District 9

Roger Ebert started his review by saying, “I suppose there’s no reason the first alien race to reach the Earth shouldn’t look like what the cat threw up. After all, they love to eat cat food.” The alien beings in “District 9,” released in 2009, nicknamed “prawns” because they look like a mix of lobsters and grasshoppers, arrive in a spaceship that flies over Johannesburg. Found inside, grouped together, and starving to death, are the aliens, who benefit from a caring desire to relocate them to a location on the ground.

Here they are not welcomed but feared, and their camp turns into a prison. Afraid of alien attacks, humans demand they be relocated far from town, and clueless official named Wikus van der Merwe, played by Sharlto Copley, is placed in charge of this assignment. The creatures are not wanting to move. A private security force, lead by van der Merwe, moves in with armored vehicles and flame-throwers to encourage them, and van der Merwe happily destroys homes that have their children.

Who are these aliens? Where did they come from? How did their ship apparently run out of power (except what’s necessary to lift its huge weight?). No one asks: They’re here, they are not liked, so they want to throw them out of town. There doesn’t seem to be a lot to like. Ebert described, “In appearance, they’re loathsome, in behavior disgusting and evoke so little sympathy that killing one is like — why, like dropping a 7-foot lobster into boiling water.”

This science-fiction film, directed by newcomer Neill Blomkamp and produced by Peter Jackson, makes it look like a mockumentary about van der Merwe’s relocation campaign, his infection by an alien virus, his own shelter in District 9 and his partnership with the only alien who behaves intelligently and shows, what else, human emotions. This alien, named Christopher Johnson, has a secret workspace where he prepares to return to the mothership and help his people.

A lot of the story involves the obsession of the private security firm in learning the secret of the alien weapons, which humans cannot function. Curiously, none of these weapons seems superior to those of the humans and aren’t used to much effect by the aliens in their own defense. After van der Merwe grows a lobster claw in place of a hand, he can operate the weapons, and thus become victim of both the security company and the Nigerian gangsters, who abuse the aliens by selling them cat food. All of this is shown very seriously.

The film’s South African setting brings up inevitable equals with its now obsolete apartheid system of racial segregation. Many of them are obvious, such as the action to move a race out of the city and to a remote location. Others will be more pointed in South Africa. The title “District 9” suggests Cape Town’s historic District 6, where Cape Coloureds (as they were called then) owned homes and businesses for many years before being destroyed and relocated. Ebert noted, “The hero’s name, van der Merwe, is not only a common name for Afrikaners, the white South Africans of Dutch descent, but also the name of the protagonist of van der Merwe jokes, of which the point is that the hero is stupid. Nor would it escape a South African ear that the alien language incorporates clicking sounds, just as Bantu, the language of a large group of African apartheid targets.”

Certainly, this van der Merwe isn’t the smartest man on the team. Ebert said, “Wearing a sweater vest over a short-sleeve shirt, he walks up to alien shanties and asks them to sign a relocation consent form.” He has little sense of caution, which is why he ends up in his eventual issue. What Neill Blomkamp somehow does is make Christopher Johnson and his son, Little CJ, sympathetic despite appearances. This is done by giving them, but no other aliens, human body language, and little CJ even gets big wet eyes, like E.T.

Ebert credited, ““District 9” does a lot of things right, including giving us aliens to remind us not everyone who comes in a spaceship need be angelic, octopod or stainless steel.” Obviously, they are all aliens. This is also a unified fusion of the mockumentary and special effects (the aliens are CGI). There’s a sad story here about the alienation and treatment of refugees.

However, the third act is disappointing, which is just a usual shoot-out action. Ebert admitted, “No attempt is made to resolve the situation, and if that’s a happy ending, I’ve seen happier. Despite its creativity, the movie remains space opera and avoids the higher realms of science-fiction.”

Ebert continued, “I’ll be interested to see if general audiences go for these aliens. I said they’re loathsome and disgusting, and I don’t think that’s just me.” The movie mentions Nigerian prostitutes helping the aliens, but smartly abstains from entertaining us with this scene.

I don’t understand why Doug Walker didn’t like this film. I guess I can see when he said that this is borrowing from other films when it changes the way it is shot and the story, but I think what was different about this movie than the usual story is that it focused on someone who became an outcast because they were affected by something that is causing them to change. This is making him an outcast now and not welcomed, and we see that gradually, which is sad. However, I liked the way the movie looks, with the South Africa setting, the alien look, and the action. Check it out and see for yourself how you like. I think everyone will like it, but if anyone doesn’t, I can get it. Still, don’t think this is the same story as Avatar, Dances with Wolves, or Pocahontas, because it is not entirely. Look at it from the perspective of someone who suddenly turns into an outcast because of circumstances beyond his control.

Now we have ended “Science Fiction Month,” and I hope everyone liked it. Stay tuned next month when I have to think about what I will review next.

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

Ken Hanke started his review out by saying, “I have a kind of love-hate relationship with this film version of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, and no, my feelings about it aren’t grounded in any special fondness for the source material, since I only heard a couple episodes of the radio series and saw a few minutes of the BBC-TV film, and never read the books.”

Hanke continues, “My problem is based more on my desire to like a film that dares to be outside the realm of mainstream Hollywood product, which this one clearly does. Yet the movie tends to get in the way of that desire, or at least I think it does. When I first saw it last Thursday night, my reaction was that it was mildly amusing. Seeing bits and pieces of it again — and getting further away from it — I’m inclined to think it’s better than just mildly amusing, but that the film still misses being really successful.”

Maybe “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,” released in 2005, just tries too hard. Or maybe it lacks the edge it would have had if it had been made 20 years prior, satire would have seemed innovative. The strange thing is that the satire hasn’t lost its importance – far from it. If anything, the film’s criticizes at humanity’s pride that humans are the end-all, be-all of creation, its mocking ability about religion, and its depiction of a vacuous president of the galaxy (“I discovered you could only be president if you had half a brain”) who signs an order for the destruction of the Earth when he thinks he’s responding to a request for an autograph, are even more relevant now.

However, as presented int eh film, these points seem a little powerless. They feel less rebellious attempts than harmless squibs. The result is a type of laughing notice to the mess that surrounds us, without any real crime. And satire without crime – or at least anger, is a little beside the point.

Obviously, the submissive attitude was part and plot of writer Douglas Adams’ original blueprint. It’s just that the concept itself now seems almost old-fashioned, and its friendly good humor somehow out of place. That doesn’t make the film bad, it just makes it into a kind of naughty period film – a strange position for a sci-fi film to be in.

For those who may not know, the story is about Arthur Dent (Martin Freeman), who is taken away by his best friend, Ford Perfect (Mos Def), seconds before the Earth is destroyed to make way for a hyperspace bypass. Turns out that Ford is an alien making his way through the universe with the help of “the best-selling book of the great Ursa Major Publishing Company, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,” and he’s hitchhiked them out of harm’s way. This is where the adventure starts.

It’s a great foundation, but to where? When looking at the story, it doesn’t go anywhere you haven’t been before. The enjoyment and liking of the film are in the details of that adventure and the universe where it takes place. We may leave earth, but we haven’t left bureaucracy behind. If anything, it’s even rose as practiced by the Vogons. (Everything would appear innovative if it hadn’t been done already on screen, in a little modified way, as showing the afterlife in Tim Burton’s “Beetlejuice.”) Nor have we left any of the irregularities of Earth. They’ve just been turned into beings that make them look rather idiotic – for example, a religion that works on the belief that the universe was sneezed into existence and therefore replaces “Achoo” for “Amen.”

These traits – along with casual irrationalities like a dolphin production number “So Long and Thanks for All the Fish” – keep the film going, even if it never seems completely important. The knowingly cult-movie cast also helps, especially Alan Rickman as the voice of the clinically depressed robot, Marvin, and Bill Nighy as Slartibartast (“I told you my name didn’t matter”). Martin Freeman makes a perfect protagonist for the tone of the story, while Mos Def is an excellent Ford Perfect, and Zooey Deschanel is as good as she always is. Sam Rockwell is maybe a little much as President Zaphot Beeblebrox, but since the character spends most of the movie depending on a “lemon juice-powered brain,” maybe that’s understandable.

Everything adds up to a movie that’s very easy to like, but somehow not so easy to love – regardless of how hard you try.

My brother read the book, so I cannot tell you how closely this film follows the book. However, I still think this is a fun movie for everyone to see. If you haven’t seen it yet, check it out. You will have an enjoyable time watching this. This is an entertaining film that I think people will really like.

Next week, we’ll be ending “Science Fiction Month” with another good movie that I think is misunderstood by Doug Walker.

Battlefield Earth

Roger Ebert started his review by saying, “"Battlefield Earth" is like taking a bus trip with someone who has needed a bath for a long time. It's not merely bad; it's unpleasant in a hostile way. The visuals are grubby and drab. The characters are unkempt and have rotten teeth. Breathing tubes hang from their noses like ropes of snot. The soundtrack sounds like the boom mike is being slammed against the inside of a 55-gallon drum. The plot. . . .”

Ebert continued, “But let me catch my breath. This movie is awful in so many different ways. Even the opening titles are cheesy. Sci-fi epics usually begin with a stab at impressive titles, but this one just displays green letters on the screen in a type font that came with my Macintosh. Then the movie's subtitle unscrolls from left to right in the kind of "effect" you see in home movies.”

It is the year 3000. The race of Psychols have taken over the earth. Ebert noted, “Humans survive in scattered bands, living like actors auditioning for the sequel to "Quest for Fire."” Soon they leave the woods and stroll through the ruins of theme parks and the city of Denver. The ruins have been looking good for 1,000 years. (Library books are dusty but readable, and a flight simulator still works, despite where it gets the electricity is the question.) The protagonist, named Jonnie Goodboy Tyler, is played by Barry Pepper as a smart human who gets smarter, thanks to a Psychlo gadget that shoots his eyeballs with knowledge. He learns Euclidean geometry and how to fly a jet and proves to be a quick learner for a caveman. The villains are two Psychlos named Terl (John Travolta) and Ker (Forest Whitaker). Terl is head of security for the Psychlos and has a secret plan to use the humans as slaves to dig gold for him. He can’t be complained to his superiors because (and this is no joke) he can blackmail his enemies with secret recordings that, in the time of his death, “would go straight to the home office!” Ebert noted, “Letterman fans laugh at that line; did the filmmakers know it was funny?” Jonnie Goodboy figures out a way to avoid slave labor in the gold mines. He and his army just go to Fort Knox, break in and steal gold. That’s where it has been waiting for 1,000 years. What Terl says when his slaves hand him melted gold is beyond explanation. Ebert said, “For stunning displays of stupidity, Terl takes the cake; as chief of security for the conquering aliens, he doesn't even know what humans eat, and devises an experiment: "Let it think it has escaped! We can sit back and watch it choose its food." Bad luck for the starving humans that they capture a rat. An experiment like that, you pray for a chicken.”

Casting Travolta and Whitaker was a complete waste, since we can’t recognize them with all that tangled hair and hairy makeup. Ebert was funny when he said, “Their costumes look like they were purchased from the Goodwill store on the planet Tatooine.” Travolta can be charming, funny, touching, and brave in his memorable roles. Why make him a bad alien villain? The Psychlos can fly between galaxies but look at their nails: Their civilization has mastered hyperdrive but not manicure.

Ebert admitted, “I am not against unclean characters on principle--at least now that the threat of Smell-O-Vision no longer hangs over our heads. Lots of great movies have squalid heroes. But when the characters seem noxious on principle, we wonder if the art and costume departments were allowed to run wild.”

“Battlefield Earth” was written in 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. The film has no evidence of Scientology or any other thought process. It is shapeless and senseless; without a convincing plot or characters we care for even minorly. The director, Roger Christian, has learned from better films that directors sometimes tilt their cameras, but he has not learned why.

Ebert said, “Some movies run off the rails. This one is like the train crash in "The Fugitive." I watched it in mounting gloom, realizing I was witnessing something historic, a film that for decades to come will be the punch line of jokes about bad movies. There is a moment here when the Psychlos' entire planet (home office and all) is blown to smithereens, without the slightest impact on any member of the audience (or, for that matter, the cast).” If the film had been destroyed in a similar disaster, there might have been a standing ovation.

This is, hands down, without a doubt, one of the worst sci-fi films ever made. I cannot believe they would make a travesty like this ever. And to think, this film came out in 2000. The air the Psychlos breath reacts violently to radiation, are you on drugs!? The air is a reactive gas and nuclear radiation would set it off into a nuclear explosion, did you even read this!? How can an advanced trigger-happy violent alien species not have invented nuclear fusion? Earth, which is said to be a peaceful planet, have invented it and the Psychlos didn’t? Look, I never heard or read the book, so I can’t say how closely this follows, but from what everyone else is saying, this movie doesn’t follow the book at all. You would think that casting Travolta, who is a follower of Scientology, would help, but he probably didn’t even have a single say in it. Also, that horrible line “While you were still learning to spell your name.” Just do yourselves a favor and never see this monstrosity. You will regret the day you put this into your DVD/Blu-Ray player.

Now that we have thankfully gotten that atrocious flick out of the way, next week we’re going to look at some good films in “Science Fiction Month.”

The Batman

Earlier this morning, I had finished watching “The Batman,” which came out two months ago, on HBO Max while exercising. Now that I have seen this, I will let all of you know what I thought of this latest installment of the Caped Crusader.

Comic books have become a main adaptation tool for franchise filmmaking. Allen Adams said in his review, “There is a staggering amount of IP out there, ripe for exploration on the big screen.” Still, there are so many characters who we always return to. Characters upon who filmmakers can’t resist making films about.

Few characters have the type of blend that we’ve gotten from Batman for a long time – a blend that continues with the release of this latest film.

Since Tim Burton’s “Batman” was released in 1989, putting the foundation for the superhero success that would later excel, we’ve seen so many people embrace the character in their own way. Adams noted, “Early on, we got Burton’s neo-Gothic vibes and Joel Schumacher’s candy-colored neon fever dreams. After that, Christopher Nolan’s trilogy redefined the possibilities of what the character – and comic book movies in general – could be. Next, we got Zach Snyder’s stylized grimdark take as the character was moved into a wider expanded cinematic universe.”

Now, Matt Reeves has joined the club.

Adams said, ““The Batman” promises a more grounded take on the character, moving away from the more extreme interpretations and focusing on a younger Batman, one still learning the logistical challenges and harsh realities that come with costumed vigilantism.” With Robert Pattinson wearing the cloak, the film looks to go into the early years of the hero and his origin.

Adams said, “The film seeks to embrace verisimilitude – at least, to the extent that a movie based on a superhero comic can – and focuses more on the idea of Batman as detective, an aspect of the character that has largely been underplayed or outright ignored by previous adaptations.” Even though the film looks uneven, it still makes room for change and improve in ways we haven’t seen in theaters.

We meet this Batman, played by Pattinson, just two years into him being Batman. Currently, he stays a street vigilante, one saying he’ll clean up the crime-filled streets of Gotham. Adams said, “it’s a mission reflective of that put forth by his now-deceased philanthropist father, though his methods are far removed from those exercised by Thomas Wayne.” He has a complicated but evidently mutually respectful relationship with Gotham PD lieutenant James Gordon, played by Jeffrey Wright, but the majority of Gotham’s greatest look at Batman as a pain at best and a danger at worst.

However, without the mask he’s just Bruce Wayne, offspring to a huge fortune that has been gradually declining in recent years. His main person is Alfred Pennyworth, played by Andy Serkis, the man who has been with him ever since the tragic death of his parents so many years before.

The already crime-filled city threatens to explode when a mysterious masked person called the Riddler, played by Paul Dano, begins to kill off important people of the community, wealthy and powerful citizens that the mysterious villain sees as evil people responsible for Gotham’s slow suicide.

Meanwhile, a young woman named Selina Kyle (Zoe Kravitz) is on her own mission, trying to determine what happened to a friend of hers (Hana Hrzic) who has disappeared. Selina works at an infamous club famous for giving a place for criminals from every side to socialize. This club is run by a thug called the Penguin (Colin Ferrell), but the real boss is the crime lord Carmine Falone (John Turturro).

Selina – the famous cat burglar – decides to sue her certain set of skills to try and solve the mystery about her friend, leading her to meet up with the Batman. This encounter leads to both combining their plans, with the duo finding out just how deep and high the city’s crime goes. Their efforts put them in the radar of some very huge magnates who have a large interest in the status quo, even as a crazed serial killer target those very same magnates. In the end, it all comes down to who can be trusted, and who cannot.

There’s a great ambition with “The Batman.” Most superhero movies are about a mission scale, but this one uses that scale in a different way. Those films are about huge, world-threatening issues and scale that accordingly. This film’s stakes are must smaller, more down-to-earth. However, that’s not to say they’re less important or impactful – if anything, the less narrative swagger only increases out ability to directly connect.

Matt Reeves (who directed the film and co-wrote the script with Peter Craig) proves to be the right choice to make this version of Batman. Adams said, “He’s shown himself to be a deft hand with genre fare and IP franchise work – he wrote and directed the found-footage breakout “Cloverfield” and helmed the final two films of the excellent “Planet of the Apes” trilogy from the mid-2010s – and executed a clear and distinct vision in this film.”

A lot of that vision is seen in the film’s visuals. The artistic Reeves and company have created is filled with stylized structures and scary shadows, all of it drenched in a near universal rain. A lot of the film is shot in darkness that even the moments filled with light carry that dark hint.

The stylistic influences on the film are mass and extremely present. Adams noted, “There’s a ‘40s noir feeling throughout, a hard-boiled vibe that informs the underlying detective story foundation of the film. But there’s also a New Hollywood feel to a lot of the film, stemming from the efforts at crafting a griminess to the setting – the unseemly urban sordidness of Gotham is plucked straight from that tradition. Not to mention the fact that Reeves is unapologetically Hitchcockian in his approach throughout. Elements of paranoid thrillers and clean-up-the-streets exploitation are apparent as well. That said, this isn’t pastiche – Reeves simply incorporates these elements to help fill out a world that ultimately proves to be very much his own creation.”

The music is awesome. The score, the needle drops, everything is great.

Now, you can’t have a Batman movie – even one more interested in Batman as detective – without some action scenes, and “The Batman” has some good ones. Adams said, “There are a handful of hand-to-hand combat moments that are beautifully executed – there’s one lit almost exclusively by muzzle flash that is striking to watch – and a couple of top-notch chase scenes, as well as an explosive and complicated third act sequence that I won’t spoil.”

About the performances, they are exceptional basically all around. Pattinson makes an outstanding Batman in this version, menacing and emotionally detached and clearly struggling to find the border line between Bruce Wayne and Batman. There’s a part of psychological disconnect to the character that Pattinson embodies nicely, even as he holds his own with the physical demands. Meanwhile, Kravitz somehow gives an even better performance, giving Selina/Catwoman with a power and agility reflected both in her physical presence and her dramatic connection. Adams credited, “She oozes movie star charisma and wields it wonderfully throughout. Oh, and the chemistry between she and Pattinson is legit – the screen practically crackles when they share it.”

Now we get to the supporting cast. Dano is fantastic as the Riddler, somehow marking his menace even through a full-face mask and a digitally altered voice, using his eyes to give us a look into the character’s damaged soul. Ferrell – who is completely unrecognizable – gives his performance with a shine-in-the-eye glow. He is a great look at the Penguin as hopeful mid-level criminal. Turturro is mainly doing the same thing, but it fits the character well, so it works nicely. Gordon is almost always a thankless part, but Wright finds ways to bring something new to a character that often feels like an afterthought. Sadly, Serkis kind of is an afterthought. Alfred kind of gets pushed aside here, but what we do get is typically solid. We also get some amazing work from Peter Sarsgaard in a couple of scenes.

Adams said, “As for the elephant in the room – the nearly three-hour runtime – all I can say is that it is remarkable how fast the time passes. I certainly didn’t feel like I had been in the theater for three hours; the overall quality of every aspect kept me more than engaged enough to lose awareness of the film’s length.” Could it have been shortened? Sure, but there was little included that felt actively superfluous. Maybe we didn’t need everything we got, but nothing we saw actively steered away from the experience.

Adams admitted, “Personally, I don’t think “The Batman” quite reaches the apex achieved by a few of its predecessors – specifically, Nolan’s first two films – but it settles quite comfortably into the tier just below. And yes, there’s an argument that perhaps we didn’t need to reboot/revisit the character quite so soon, but hey – if we were going to get a new take anyway, then I’m really glad that this is the one we got.”

Stylish and plain, filled with well-shot action and high-quality performances, “The Batman” is a welcome addition to the franchise of Batman. Here’s hoping we get to see more of what Reeves, Pattinson and the rest have in store.

For a new take on Batman, I think this is a great new addition. If you want to see this, see it either in theaters, or if you want to play it safe, see it on HBO Max. I really liked the film, and if you’re a Batman fan, you will too. This was darker and edgier, and it really brought Batman back to what we love about him. I will even say that this is the best on-screen adaptation of Batman that we got. Another one of my favorite comic book films.

Thank you for joining in on my review. Stay tuned this Friday for the continuation of “Science Fiction Month.”

Lost in Space

Once again, I was having difficulty deciding what I would review this month, so I decided that I would look at some science fiction films. Sorry to say this, but we’re going to start off the month with one of the worst science fiction films ever made, “Lost in Space, released in 1998.

This is a ridiculous science fiction action flick based on an old TV series that was before my time. It’s got cheap special effects, a terrible visual look, and characters who say obvious things in obvious ways. Roger Ebert noted in his review, “If it outgrosses the brilliant “Dark City,” the previous sci-fi film from the same studio, then audiences must have lost their will to be entertained.”

The TV series was loosely based on the novel The Swiss Family Robinson, about a family lost far from home and using intellect and skill to live off the land. Ebert admitted, “I loved that book, and especially its detailed description of how the family made tools, machines, and a home for themselves, and trained the local animals.”

The movie doesn’t go into such details. After a space fight that is the predictable one to suck people in, and a quick explanation on why and how the Robinson family is going to a planet called Alpha Prime, the film mostly takes place onboard their ship, and has many more space fights, arguments, difficulties, attacks, hyperspace journeys, and exploding planets. In between, the characters go through rigid dialogue and tired relationship problems.

Imagine the film that could be made about a family lost on a distant planet, using what they could retrieve from their ship and search from the environment. That screenplay would take originality, intelligence and thought.

Ebert said, ““Lost in Space” is one of those typing-speed jobs where the screenwriter is like a stenographer, rewriting what he's seen at the movies.”

The story: Earth will not survive another two decades. Alpha Prime is the only other habitable planet mankind has discovered. Professor John Robinson, played by William Hurt, and his family have been chosen to go there and build a hypergate, to match the gate at the earth end. Ebert said, “Their journey will involve years of suspended animation, but once the other gate is functioning, humans can zip instantaneously to Alpha Prime.”

Obviously, there needs to be a hypergate at both ends because there will be no telling where a hyperdrive will take a person – as the Robinsons soon find out. Along with Professor Robinson are his wife Maureen (Mimi Rogers), their scientist daughter Judy Robinson (Heather Graham), their youngest daughter Penny (Lacey Chabert), and their son Will (Jack Johnson), who is the smartest of the family. The ship is flown by top space pilot Don West, played by Matt LeBlanc (who you might remember from “Friends”), and includes an intelligent robot who will help with the tasks at the other hand.

Also hiding below the ship is the evil Dr. Zachary Smith, played by Gary Oldman, who wants to ruin the mission, but is trapped on the ship when it takes off. So he wakes up the Robinsons, after the ship is thrown off course and looks like it will fall into the sun.

Ebert said, “Don West has a brainstorm: They'll use the hyperdrive to zap right through the sun! This strategy of course lands them in a galaxy far, far away, with a sky filled with unfamiliar stars. And then the movie ticks off a series of crises, of which I can enumerate a rebellious robot, an exploding planet, mechanical space spiders, a distracting romance, and family issues of trust and authority.”

The movie would probably have been more fun to look at if it had been filmed in brighter colors. Director Stephen Hopkins and his cinematographer, Peter Levy, for some reason choose a dirty, quiet palette. Ebert noted, “Everything looks like a drab brown suit, or a cheap rotogravure. You want to use some Windex on the screen. And Bruce Broughton's musical score saws away tirelessly with counterfeit excitement.” When nothing of interest is going on, it just makes it worse when the music pretends to care.

Ebert said, “Of the performances, what can be said except that William Hurt, Gary Oldman and Mimi Rogers deserve medals for remaining standing? The kids are standard-issue juveniles with straight teeth and good posture. And there is a monkeylike little alien pet who looks as if he comes from a world where all living beings are clones of Felix the Cat.” This is the type of movie where if it fell into a black hole, you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.

As everyone can tell, this one is bad. It’s not one that should be seen at all. I had never seen the show, but I do know about the famous “Danger Will Robinson, Danger” line, since that is popular amongst pop culture. Still, I don’t know how much of the show and the book the film follows, but regardless, avoid this travesty at all costs.

Next week we will be looking at another failure in “Science-Fiction Month.”