry though the two never really went up against each other in any literary work or film adaptation...except "Murder by Decree." I did mention in that same post the 1965 movie "A Study in Terror" depicts Holmes and Watson investigating the Whitechapel murders and track down a fictionalized Ripper-like figure.

Otherwise, "Murder by Decree" is the only movie that I can find depicting Holmes investigating the the Ripper murders. Still, Holmes and Jack seem just as familiar a feud as Batman and the Joker, or Van Helsing and Count Dracula.
In the 1979 sci-fi movie "Time After Time," it's H.G. Wells who's in pursuit of Jack the Ripper. 

Back in my bachelorhood era 15+ years ago, I had this habit of perusing my local library for movies I had never seen nor heard of and checking them out. That's how I came across titles like "The Triplets of Belleville," "Everything Is Illuminated," and the Wes Anderson movies "Bottle Rocket" and "Rushmore." I find Wes Anderson's movies boring, by the way. Just saying. I've seen a few and either found myself bored, asleep, or both. 
Anyways "Time After Time" was one of my finds. I've only watched it once before but never forgot it.

It's an underrated movie. It plays out like a novel. And it has an imaginative underlying "what-if" premise. 

What if H.G. Wells actually created a time machine, and then Jack the Ripper jumped into that time machine, travelled to modern day (well, 1979 modern day) America, and tried to blend in while continuing his killing spree? What would that be like? 

Malcolm McDowell and H.G. Wells in "Time After Time."

This fish-out-of-water science fiction movie starts in 1893 London as the notorious Jack the Ripper has committed yet another murder. A police officer happens to be close as Jack has just strangled a streetwalker as is his modusoperandi. Now, the law is practically on his tail.

Meanwhile, writer H.G. Wells (Malcolm McDowell) has some colleagues over to his home for dinner and to show off his latest invention, a working time machine. His friend, John Leslie Stevenson (David Warner) arrives late to dinner. 

The local constabulary are in the neighborhood hunting down Jack the Ripper since he just struck again nearby. They come by Wells' home to search for their killer. 

Wells welcomes them in, and they find a doctor's bag that belongs to Stevenson. This bag contains evidence pointing to Jack the Ripper due to manner of the murders and the tools he must have used. But Stevenson is suddenly nowhere to be found. 

He escapes the cops by jumping into Wells' time machine and travelling to the future. However, he fails to take a key Wells made to prevent the machine from returning automatically. It returns back to Wells home, and he can chase his old friend wherever in time he has fled to. 

It turns out Stevenson is hiding in San Francisco in the year 1979. When Wells travels to the future, he finds himself in a museum exhibit dedicated to himself. That's where his time machine is kept in the future. 

Wells doesn't waste time trying to hunt down Stevenson, stop him from murdering anyone else, and bring him back to his own period. 

Wells is also disappointed (for lack of a better word) to find out his utopian theory that by 1979 the world will be free of crime, war, and violence is completely wrong.

Bewildered and intrigued by the modern world and how advanced civilization has become; he seeks out Stevenson/ Jack the Ripper around San Francisco. 

Since Wells can't spend old British money, steps into a Bank to exhange it. There, he meets Amy Robbins (Mary Steenburgen) who falls in love with him thinking he's just a tourist from Europe. Little does she know his true identity. But she's willing to help him maneuver around the big city. 

When Wells catches up to Stevenson, who believes he's in his element thanks to the violence and crime around him in the city and throughout the world, Wells struggles to capture him and convince authorities that Jack the Ripper himself is going on a murder spree around San Francisco. 

Soon, Stevenson sets his crosshairs on Amy. Wells will need to risk everything, including is utopian idealism, to save her, stop Jack the Ripper and get him back to the time machine. 

*** I'm keen on the entire "fish-out-of-water" element of the story with Wells experiencing the modern day - seeing how society functions, eating at a McDonald's, and experiencing what the socio-political atmosphere is like. Though I would love to have seen more of that, I appreciate that more depictions and focus on it would have distracted from the actual plot so I can't fault the movie for keeping Wells more focused at the urgent task at hand rather than wandering around 1979's San Francisco and playing up the out-of-place role.  

David Warner and Mary Steenburgen.

I also get a personal kick out of seeing specific locations around San Francsico  as they were back in 1979. I grew up across the Bay in Oakland so I'm very familiar with San Francisco. Some places still look the same. Plus, there are ash trays on the tables inside the McDonald's that Wells goes into when he stops for something to eat. It's also comical seeing this literary giant depicted as ordering a burger, fries and a cup of tea at a McD's. 

The movie doesn't stray far into the premise of Wells outside his own time. It stays focused on his pursuit of Jack the Ripper. 

As I mentioned, the layout of the movie feels like a novel, especially when the romance between Wells and Amy Robbins develops. The story is based on Karl Alexander's novel "Time After Time." So, there's that. 

Plus, the premise, which is an entertaining "what-if" scenario, unfolds in a chapter-like way. The film opens in Victorian London with Wells's philosophy - a philosophy I don't particularly agree with, but I'll save that commentary for another time - and blends into a chase through time. It converges with the other plot point of Wells being that "fish-out-of-water" as he takes in how wrong his prediction of the future based on his philosophy actually is. 

In one scene, Wells figures out that Stevenson is hiding in a hotel room at the Hyatt Regency near the Embarcadero. 

There in the hotel room, Stevenson turns on the television to show Wells how violent the world has become. It's not the social utopia Wells was certain it would be. 
"The future isn't what you thought. It's what I am," Stevenson says. He claims the modern world is his element. 

When Wells says neither of them belong in that time period, Stevenson says, "We don't belong here? On the contrary, Herbert. I belong here completely and utterly. I'm home."
The story even adds humor to this premise.

When Wells takes his concerns about Jack the Ripper running through San Francisco to the police, he's questioned by a police detective. 

When the cop asks his name, Wells doesn't want to give his real name, and he thinks the cop surely doesn't know about popular literary characters of Victorian England. So, he refers to himself as "Sherlock Holmes" unaware that Holmes is no obscure character even in 1970s American pop culture. 

Then, of course, after the chase, the story shifts to an element of rising danger, climax and resolution.

A romantic arc subplot is thrown in which begins as initial curiosity and some fireworks, leading to emotional bonding. Ideological tension arises that's resoloved in a bittersweet manner. It's very novel-like. 

"Time After Time" is driven by the characters, ideas, and thematic "what-if" exploration. It prioratizes that over being some kind of cinematic spectacle of time travel and novelty. 

It strikes me more as a clash between ideas and worlds from different time periods rather than just the thrill of travelling through time. It does that rather well. And it's entertaining. It has emotion, danger, and intrigue.   

A young Corey Feldman in "Time After Time."

After directing "Time After Time," director Nicholas Meyer went on to sit in the director's chair for another popular and well-respected sci-fi flick, "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan." 

In 1986, he was a writer for "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home." His Star Trek directing continued with the 1991 movie "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country." That's a respectable amount of Trek for one's resume!
Meyer also directed the 1997 James Bond movie, "Tomorrow Never Dies" and the animated Bible-based film, "Prince of Egypt" which is a favorite of mine.

British actor David Warner makes a fantastic villain both in this film, and in other roles. He also makes a great sympathetic character as well as seen in his performance as Bob Cratchit in the 1984 movie "A Christmas Carol" acting alongside George C. Scott.  

He's had some dark and sinister roles such as in "The Omen," "TRON," "Waxwork" and especially his role as "the Evil Genius" in the 1981 movie "Time Bandits." 

With his commanding voice that fits well with authoritative characters or evil-doing masterminds, and his dominating presence, Warner makes a great villianous character. Intelligence permeats off of him, and he can shift flawlessly between a terrifying and intimidating presence to a more campy side. When I say "campy," his role as Professor Jordan Perry in "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze" comes to mind. He's unforgettable in that role, too. 

It's certainly worth mentioning that "Time After Time" isn't the only time Mary Steenburgen plays a character who falls in love with a time traveler. She did it all over again as "Clara Clayton"11 years later in "Back to the Future III" alongside Christopher Lloyd as "Doc Brown."  

I don't think I've ever seen a Mary Steenburgen performance where she didn't play a character I felt sympathy for - the mother in "Ragtime," Karen Buckman in "Parenthood," and Betty Carver in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape." I remember seeing the 1985 Disney movie "One Magic Christmas" around the time of its release in which she stars in the lead role. All I remember from that movie is Mary Steenburgen's character. So, needless to say, I haven't seen a performance of hers I didn't like. That includes "Time After Time." 

A very young Corey Feldman has a cameo in "Time After Time." According to his filmography, it's Feldman's second film appearance. His first appearance is a small one in the 1978 movie "Born Again." I don't know how extensive his appearance is in that movie, or if he even has a speaking role.
"Time After Time" an underrated movie in the subgenre of  time-travel science fiction. It's a creative idea that manages to work thanks in large part to the brilliant cast, and the chemistry they pull off. And, thankfully, it doesn't come across as neither cheesy nor forced.   

36) The Swarm (1978)

(1.5 out of 5)

"Who would have thought the bees would be the first alien force to invade America?"

Director
Irwin Allen

Cast
Michael Caine - Dr. Bradford Crane
Katharine Ross - Helena Anderson
Richard Widmark - Major General Thaddeus Slater

Henry Fonda - Dr. Walter Krim
Richard Chamberlain - Dr. Hubbard
Olivia de Havilland - Maureen Schuester
Fred MacMurray - Clarence Tuttle
Ben Johnson - Felix Austin
Patty Duke Astin - Rita Bard
Slim Pickens - Jud Hawkins

I debated with myself as to whether the 1978 movie "The Swarm" is science fiction or horror. I didn't know where to put my commentary. Here on this platform? Or should I toss it onto my other platform, 1000daysofhorror.blogspot.com.

I read Arthur Herzog's novel of the same name last year which the movie is based on. Since Herzog is well known for being a science fiction writer as well as a writer of true crime, and the book feels a lot more like science fiction, posting my thoughts on the movie here makes more sense. 

Herzog's other well-known work involving animals gone crazy is "Orca" from 1977 about an whale that becomes a dangerous killer. That book was also given the film treatment in 1977. 

The novel "The Swarm" took some effort to get through. It has a few tidbits that grabbed my intrigue, particularly one scene in which a family goes on a picnic only to get attacked by a sudden swarm of bees that kill the parents and some of the children. The rest of the book feels like a bad science fiction B movie where "experts" in white lab coats talk among each other in science jargon trying to explain things and figure out a solution. The movie certainly doesn't stray from that style.  

The entire book centers on researchers and scientists trying to figure out why a hybrid breed of killer African bees is suddenly swarming in huge numbers and attacking entire populations of people. 

The final part of the book where men go head-to-head with these insufferable bees is where the book really grabbed my interest. 

There's some socio-political commentary as people take sides in regards to killing the bee populations or not. It becomes a political issue of sorts. I've read much more exciting and captivating books for sure!

The movie begins as an unknown force has just killed off everyone in a high-security U.S. Air Force bunker somewhere in Texas. 

Of course, in no time, Military officials find a huge swarm of bees flying near the base. These asshole bees, which are actually very aggressive Africanized killer bees, are the culprits in this devastation. 

Unbeknownst to the U.S. Military, a scientist named Dr. Bradford Crane (Micharl Caine) has been tracking these very bees for sometime. He's followed them to this restricted high-security base where he just meanders onto without any effort. 

Of course, he's arrested shortly after.

Crane tells whoever will listen that the bees pose a biological threat that can spread across the entire nation.

As is expected, the military leader, Maj. Gen. Thaddeus Slater (Richard Widmark) doesn't believe anything Crane has to say though the Major is even more confused than anyone else. But he doesn't believe the scientist! 

So, words are shouted, Chests are puffed out. And in no time, Crane and Slater come to an understanding. Afterall, Crane has Dr. Walter Krim (Henry Fonda) in Washington D.C. on his side. They're old buddies. So, that's good enough for the Major. 

Regardless, the bees swarm across Texas and attack a family during a picnic unprovoked. The parents are stung to death, but their son manages to barricade himself in the family car and drive back to town all while in complete shock and just watching his mom and dad die covered in bees. 

The swarm continues to breed and attack, and officials are scrambling to figure out how to stop them. Panic is spreading across the nation.

The killer bees quickly start attacking not only towns but transportation routes and key infrastructures. America is being invaded. 

Meanwhile, experts and officials try various tactics to kill these bees, but nothing seems to work. The bees are too smart and too strong.  

The military just want to drop all sorts of pesticides and the like. But Crane says this will kill the good bees along with the bad ones. If the good bees are dead, pollination will decrease considerably and crop production will suffer drastically. 

As the bees start heading for major cities, finding a solution against this buzzing force of nature is a race against the clock....like every other disaster movie. 

"The Swarm" came out towards the end of a cinematic trend of realistic disaster movies which saw big titles like "The Poseidon Adventure" (1972), "The Towering Inferno" (1974), "Earthquake" (1974) and one of my favorite movies, "Airport" (1970). These disaster movies often had all-star casts, severe life-or-death situations and were directed by Irwin Allen. They also reflect the societal fears of the era as well. "The Swarm" fits the criteria in pretty much every way, down to being directed by Irwin Allen. But they can't all be winners. 

Aside from Michael Caine and Henry Fonda, the movie also stars Richard Chamberlain, Olivia de Havilland, Patty Duke Astin, Fred MacMurray, Ben Johnson, Slim Pickens, and Katharine Ross. There's your all-star cast.  

Oh, the story also includes a romantic rivalry between Fred MacMurray, Olivia de Havilland and Ben Johnson that has absolutely nothing to do with anything else in the movie. Presumably this plot point is there to inject some human interest amid all the killer-bee chaos, but it feels completely disconnected from everything else going on. Still, this unimportant subplot involving very minor characters the audience knows nothing about because they're barely introduced is distracting and confusing.  

And then there's a scene in which a pregnant lady, played by Patty Duke Austin, goes to visit her doctor. They talk. She leaves. And the doctor looks as though he's in love with her. I honestly have no idea why this scene takes place nor do I know who the pregnant lady is supposed to be. Honestly, I thought I had missed a plot point earlier in the movie. This whole doctor visit scene threw me off.

Aside from trying to depict swarms of bees as frightening by covering actors with hundreds or thousands of them, the thought of which is scary enough, the movie trips over itself trying to really hammer in the fear factor. In one scene, a bee causes a train to derail and explode. In the beginning of the movie, the swarm even takes down some choppers! 

None of these scenes even compare to another scene in which the swarm cause an entire power plant to explode in a massive conflagration. 

Also, a lot of the dialogue coming from serious characters end up sounding overdramatic and absurd. Swarms of bees, which can be dangerous, are talked about like they're some sort of super-weapon that the experts are incapable of fighting against. This is all amidst the loads of scientific exposition. All this in a movie with a run-time of two hours and 35 minutes makes it a drawn out experience that drags on with worse and worse circumstances piling ontop of each other. 

I watched "The Swarm" on the Plex app which means I was interrupted every five minutes with two and a half minutes of the same commercials seemingly playing on a loop. And if you dare pause the movie on Plex, you're punished with extra ads. Well done, Plex. So, that didn't help. 

Sometimes the characters refer to the bees as the "Africans" which is a bit weird, too.

Thanks to that reference, the audience gets lines like, "Dr. Hubbard was out collecting live Africans. He's brought them back to the complex!" Slow clap for the script writers!

So, these "Africans" (again, the movie's term - not mine) behave like some sort of coordinated army. They plan their attacks, and invade specific enclosed areas within buildings as if they know who's on which floor of any given structure. 

The whole movie is clunky. I don't even know what this movie is trying to be. Is it a horror movie? Is it some sort of ecological or enviornmental sermon? Is it a creature feature? Is it a military/sci-fi monster flick? I don't know!

Now, I think Michael Caine is a brilliant and serious actor. I like his performances in so many movies - "Zulu," "Second Hand Lions," and even "The Muppet Christmas Carol." But the look on his face throughout the movie screams, "Just give me my paycheck, and let's end this!" 

Anyways, I can't just kick this movie when it's down. I'll throw some praise at it for its large-scale destruction sequences, actor performances while covered in bees, the general use of real bees in several scenes, the impressive cast of actors, and the general effort of the movie. It's clearly there. "The Swarm" does try to be a thrilling and terrifying movie. It just didn't score in the end.
It's way too long, has unintentionally hilarious melodramatic and bloated science-y dialogue. But I'll give it a half-point for its ambition and it's few genuinely suspenseful moments. Sadly, that didn't make it any easier to sit through. 

35) The Day the Earth Blew Up (2025)

(4out of 5)

"Chew!"

Director
Pete Browngardt

Cast

Eric Bauza - Daffy Duck and Porky Pig
Candi Milo - Petunia Pig and the Old Lady
Peter MacNicol - the Invader
Fred Tatasciore - Farmer Jim and the Scientist
Laraine Newman - Mrs. Grecht
Wayne Knight - the Mayor of Grandview
Ruth Clampett - Waitress Maude

I didn't realize until after watching 2025's Looney Tunes movie, "The Day the Earth Blew Up" how much I missed seeing a new movie traditionally animated. By that, I mean an ink and paint cartoon. My eyes have consumed too much CGI animation from from Pixar and the like for way too long. 

I don't recall the last time I've enjoyed an "old school" animated movie. It was definitely years ago. 

When it comes to the Looney Tunes, I've always preferred the cartoons animated by the late, great Chuck Jones or Friz Freleng between 1938 to 1963. In my youth I was a dedicate viewer of the Looney Tunes along with the Steven Spielberg spin-off "Tiny Toons" from the early to mid-1990s. The same goes for Spielberg's "Animaniacs" - one of the best animated series that ever aired. It wasn't Looney Tunes but it was close enough. 

"The Bugs Bunny and Tweety Show" was part of my Saturday morning cartoon viewing routine back in early nineties. The show was the last in my morning lineup. When its credits rolled, that meant the rest of my weekend could now start. 

I often joke with my wife, a long-time Disney afficionado, that Looney Tunes are a lot funnier than Disney animated shorts. I have to admit, deep down, I really believe that's true. 

So, the movie begins as a scientist witnesses a UFO crash near his laboratory. He goes to inspect the aftermath, and then suddenly disappears. 

Meanwhile, Daffy Duck and Porky Pig (both voiced by Eric Bauza) struggle to save the farmhouse they've inherited from Farmer Jim (Fred Tatasciore) who raised them both since their duckling and piglet days. 

Among the repairs needed to satisfy the inspecting eye of house inspector Mrs. Grecht (Laraine Newman) is a giant hole in the roof caused by the same UFO. 

Mrs. Grecht threatens to seize the property if repairs aren't made. So, Daffy and Porky try to get a job. Unfortunately, they quickly lose each job they're hired into. 

They finally land a solid gig working for Petunia Pig (Candi Milo) who's a gum flavor expert at a chewing gum factory. Of course, Porky has got the hots for Petunia. 

It's there that Daffy discovers a strange green goo being mixed into the gum and turning gum chewers into mindless zombies. 

This strange green goo is just the tip of the gum wad. Petunia, Daffy and Porky figure out that an alien invader is behind it with plans to control the people of Earth so it can invade and conquer. Typical alien behavior if you ask me. 

So, now they have to save the planet before it's kaput! 

If this movie demonstrates anything, it's that classic animation is still as entertaining and appealing as it used to be, and the Looney Tunes are still hilarious even with the same old gags and jokes. 

The movie brings back the appeal and classic humor of the Looney Tunes. Daffy, Porky, and Petunia are the only Looney Tunes characters in the movie which keeps things in focus. It has all the feels of a Looney Tunes cartoon embraces the traditional methods and formulas that made these cartoons last through decade after decade.

This movie has Porky Pig wearing gloves. Daffy Duck is not so much the Daffy who'd glare at Bugs Bunny and spit out his saliva saturated catchphrase, "You're despicable!" No, this is the Daffy Duck who'd jump around a lot like a maniac, or rather a Looney, and shout, "Woo - hoo! Woo - hoo!" 

The movie is old school to the core with a variety of throw backs to classic, and I do mean classic, Looney Tunes cartoons. It even includs one of my favorite gags from the old cartoons in which a member of the movie audience stands up, his silhouette visible on the bottom of the screen, and interrupts the movie. Classic!  

Of course, there's just enough updated material to keep things fresh.

There's also a quick joke showing just how Daffy is responsible for Porky's famous stutter. 

I always preferred the Chuck Jones animated cartoons as those are the ones I ate my bowls of cereal to every Saturday morning while watching the "Bugs Bunny and Tweety Show." The only reason my younger self would get up early on a Saturday morning, 

The movie is pure entertainment right down to the plot. It's a satisfying throwback flick that, surprisingly, didn't get much attention when it was released in theaters in March of 2025. I saw adds for it, but not a lot of discussion. I kept it in the back of my memory until I was able to borrow a copy from the local library. 

The movie is a great entertaining triumph of hand-drawn charm and perfectly timed lunacy. I got more laughs out of the movie than I anticipated. "The Day the Earth Blew Up" proves that classic animation, smart storytelling, and timeless gags can still light up a screen. 

34) Logan's Run (1976)

(2.5  's out of 5)

"There is no sanctuary!" 

Director

Michael Anderson 

Cast
Michael York - Logan 5
Jenny Agutter - Jessica 6
Richard Jordan - Francis 7
Roscoe Lee Browne - Box
Peter Ustinov - Old Man
Farrah Fawcett-Majors - Holly 13

Apologies for the delay, dear reader - all three of you (four counting mom). December and the Christmas season demanded its customary, traditional wall-to-wall Christmas movie viewing. I had to...just had to...watch numerous Ebenezer Scrooges find his redemption again and again. Of course, just as I have done every Holiday season for the last nearly past 40 years, I had to watch Ralphie get his Red Ryder 200-shot range model air rifle again. I had to watch Kevin McCallister find himself home alone for Christmas. And I had to watch George Bailey do his thing again! All of that stuff. I "had" to see it again, hopefully not for the last time.

So, my science fiction movies were temporarily shelved in favor of  yuletide redemption arcs, and seasonal inevitability. But I’m back. The blog lives. And I still have some Holiday Celebration ale leftover in the fridge. So, that's a win for me!  

The 1976 sci-fi flick, "Logan's Run" was on my initial list of science fiction movies to watch back when I began this platform. 

It's a movie I've heard of before multiple times but never bothered to watch it or even look into what it's about. Of course, that just made me all the more curious about it.

Based on the 1967 novel "Logan's Run" by William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson, the movie is a dystopian tale about a future filled with only youth and unconstrained pleasure. The powers that be and those who live in this hedonistic society want to protect their way of life to the extent that they're willing to kill for it. Everyone who reaches 30 years of age has to end their life. 

It's the year of the city 2274 and things are always crappy and deceitful in the future. As far as things go in "Logan's Run," which sounds more like a board game or a theme park ride than a title, everyone lives for self-gratification within a secluded supposedly utopian city enclosed under a dome. However, most residents don't realize, or don't simply want to realize, that their existence is a doomed one. They're fed the lie that when they have to forfeit their life, it's an act of "renewal" and "rebirth."

People go around with crystals called "life clocks" implanted in their palms which change color as they age. 

Once their clocks start blinking red marking their 30th year, they dutifully participate in a ritual called "Carousel" in which participates are vaporized in front of spectators. Most residents of the city participant in Carousel willingly as they believe this "rebirth" nonsense. 

However, some residents don't fall for it and attempt to run away. They're aptly referred to as
"runners." 

There's a whole police force of officers called "sandmen" who are tasked with stopping and destroying these runners.

Jenny Agutter and Michael York in "Logan's Run."

One of these sandmen, Logan 5 (Michael York), is rather content in this lifestyle. He, like a lot of the other residents, goes along with all of it. Afterall, it's the only way of life he knows.
After Logan 5 and another sandman, Francis 7 (Richard Jordan) attend one of these Carousel rituals, they're both called to go after and destroy a runner trying to escape. 

After they kill him, Francis discovers a strange emblem the runner had in his possession. Logan certainly doesn't know what it is. 

Later, he meets a girl named Jessica 6 (Jenny Agutter) who's wearing the same emblem. 

So, Logan consults a smart computer to figure out what the symbol is and what it means. According to the computer, it's known as an ankh - an Egyptian symbol for life. It turns out to be a symbol associated with a location known as "the sanctuary." That's where runners try to flee to for safety. 

Since Logan is a sandman, the supercomputer gives him a top-secret mission to find this sanctuary by disguising himself as a runner. In fact, the mission is so secret, the other sandmen are not to know about it. 

The computer changes the color of his life clock to red, thus cutting his lifespan short by four years. Logan doesn't get an answer from the computer as to whether he'll get those four years back or not. 

Nevertheless, he gets to work by convincing Jessica that he intends to run and asks her to help him escape to the sanctuary. 

Francis 7 thinks Logan really has become a runner and chases him as far as Logan and Jessica can go. 

And Logan runs a lot farther than he thought he would be able to, beyond the dome into a domain he never knew existed. And he doesn't know what that world used to be. 

They both meet an old man (Peter Ustinov) which astounds them as they've never seen someone past the age of 30 before. 

He tells them about aging and history which completely intrigues them. So much so, they want to bring him back to their city to show the other residents.  

For a dystopian movie, it sure feels like a disco flick minus the disco music. Still, there's quite a moral lesson regarding the consequences of exchanging morals and standards for a hedonistic lifestyle. Everyone is lied into thinking that fulfillment is obtained by unrestrained indulgence into whatever one's passions demand. The lesson somewhere in the story is that enslavement to passions is not fulfillment. And the intellect and reason of the residents of this domed city are too dulled and darkened to realize just how shallow this lifestyle is, how incurious they are to learn the truth of their way of life, and how controlled and enslaved they are. They'd rather accept an early death instead of jeopardizing their access to pleasures on demand. 

Where's the freedom in being a slave to your own passions? 

The powers that control the city, whom we never see, depend on these people unquestionably relying on the lie that they're renewed and reborn by being destroyed at age 30 to keep this way of life going. Don't ask. Just obey.   

The book was written as the fumes of the so-called "summer of love" were still stinking up the air. I think the premise of this summer of love was constructed on the fantasy that a society can be built upon self-indulgence, self-gratification, unhindered pleasure and the idea of constant liberation and refusing limitations. It spills into the premise of "Logan's Run." A society needs religious moral guidance and traditional moral order. As unrestrained pleasures of the flesh demand a heavy price, they also darken and dull a person's capability to reason well. I think the movie tries to capture this, with either some caution or simply not filled with exposition to beat the audience over the head with. I'll give the movie the benefit of the doubt and say it's the latter.  

I can't fault the movie for being a product of its time, but I couldn't get past the polyester feel and laser shooting atmosphere. A product of its time, indeed!

It's too quirky for a dystopian movie carrying a huge social moral commentary on its back. 

Instead of boring the audience with exposition, "Logan's Run" tells its story trusting the audience to understand the severity behind the plot. But despite the truly intriguing and thought stoking plot, the campiness gets in the way too many times.

The movie jumps from feeling like a cheesy adventure to a serious escape movie smothered with underwhelming performances. 

The scene involving the Carousel should be a horrific part of the film because it is, in fact, horrifying. However, it's treated more like an opportunity to impress the audience with artsy techniques as though it's more of a psychedelic far-out ballet instead of a terrible scene of unnecessary death. 

I was also disappointed by the ending. It came about with amazing and unbelievable ease undermining the entire premise. 

In the end, something amazing is revealed to the dome city residents. Then things shutdown almost right away without any apparent resistance, and everyone is happy. 

And when Logan and Jessica meet the old man in the outside world, it seems his role in the story ought to be a major part of the plot. However, his role feels like it wasn't used to the extent it could have. 

Behind the glossy joy and frivolities that end in death, there is an apparent sadness and ignorance that lingers through the scenes. Only when Logan is outside looking back does he see it. 

"Logan's Run" ends on the premise that freedom comes by accepting time rather than escaping it. It's a premise that's worth thinking about after watching the movie. However, I think "Logan's Run" is more remembered for its visuals and not much else. It missed a lot of opportunities all together. 

33) The Fantastic Four: First Steps (2025)

(3.5 's out of 5)

"Die with yours."

Director
Matt Shakman

Cast

Pedro Pascal - Reed Richards / Mister Fantastic​
Vanessa Kirby - Sue Storm / Invisible Woman​
Joseph Quinn - Johnny Storm / Human Torch​
Ebon Moss-Bachrach - Ben Grimm / The Thing

Ralph Ineson - Galactus​
Julia Garner - Shalla-Bal / Silver Surfer
Matthew Wood - voice of H.E.R.B.I.E.
Paul Walter Hauser - Harvey Elder / Mole Man

In my last post on "Avengers: Endgame" I said, and I still believe, the best days of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is behind us. Since Endgame, Marvel has released a lot of bombs. In fact, comic book movies don't appeal to me so much anymore. Thei novelty has worn off.

That's part of the reason why I didn't have much hope for the fourth remake or reboot (I don't know what to call this) of a "Fantastic Four" movie. 

There have been a handful of forgettable "Fantastic Four" movies already, starting with one from 1994. I haven't seen it, but I know it's there. 

Then there's the 2005 movie with Ioan Gruffudd and Chris Evans as the Human Torch. That 2005 movie is mediocre at best. Honestly, I don't remember much about it other than the origin story it depicts.

It spawned a sequel in 2007 called "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer." All I remember about that one is myself not being very impressed. That's all. 

And then Marvel tried to save the face of the Fantastic Four after the failure of both previous movies with a reboot in 2015 called, "Fantastic Four." I do remember this movie. It was one of the worst superhero movies I've ever seen. The story was boring. The characters were uninteresting. The pacing was extremely awkward. Terrible! Enough said. 

This year, the writers-that-be over at Marvel Studios rehashed the Fantastic Four for the fourth time (what a coincidence) like a desperate gambler insisting their luck with definitely turn around on the next spin. “Trust us,” they said, clutching their dice. “We’ve totally figured it out this time.” 

And so, against all reason and common sense financially and artistically speaking, they went ahead and made another one.

The story takes place in the year 1964 but on an alternate Earth called Earth-828. 

We get a brief backstory about the origins of our four superheroes setup like a quick news segment. Scientists have performed the first successful wormhole experiment. In the aftermath of this successful experiment, a scientist named Reed Richards (Pedro Pascal) heads a small team composed of test pilot Ben Grimm (Ebon Moss-Bachrach), biophysicist Sue Storm (Vanessa Kirby), and her impulsive younger brother Johnny Storm (Joseph Quinn) into an unknown realm of deep space. 

Ebon Moss-Bachrach, Vanessa Kirby, Pedro Pascal, and Joseph Quinn in "Fantastic Four: First Steps."

Their ship is hit with a tidal wave of cosmic radiation, giving each of the four team members inhuman superhero qualities. 

Richard becomes Mr. Fantastic. Sue Storm becomes the Invisible Woman. Ben becomes the Thing. And Joseph becomes the Human Torch. 

Since then, Richards has been busy trying to reverse their mutations. 

Sometime later, Earth receives a visit from a strange otherworldly being named Shalla-Ba (Julia Garner) who's dubbed "Silver Surfer" because she looks as though she's made of solid metallic and she rides around on what looks like a surfboard. 

She tells everyone on Earth that the planet has been marked for consumption by none other than the intergalactic gluttonous bad guy, Galactus (Ralph Ineson). I picked up on some "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" vibes with that particular plot point. The demolition of Earth at the hands of an intergalactic giant thing just brought Hitchhiker's Guide to mind. 

Anyways, the Fantastic Four do some digging around into the origins of this Galactus, and find that other planets have disappeared completely thanks to his hunger for power and control. 

So, they follow the Silver Surfer and her space trail to find Galactus with the hopes of meeting him and, maybe, try to make some kind of deal with him so that he won't consume their Earth. 

Meanwhile, Reed and Sue are expecting a child. When the four (well, five because Sue's baby-to-come is certainly a person) have an audience with Galactus, he tells them he'll spare Earth if they surrender their baby to him. Galactus senses that the baby carries a cosmic power that could absorb his hunger.

Of course, they flat-out refuse to do give up their child, whom they later name Franklin Richards. 

So, the consumption of Earth is still on. That leaves the Fantastic Four in need of a plan to defeat Galactus when he arrives to destroy Earth. It's a compelling story, and an entertaining one. 

"First Steps" can stand alone just fine without any regard to the previous movies. Thank you, Marvel! The previous films didn't accomplish much, if anything. For the Fantastic Four franchise, "First Steps" is the MCU equivalent of discovering fire. 

Julia Garner as Silver Surfer.

The characters in the previous Fantastic Four films come across as though their stuck in their situation, and the actors are doing what they need to do to get their paycheck at the end of the day. In other words, they're not very interesting.

Any one episode of Mr. Wizard has more chemistry and significance than the last Fantastic Four movie alone. 

The story in "First Steps" is set in an alternate version of the 1960s with pretty much that familiar sixties style. This version, however, is more technologically advanced with a retro/futuristic style. It's visually pleasing, imaginative, surreal and fascinating to watch. 

Thankfully, "First Steps" reduces the origin story of the four superheroes to a swift and concise reference in the beginning. They went to space, and some freaky space stuff happened. Now they're fantastic - all four of them! In the previous movies, the origin is the center of the story except for "Rise of the Silver Surfer." At least, that's what I recall. 

Rather than obsessing over how these four characters became "fantastic," the story in "First Steps" shifts focus on why these superheroes are superheroes, and what they mean to each other. The story gradually builds up to that aspect as the story progresses. Obviously, that's how stories are generally told. I mention this because the last movie completely missed that point. 

This movie inserts itself into the MCU with the same old parallel or alternate universes trope. Reed Richards makes the comment, "This equation not only confirms alternate dimensions, it suggests that parallel Earths exist on different dimensional planes."
So, the general plot is like all the rest of the comic book movies. A seemingly undeafetable threat looms over the entire planet, threatening to destroy the entire thing. So, the superheroes have their work cut out for them. It's not a bad story. I probably have some comic book movie fatigue. When you see the same general superhero(s) versus bad guy storyline again, and again, and again, it's hard to be wowed even with all the chemistry and such I just got through praising. What sets it apart, however, are the characters and the distinctive atmosphere that lend it a sense of freshness and individuality.

Otherwise, movie explores more mature themes (in a nice way, I mean) as it presents deeper relationships, and the human side of each character. Each of them also contributes something more than just their respective superpower. For example, Ben Grimm/ the Thing is depicted as more of a friend and intellectual peer instead of just being the team's muscle and a character driven by his struggles and difficulties after his transformation. 
"Fantastic Four: First Steps" is a richer and less repetitive Fantastic Four experience. It avoids the fatigue of yet another origin story and gives viewers more meaningful character arcs, and a nuanced storyline. "First Steps" strikes me as a more confident approach on the Fantastic Four, giving these superheroes a much better, and well thought out twist prior adaptations didn't bother to do. It's not the greatest superhero movie I've seen. It's definitely the best Fantastic Four movie I've seen. But it is very much a worthwhile superhero movie. The writers decided to take quality much more seriously this fourth time around. 

32) Avengers: Endgame (2019)

(3's out of 5)

"Everybody wants a happy ending. Right? But it doesn't always roll that way." 

Directors
Anthony Russo and Joe Russo

Cast
Robert Downey Jr. – Tony Stark / Iron Man
Chris Evans – Steve Rogers / Captain America
Mark Ruffalo – Bruce Banner / Hulk
Chris Hemsworth – Thor
Scarlett Johansson – Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow
Jeremy Renner – Clint Barton / Hawkeye
Don Cheadle – James Rhodes / War Machine
Paul Rudd – Scott Lang / Ant-Man
Brie Larson – Carol Danvers / Captain Marvel
Karen Gillan – Nebula
Danai Gurira – Okoye

Now that October is over, I can get back to writing commentary on this platform. It has been a while since I've posted on this page as I was focused on coming up with a thread of horror reviews for October over on 1000daysofhorror.blogspot.com. Go check them out!

Anyways, since I've already watched and reviewed the previous Avengers movies, I need to finish off that short thread with my thoughts on the last of those films to date. 

No doubt the Marvel Studios thinks their Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) hit its zenith when the mega-super collective masterpiece, "Avengers: Endgame" came out in 2019. And it certainly is one hell of a movie spectacle with its cavalcade of stars dressed as iconic figures and heroes, the likes of which certainly hasn't been seen on the silver screen since "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein." 

After the release of "Avengers: Endgame," Marvel tried to keep up some momentum with its MCU, but it hasn't quite hit that peak that Endgame reached. In fact, Marvel had some pretty low lows. Brie Larson as Capt. Marvel certainly added absolutely nothing to the whole MCU - speaking of low lows. (Cough, cough, "The Marvels" cough, cough). 

All in all, the best days of the MCU are behind us now. Regardless, money still needs to be squeezed out of the rag that is Marvel comics, so Marvel movies still pop out after...what...twenty-plus years?

There's a variety of lists and rankings out there that tries to rank best to worst Marvel movies. IMDB's list "All The MCU Movies Ranked Worst To Best" puts "Avengers: Endgame" as the best MCU movie to date. Considering everything and everyone packed into it, along with its captivating plot, I guess it's "the best." Or maybe that's because it has the best average scores on a variety of movie scoring websites? 
"Avengers: Endgame" begins less than a month after Thanos (Josh Brolin) erases half of all life in the entire universe from existence as seen in the previous movie, "Avengers: Infinity War." So, there's a lot of really pissed off people and aliens and whatever else out there. 

Tony Stark/ Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.) and Nebula (Karen Gillan) are out in deep space floating around just as they were from the last movie. 

Super-duper girlboss, Capt. Marvel (Brie Larson - Disney's very short-lived poster girl for girl bosses) rescues them and they all reunite back with the rest of the Avengers. I heard there's a deleted scene in this movie in which after rescuing them and bringing them back to Earth, Capt. Marvel makes dinner for the Avengers and then bakes them a pie. I don't know. That's what I heard. 

By the way, I should mention that if you're a 40ish-year old white dude, please make sure to consult Brie Larson as to whether it's o.k. for you to watch whatever particular movie you want to watch and then dare to form an opinion about it lest that movie isn't for you. Our sweetheart, Brie, made that clear in her 2018 Women in Film Crystal + Lucy Awards speech regarding the movie "A Wrinkle in Time."  

I wonder if she has since seen the memo stating that the most powerful people in Hollywood are those who shell out cash for a ticket. I think the late actor Bob Hoskins (a white dude) said that? I don't remember, though. 

Anyways, enough about Brie. I know Disney has had enough!

The top priority now for the Avenger's and all other superheroes - SpiderMan, Black Panther, the Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man, and all the rest of them - is to find Thanos, utilize some time travelling trickery thanks to the magical know-how of Dr. Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) and stop him from snapping his fingers (literally) to erase half of the universe's population. To prevent this snap from having any effect, they need to take the infinity stones from Thanos which gives him that power. 

Thanos is hiding out on some deserted planet. So, all superheroes unite under this one cause. This is their one and only chance! 

This movie tries its damnedest to be a colossal epic, which I won't claim isn't colossal. I will say it lacks depth despite its efforts to at least feign depth. 

The emotions and feels are there. In fact, the film presents a sense of emptiness impressively well. With all the emptiness from the huge loss of life everywhere, as well as the sadness alongside the comedy, battles and action, all supported by complete fan service, the entre spectacle feels a little too uneven at times. The whole movie really works itself trying to keep up with itself. 

I think the movie is stuffed with so much fan-service working with all its might to keep the movie afloat alongside the effort to be that colossal spectacle, both aspects loom over any character emotion and drive. This all hits a climax in the final battle scene, which is what audiences want to see, and rewatch, and rewatch. 

Josh Brolin as 'Thanos' in "Avengers: Endgame."

None of the characters are very relatable. The movie is 181 minutes of self-involved superheroes saving not just the Earth but the whole galaxy. I mean, it is a comic-book movie so that scenario makes perfect sense. It's a huge task with nothing much to take away other than experiencing a game-changer of a comic-book based movie with huge stars back at it again for the whatever-teenth time. 

In other words, if someone asked me what I got out of this movie, all I can think of is the mere thrill of watching a movie that no doubt considers itself the comic-book movie of all comic book movies, even when it comes to the other movies within the respective cinematic universe. 

It throws everything it can to wow the audience unlike anything Hollywood has ever done. And, to its credit, as an entertainment experience, it certainly accomplishes that. But that's as far as it goes. There's little substance to the characters and even the story. 

The movie really takes its time. It goes step by step which I have mixed feelings for. In the negative column, it feels too pretentious and long. The audience knows what's going to happen already so why drag it on for three hours. In the plus column, again, the audience knows what's going to happen, so the movie makes it interesting and engaging...or tries to. The honest effort is there. 

There is plenty of explaining but at least the movie also shows what the characters are trying to accomplish rather than constantly talking about it. I think the first Avengers movie made that mistake. 

All these superheroes fighting in the same universe makes so many of them feel redundant. Again - fanservice. Otherwise, why does the movie need Thor and Hulk, and also need Hawkeye who just shoots arrows? He's several talents less than Batman.  

Hawkeye is only there because of his name and role in the comic books. The movie really works itself to make sure all these characters are packed into the story and actually have something worthwhile and entertaining to do. Whether that something is relevant or not is debatable. 

The movie does succeed in delivering a long-anticipated satisfying payoff as Kronos is avenged for his ultimate crime. Even that is drawn out as if to really hammer in the feeling of satisfaction for the audience. 

Of course, a good epic take down comes with a tragedy or scar. In this case, Tony Stark/ Ironman sacrifices himself for the sake of the world. Such a scenario feels pulled straight from a comic book writer's mind. 

I don't think all the performances are terrible as many of the actors manage to convey some emotion, particularly Steve Rogers' (Chris Evans) quiet retirement as Capt. America. 

I think the logical culmination of the entire Avengers movies up to this point is the final epic battle, which is certainly one of the biggest big screen spectacles as far as live-action comic book movies go. 

It's well executed though saturated in CGI effects. All things considered, movies are meant to entertain before anything else. And this certainly entertains. 

Despite all the characters all doing something different for the same cause, their respective stories manage not to get lost on the audiences. It is all tied together well. 

The movie knows how big it is. I guess that's no revelation. However, the underlying premise of time travel and multiverses gets convoluted. It gives the already loaded movie an overstuffed feeling. The time travel part of the story makes the story as a whole come across as more complex than it needs to. It could still be a decent movie with a less convoluted storyline. Like the endless thread of time and space, the movie feels like an endless thread. It just keeps going for as long as it can as the second act ends and the third act begins. Again, it's three hours and it feels like three hours. 

I suppose the time travelling plot point is a resolution that goes outside of any standard movie resolutions. I think I've seen a lot of multiverse movies at this point, it's already repetitive in my head. 

Despite this jam-packed story line, the movie relies a lot on its own callbacks and fan service. 

There's so much to say about "Avengers: Endgame." I guess it all boils down to it being one giant spectacle of a film that is determined to outdo any other movie, comic book based or otherwise, that has ever come out of Hollywood before. 

"Avengers: Endgame" is one lofty and emotional (give or take) conclusion to the saga. It’s not perfect no matter how much it might think it is. It feels like one final celebratory extravaganza of the whole entire MCU covering the previous decades up to now. Or, rather, up to 2019.

And now there's a new Avengers movie coming out. Anyone who saw the 2025 movies, "Fantastic Four: First Steps" surely saw the mid-credits scene with Dr. Doom. 

I'm curious to know what else the story thread will bring in the upcoming ""Avengers: Doomsday" will bring. Like the comics, the stories never actually end no matter how many grand finales and send-offs are thrown to the fans in the audience.

The best part of the entire movie, hands down, are the Guardians of the Galaxy. The first two Guardians movies remain my favorite of the MCU movies. 

31) 2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984)

(3.5 's out of 5)

"All these worlds are yours, except Europa. Attempt no landing there. Use them together. Use them in peace."

Director
Peter Hyams

Cast
Roy Scheider - Heywood Floyd
John Lithgow - Walter Curnow
Bob Balaban - R. Chandra

Helen Mirren - Tanya Kirbuk

Madolyn Smith - Caroline Floyd
Dana Elcar - Dimitri Moisevitch

Douglas Rain - HAL 9000

Candice Bergen (credited as Olga Mallsnerd) - SAL 9000

I didn't know that director Stanley Kubrick's 1968 sci-fi "masterpiece" (as it's often considered) "2001: A Space Odyssey," based on the novel by Arthur C. Clarke, has a sequel. I only found out about this tidbit of trivia when I bought Gary Gerani's book "Top 100 Sci-Fi Movies." It goes with my set of his books that include "Top 100 Horror Movies," "Top 100 Comic Book Movies," and "Top 100 Fantasy Movies."

The 1984 sequel "2010: The Year We Make Contact," which is based on Clarke's 1982 novel "2010: Odyssey Two" sits at number 82 in Gerani's book. 

He also puts "2001: A Space Odyssey" at number two. What did he put for the number one sci-fi movie? I'll give you a hint. It's my number 27 on this platform.  

I put "2010: The Year We Make Contact" on my must-review list for this blog. I was curious. And I happened to find a copy a few months ago at a Half-Priced Books in Omaha. It was marked somewhere around $5, so I snagged it. 

The first and only time (to date) I watched "2001: A Space Odyssey" I was thoroughly confused. In fact, I had to pause the movie and read a plot summary and synopsis just to figure out what was going on and where it was all going. In other words, I didn't understand it. 

While I found the 1968 movie confusing and difficult to understand, thankfully I found its sequel easier to follow as far as the plot goes. That's not to say I wasn't somewhat confused. I could follow the general storyline, but I was still baffled at what it all meant. Maybe I don't have the sophisticated mind for such intellectual science fiction. 

This is a sophisticated sequel orbiting deep in the shadow of "2001: A Space Odyssey." So much so, even I didn't know of its existence until I saw it Gerani's book. 

The monolith endures.

The story picks up nine years after the first film when the Discovery mission spacecraft took off for Jupitar. That's the ship that was commanded by David Bowman (Keir Dullea) in the first film. 

Bowman, his crew, and the ship became lost back in 2001 and Bowman is surely died. Or is he?  

Tension between the United States and Russia, which was the USSR back in 1984, are high. And yet, both nations are tasked with individual missions to find out what happened to the Discovery. 

The Soviets are working on a spaceship called "Leonov" while the Americans are working on their own spaceship called "Discovery Two." 

Even though the Russians are farther along in the development of their Leonov, only the Americans can reactivate the sentient computer HAL 9000.

The reason for Discovery's demise is blamed on HAL 9000. If you've seen "2001: A Space Odyssey," then you know all about HAL and the chaos he, or it, created. Evidently, he's not evil. He was just programmed by evil government bureaucrats. 

Out of the kindness of their dumb ol' hearts, the Russians agree to bring NCA Director Heywood Floyd (Roy Scheider - formerly played by William Sylvester in Kubrick's movie) as well as the Discovery designer, Walter Curnow (John Lithgow) and Dr. R. Chandra (Bob Balaban) who designed the HAL 9000. The Russians take them because the Discovery is spiraling its way towards Io - one of the moons of Jupitar.  

Chandra, by the way, uses another supercomputer similar to the HAL 9000 called the SAL 9000 which was used as an earth-bound mission simulator for the Discovery. He experiments with the SAL 9000 to figure out what went wrong with HAL. Fun fact - Candice Bergen voices the SAL 9000, and is credited as "Olga Mallsnerd."

However, there's a mystery in their path. That mystery is none other than the enigmatic alien monolith. It's the same sort of monolith that confused me when I watched the first movie. 

I think I need a better grasp of the original story to fully appreciate this movie. 

The more I think about it, the more part two helps clarify some elements from part one. I've only seen "2001: A Space Odyssey" once so maybe it's time for a revisit. 

"2010: The Year We Make Contact" doesn't flow as majestically and pretentiously as Kubrick's flick, but it does flow with some complexity. It's not as intellectual as Kubrick's movie, but it certainly tries to be. Thankfully, it doesn't make a fool of itself when trying to do that. 

That's not to say it isn't a smart flick. It doesn't go out of its way to try and convince the audience that it's a lofty complex highly intellectual science fiction experience. 

It has a slow drag feel to it thanks to all the explaining it constantly puts the audience through. Its charm comes from its being a sequel to none other than Kubrick's highly regarding movie. 

Maybe I've been too spoiled by sci-fi that has laser fights and a variety of colorful and crazy planets and aliens blowing stuff up. This movie doesn't utilize any such tropes to tell a compelling follow-up sci-fi story. 

Despite it being just a little easier to follow, the ending left me with the same question as I had after watching the first. "Wait! What happened?" Again, I had to consult a plot summary on Wikipedia to make sure I understood what I just watched. The ending is a sappy product of its time - the United States and the then U.S.S.R. seeking peace, blah, blah, blah. 

"2010: The Year We Make Contact" doesn't set out to out-perform Kubrick's movie. It's clearly interested in simply continuing the story. 

The movie slowly builds up anticipation and intrigue one step at a time. The space visuals, while looking dated, are still well done. Before I forget, kudos to the story for redeeming the HAL-9000 and making it a good super computer in the end!   

Despite my lack of proper understanding to Arthur C. Clarke's story, and Kubrick's movie, this movie seems to be a decent enough follow-up. It managed to make me want to go back and give "2001: A Space Odyssey" another chance.