Skip to main content

We cannot hang around here because of some runaway child.


The Fantastic Journey
4. Children of the Gods.

This one’s a bit of a stinker. Taking its cues from Lord of the Flies, we’re presented with annoying order of minors who have it in for those rotten adults (Elders). Star Trek’s done this before, of course; it’s a standard plot and becomes even more patronising (if that’s possible) when it comes to the moral of the tale.

The NBC set designers break for lunch.

Scott: You really do know a lot of things, don’t you?

The travellers arrive amidst some Greek ruins (doubtless stock NBC props) and Willaway holds forth with his knowledge of ancient history. He appears to be taking over this role from Varian (although Jonathan wouldn’t have been able to give the lowdown on ancient Atlantis). He dates the temple to 500 BC on account of an inscription from Pindar, the Greek poet (“Hold they tongue on the anvil of truth”). This doesn’t seem to have much to do with the main plot (aside from the adoption of Greek names; we learn that one of the few nice Elders was a historian), other than that Willaway discovers a cache of futuristic weapons in a room beneath the ruins (the rifles look like the same props as those used in the following story).

Yes, they live in a sewer. Nice painted backdrop, though.

Willaway: We cannot hang around here because of some runaway child.

Although he’s given to moralising with the whippersnappers, he retains a winningly callous streak when the rest of the party express concern over the fate of Sigma (Bobby Eilbacher). Or “little ragamuffin”, as Jonathan refers to him. The boy is a fugitive from the teenage dictatorship presided over by Alpha (Mark Lambert).

Say what you like about Roddy; he has some natty duds.

Willaway: Have you heard of the word “bribe”?

It isn’t long before Sigma and Scott are captured. The former is to be punished, the latter to told that he may join this group of youngsters. Alpha is a temperamental little git, given to strictly rote motivation, but Lambert turns in a strong performance. We learn that Alpha found the power to drive the Elders away (laser weaponry). All Elders are evil, because they used to punish the kids by tying them up (!) For some reason, all the kids wear futuristic boy scout uniforms and they live in a dwelling that appears to be entered via a main drain.

Willaway on the case.

Willaway is captured and sentenced to death for disturbing the holiest of places (the weapons store). Fortunately, this ensures that McDowall making the biggest impression of the main cast. He gets all the best lines, and even makes the in-roads in getting through to Sigma that would previously have been reserved for Varian. It’s Willaway who realises that the respected elder was Alpha’s father (the kid’s got daddy issues, and he’s just misunderstood).

That Alpha's not fooling anyone; he's 35 years old if he's a day.

Varian: You have become the thing you hate.

Inevitably, the plot turns on the announcement that Alpha has effectively become an Elder himself, bullying the small fries. Plucky Scott challenges Alpha and, even though he gets an ass-whupping, his bravery inspires the other kids to challenge their leader (“I want to live without punishment!”) Alpha has a complete personality change and vows to be a much better leader in future. How beautiful!

Money can't buy this kind of production value.

The rest of the cast don’t get much of a look-in. Liana does more fingers on temples magic. At least she, Varian and Fred aren’t missing out on great storytelling. Scripter Leonard Katzman worked on The Wild Wild West and went to pen several episodes of Logan’s Run. A tiresome, predictable episode; for the second in a row it’s only McDowall who keeps things interesting.


Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.