Every sci-fi movie fan should have a book that chronicles
some of the best that the genre has to offer but sadly Robert C. Ring’s Sci-Fi
Movie Freak is not one of them. There is
no doubt that Ring’s book chronicles a lot of sci-fi films and most notably a
lot of classics which have indeed been overlooked over the years (and some even
forgotten). Ring’s book is broken up
into 5 main chapters which include “Best of the Best,” “Vital Viewing,”
“Further Essentials,” “Lesser-Known Gems,” and “The Failures.” This amounts to chapters that more-or-less
all sound the same except it’s a manner of opinion which would be in the “Best
of the Best” verses “Vital Viewing” verses “Further Essentials” chapter. A more definitive grouping could have been
more helpful such as a sub genre designation.
Sci-fi is such a diversified genre that there could have been an
infinitely better way of categorizing the films into chapters especially since
it is a reference book.
Ring does put the films in chronological order within each
chapter, which is actually a good thing as the reader gets to watch the
progression of the genre from one film to the next up until modern day. He also touches upon a lot of genuine
classics but I’m not exactly sure about his tone towards some of the films he’s
decided to highlight. His thoughts on It Came From Outer Space (1953), which
is in the “Further Essentials” chapter are, “There are plenty of moments of cliché
and simplicity, however like the sappiness contained in the opening…that mar
the experience for the modern viewers.”
He also describes RoboCop
(1987), “Though RoboCop has
shortcomings as a story, it is a smartly made film. It is packed with stock bad guys and pushes
through key elements with a lack of logic…”
I sometimes wonder why he bothered to include these entries in the first
place rather than pick other films in their place.
I also question some of his choices of inclusion as sci-fi
films such as 28 Days Later (2002), 28 Weeks Later (2007), The Host (2006), or The Return of the Living Dead (1985), to name a few. These films obviously don’t really fit into
the sci-fi mode and Ring doesn’t really explain why he’s chosen to include
these films. This leaves the reader
pondering what his criteria is for judging the films.
I do have to give credit to Ring for including a good
sampling of animated sci-fi films which usually go absent in these types of
books but he does highlight Iron Giant
(1999), Akira (1988), Metropolis (2001), and Fantastic Planet (1973), to name a
few. For some odd reason Ring felt
compelled to included TV specials in his analysis of the genre with Family Guy: Blue Harvest (2007) and The Star Wars Holiday Special (1978)
which seems more to populate the book with additional Star Wars reference films
(he lights four out of the six films already plus the spoof Spaceballs).
For me, there was more wrong with the book than right and
with there being plenty of other books on the genre out there this is a book
that can be passed by.
No comments:
Post a Comment