[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/eb/Phantomleagues.jpg]

The father of this beautiful woman is a scientist by the name of Professor King--and there's something he's mad about!  In particular, this mad scientist is a marine biologist, and he's been performing experiments on the affects of radioactivity on marine life.  Shunned by the scientific community, he performs experiments under the suspicious and watchful gaze of his "busybody" secretary and his young, money-grubbing assistant who can't wait to sell the results to the highest bidder.

In the midst of all of this drama swaggers in our hero, another scientist going by the name Dr. Ted Stevens who's been sent by the government to investigate the strange deaths occurring at the nearby beach.  This is paradise lost, indeed!

Ms. King, somehow convinced her father means the experiments for the greater good, vacillates between flirtation and weariness when encountered with the stranger.  Egads, that sly, tall, dark, and handsome stranger even catches her right out of the shower, and struggling with the zipper on the back of her form-fitting dress, she has no choice but to ask him to help her with the zipper.  Pleased, the distinguished (and coincidentally single) doctor takes his time running his hands up the small of her back.

And while the so-called "phantom" hugs fisherman (and almost the distinguished, snazzy doctor) blindly underwater, I find that the most unfortunate character is neither one of the phantom's victims, nor the poor turtles exposed to radiation for no good reason.  The most unfortunate character in the film is Ethel, Professor King's secretary.  As curious a woman as she just tends to be, Ethel is first threatened with a harpoon hanging in the office by the good doctor himself.  He feels she may be attempting to peek into his office, and will no doubt inform anyone with enough money of anything she just happens to glimpse.  Poor Ethel is threatened yet another time when the young, impetuous assistant to Professor King also becomes suspicious of Ethel's characteristically "female curiosity."  Casually stroking the office harpoon, looking at Ethel threateningly, the assistant calmly suggests she not inform the good doctor of his plans to sell his radioactivity experiments to some higher (and no doubt foreign) power.

Starring:  James Best

Running Time:  69 minutes

Release Date:  June 25, 1959

Now, if you've already seen this film you may be thinking, "But Ursula, this isn't an apocalyptic film!"  I beg to differ, however.  This is not apocalyptic in the world-ending sense of the word, but The Killer Shrews is apocalyptic in the sense of the end of a microcosmic small island.  Rife with racial stereotypes that I will get to later, The Killer Shrews does deserve some praise.  For one thing, the lead lady Ann, played by Ingrid Goude, is actually a strong character.  Unlike the women characters in Panic in Year Zero!, Ann actually takes action--and doesn't seem to feel too sorry about it either.

Well, who is Ann and what is her part in the mini-apocalypse?  Ann is the daughter of Marlow Cragis, the scientist.  Again, unlike other movies where the scientist's daughter remains blissfully unaware of the horrors her father concocts in a deep, dark basement somewhere, Ann is actually very aware of the monstrous killer shrews reeking havoc on the island--she may even have helped in the initial experiments...  Before any of her male counterparts perceive the gravity of their ecologically screwed situation, Ann expresses doubts and guilt right from the beginning.  Is this social commentary?  Well, I don't think so.  In my opinion, Ann is meant to represent the audience--someone who saw it coming from a mile away and just wants to know how and when it's going to be over.  In this way she is a sympathetic character, leaving her as easy prey for the male lead.

In any case, while her character defies at least some stereotypes, there is another character that simply exemplifies them.  A black boat driver, whose name escapes me due to his apparent insignificance, is the first one to be consumed by the giant shrews.  From the branch of a small tree, he yelps unintelligibly for help--in vain.  In most science fiction  or horror films of this time, "people of color" of any kind are simply absent, but when they are present they are either objectified, horribly stereotyped, comic relief--or all of the above.  This should serve as no surprise.

The movie's dismal budget leaves a great deal to be desired, depending on your perspective.  The killer shrews themselves, of course, have static faces that float around on the screen--presumably moving the remainder of their invisible bodies.  There actually are plenty of shots of supposed killer shrews running around shrieking and poking their terrible snouts desperately under doors.  But these animals are dogs dressed cleverly in shrew suits.  Nothing wrong with that.

The other budget pitfall occurs on the set.  All of the nail-biting suspense takes place in one large room, with people simply disappearing behind its one door when they are no longer needed.  One of the scientists emerges from the door holding a tiny shrew, explaining to the male lead, played by James Best, how they came to be transformed into man-eating beasts.  The audience, however, sits waiting to be let into this elaborate lab of theirs.  No cages of irate shrews, no smoking beakers or vials of any sort.  Just a door.

The real kicker comes at the end, when the only surviving members of the cast, Ann, Thorn, and Marlowe crawls into "impromptu armor" in order to escape to the abandoned boat.  Don't take my word for it, check out the film.

Starring:  Vincent Price

Running Time: 86 minutes

Release Date:  March 8, 1964

Based on the novel, I am Legend that was hereafter adapted into two other films by the name of Omega Man starring Charlton Heston and the more familiar, I am Legend starring Will Smith as Robert Neville.  The Last Man on Earth, starring Vincent Price, is entertaining for a number of reasons.  These also serve as reasons why the film is... not very good.  First and foremost, a synopsis:

Robert Neville is a lonely man, and as far as he knows, he is the last human man left.  He begins his day preparing large wooden stakes that he then uses to plunge through the hearts of those who are "infected."  The infected cannot withstand the rays of the sun, and although they also display aversions to garlic and their reflection in the mirror, these are said to be merely psychological.  Lastly, they must drink fresh blood.  According to Wikipedia, this is the first time a film has attempted to use scientific reasons for vampirism.

For whatever reason, Robert Neville--our antihero--has not been affected by the disease.  What did he do that was different?  Wifeless and childless, Robert Neville has lost most of his hope for mankind--and most of his sanity.  This is until he happens upon a lone woman walking around during the day.

Alright, the downsides of this movie...  Vincent Price does well in roles that have a mysterious air about them.  He does not, however, do very well traipsing around plunging stakes into the hearts of vampires.  He just isn't... manly enough.  His movements throughout the film are vaguely effeminate and thus, unconvincing.  Every night, he waits for the vampires to come to his door.  They throw things at his house, hoping to break his fortress and charge inside--they even yell things at him:  "We're gonna get you," they say menacingly...  Needless to say, these vampires aren't very charismatic.

Starring:  Ray Milland

Running Time:  93 minutes

Release Date:  July 5, 1962

The Baldwin family set out of Los Angeles, California for a fishing trip one sunny day.  They are a seemingly normal family:  Man and wife Harry and Ann Baldwin with their two children Rick and Karen.  Only after a little while's drive, the family sees a great explosion behind them, what they would later find out is the beginning of a third world war.  Immediately, Harry predicts the mayhem and lawlessness of his family's impending future and breaks many laws for their preservation.  This includes robbing a hardware store and gas station within the first couple hours of the nuclear blast.  But they're not the only ones operating on "survival of the fittest" mode.  People are scrambling to leave the city, driven only be fear.

And of course there are others who seek to take advantage of all the madness...  Three hooligans Carl, Mickey and Andy rape and pillage their way about town only making matters worse for the Baldwin family.  Of course, Harry Baldwin guessed that would happen too, and he tells his wife and daughter to hide in the trailer attached to the back of the car.  They don't seem to understand why until the hoodlums show up.  How will the Baldwin family ever have a normal life again?

An extremely brave, realistic, and tense movie, Panic in Year Zero! triumphs in its portrayal of human nature and the complete breakdown of societal norms.  The movie's faults lie in its women characters.  With her world crumbling before her very eyes, Ann Baldwin insists that people are still inherently rational, although she is repeatedly proven wrong.  Even with the threat of rape constantly looming, Ann Baldwin remains in denial insisting that Harry not harm "those boys."  This is, of course, until her daughter wanders too far away from camp and encounters the infamous cackling hooligans.

An excellent movie that has yet to receive the credit it deserves.

Starring:  Charlton Heston

Running Time:  97 minutes

Release Date:  May 9, 1973

Yes, indeed, it's the year 2022 and the world is suffering from global warming, overpopulation, an abundance of poverty, few crops, and few animals in existence.  The only people who can afford such luxuries are--you guessed it--the rich.  Everyone else is forced to eat soy products produced by the mega-corporation Soylent Corporation.  Soylent Green is its newest product (proceeding Soylent Red and Soylent Yellow), produced from plankton.

Charlton Heston stars as the antihero, semi-dirty cop Robert Thorn who finds himself investigating the murder of one of Soylent Corporation's highest executives.  Thorn's suspicions begin early on, when he realizes that the victim William R. Simonson doesn't seem to have struggled during the encounter.  However, over-worked and underpaid, Detective Thorn helps himself to many of the dead man's amenities--including the "furniture girl," a young prostitute who is included with the apartment and must remain after her patron's death.  Heston does well as a man who has nothing to live for, but nothing to die for either.  Hence, at times the audience finds his behavior completely understandable, and at other times he can be crude and violent.  His dedication to the case is strengthened by erratic and suspicious treatment he receives from those somehow connected to the Soylent Corporation.

Who is behind Mr. Simonson's death--and what does that have to do with Soylent's products?

This movie displays great foresight into what would be nearly our present.  Of course, its predictions are a little too soon and it neglects any major technological advancements.  Not attempting to give the movie too much credit, but I am assuming that this is because their economy wouldn't be able to profit from an influx of technology no one could afford.  Where there is technology, it is huge and clunky--usually gray or brown in hue.  I'm assuming this is due to budget constraints.

Another of the movie's faults?  It looks like the 70's version of the future.  The hairstyles and clothing are nearly the same as they would have been when the movie was in production.  Many science fiction films are guilty of this, yet it never ceases to frustrate me.

Check out the following trailer:

Essentially, Soylent Green is a very American cowboy-structured film meant to be a warning to the inevitable environmental factors that could possibly lead to humanity's demise.  Less than one percent of the Earth's species are documented and studied.  And in the next thirty to forty years, a great deal (possibly 40%) of species will be extinct due to drastic environmental change.

Whilst choosing to disregard anything to do with the “Newborn” creature and “Ripley 8” in Alien Resurrection as being a worthy addition to the franchise, and its attempt to outline a bond between human and Xenomorph; I prefer to investigate the connection between antagonist and protagonist beginning with the first movie.

H.R. Giger's refinement of the surreal Necronom IV lithograph, with the help of director Ridley Scott, portrayed the beauty and sexual overtones of the creature within the first film. It's loud hissing, provocative grin, and drooling fluids, had significant cultural impact upon its human predecessors.

Ripley's personal encounters with the alien, particularly towards the climax of the first movie, are almost erotic in places. As the viewer sees the protagonist strip down to her underwear, it is at that moment that the seemingly neglected alien creature springs out of hiding to intimidate Ripley further. The slow building tension between the female human and Xenomorph during this scene are evident when Ripley's respiratory levels increase, and her violent screams result from the advance off the alien towards her.

The alien's combination of sexually evocative physical and behavioral characteristics are guilty of being seductive when in the presence of the human being. Indeed, much of the Alien's looks and life cycle can be seen as a perverse sexual metaphor. The snapping metallic teeth are almost like the castrating vagina dentata, according to critic Ximena Gollardo, and are deliberate in design for creating an organic killing machine.

During the famous scene, where the chestburster explodes through Kane's ribcage on Nostromo, there is a distinct connection between sex and death. On first contact with the species, Kane had been subdued and made pregnant by the facehugger from the egg, and later on the embryo had developed and escaped via its host. It is a nightmare for the viewer to see the male gender desemated via the birth of another species in such a fashion. Indeed, when the ovomorph succeeded in planting the embryo, it was via the method of sexual assault.

Undoubtably, there is a blurring of human sexual dichotomy here. At the time Alien was released, Sigourney Weaver, who played Ripley, was a little known actress, and it was somewhat surprising for a film audience to see such a horrifying plot develop, with Ripley being the last remaining (female) character. Contrasting to Dallas, who was the more familiar lead role of the film, yet becomes one of the early captures of the Xenomorph along with Kane; then is later seen cocooned and helpess, being used as a host for the implantation process within the nest of the alien.

In this sense Ripley's role is challenging the ideology of gender stereotypes: she is the only (female) survivor of the Nostromo crew, and overhauls the threat of the Xenomorph and its propagation, ultimately by herself.

The breakthrough feminist themes about women in combat made Sigourney Weaver a cinematic icon. The “Female Action Hero” was a rare title given to actresses in the days of Alien, and it wasn't till the reprisal of Sarah Connor in Terminator 2, that Ellen Ripley had any serious (human) competition.

The Iconic lone figure with a flame-thrower has been accepted and celebrated as pure cinematic magic, where Ripley, the heroine, triumphs over the alien species. Her strength and will to carry on through the suffering of her deceased crew makes her worthwhile to the female gender, yet truly iconic to the human race.

Furthermore, Ripley's character role is made significant by challenging the ideals of science with a human angle: it is her common sense, emotion, and will to survive that relates her to the best of us.

If only the crew would've listened to Ripley citing quarantine protocol; there would have been no knowledge of the extraterrestrial life form, and humanity would be safe from its threat (at least for the time being). Her attempts at persuading Science Office Ash and Dallas to get rid of the facehugger were also blatantly ignored.
The casting of Jones, the cat, is notable for influencing further Ripley's personality on screen. Despite being stalked by the alien, and with the self-destruct sequence of Nostromo rapidly counting down, Ripley is still desperate to get Jones out of there, under her wing, safely, after the crew has been completely diminished.

It is such characteristics that allow Ripley's role to overshadow even that of the alien, which is quite extraordinary, especially given that the title of the movie refers to the antagonist. Although the alien is most certainly billed as the “Perfect Organism”, leaving the audience intrigued to find out more about this highly aggressive, unfamiliar, extraterrestrial life form, it is the story of Ellen Ripley that keeps faith in human existence, and inspires further installments of the franchise.

Admittedly, I've had numerous nightmares of the chestburster ripping through my own rib cage, and I remain quite cynical when I hear about humanity's attempts to explore other species in space. I'm not paranoid (much), but you have to remember that “Science-Fiction” is an oxymoron, and a contradiction within itself.

Giger's obscene; insectoid form was not a result of evolution, but deliberate design. The vaguely human features of the Xenomorph, with its skeletal, biomechanical appearance, may well be the most perfectly formed organism we've have ever seen. Its erotic nature of reproduction- "an interspecies rape" according to O'Bannon -has haunted audiences for years, whilst the term "We are not alone" has rung through many of our minds.
Ripley not only installs pride within women, but gives faith to the whole of humanity's explorations, on film. In fact, it isn't till the 3rd instalment in the franchise that we learn Ripley has finally been “caught'”, and impregnated by the aliens; even then she was asleep when the attack took place.

Ripley fully deserves her rank as the 8th greatest hero in American Cinema History, at the very least; while Scott's Alien masterpiece must remain as one of the most significant sci-fi films of all time; with the award for the most grotesque surrealist artist going to H.R. Giger. Undoubtedly.

There were many great aspects that this movie has portrayed. The graphics were remarkable. The camera works and special effects made the characters come alive. The magnificent “Technicolor” made the animation film a picture show. The screens projection visualized the full scale of the robots. The attractive actress, Megan Fox, portrayed the role of becoming a better person while the handsome actor Shia LaBeouf was trying to save Earth.

Another fascinating thing about the movie was the luxurious vehicles. They had numerous well-known made cars from Cameros to semi trucks. My favorite part of this movie, or any movie that I have viewed, I would have to say are the action-packed scenes. They kept me coming back for more. My most favorite scene of the movie was toward the ending where the remaining Autobots and the army were joining forces to protect the earth from the remaining Decepticons. This scene was incredibly well done. The Autobots gave their all to battle the Decepticons and stood for what they believed in. I do not think there can ever be a more perfect movie than Transformers. Although, in most movies, you can spot their flaws. It is only because each of us express our own individual opinions about the movie.

Even though Transformers was amazing, there were some scenes that I disliked. That is, the appearance of the leader of the Decepticons, Megatron. In the movie, he was frozen for centuries until the Pentagon found him and dug him up from Antarctica. His body was thawed and he came back to live toward the end of the movie for a very short period of time. His character was supposed to be the all powerful and almighty emperor of the Decepticon but his life was shortened and it had been taken away quite quickly.

Another thing that I disliked about the film was their constant advertising of the major products. For example, they were sending out subliminal messages such as different type of vehicles and models. If you have seen the movie, you would have noticed at least 90% of all of the vehicles in the movie were all made by “GM”. Not only did they advertise vehicles, but they also advertised the Pepsi product such as “Mountain Dew” and still the Microsoft's manufacture the ever so popular “X-Box 360”. Even though these advertisements were mentioned through out the entire movie, the story still tied together quite nicely. Perhaps in someone else's eyes, it may have seemed a little overboard with what Michael Bay was trying to accomplish.

Through all of the pros and cons, Transformers is still my favorite movie. Still, this does not change my viewing nor my opinions whether this movie had no flaws and do away with the advertisements. The movie was still action-packed and yet it displayed an amazing story line. The characters played their role extremely well. Like I have mentioned earlier, I do not think that there could ever be a more perfect movie than this one. If you have not yet viewed this movie, I would strongly recommend that you do. It will leave you a few thoughts and perhaps a few opinions of your own. Remember, “There is More Than Meets the Eye”.

Image Source

Geena Davis plays the girlfriend and the only bridge to sanely of the scientist who continues to transform from human to fly. She stays by her lover's side throughout the morphing of her genius boyfriend. Even though his transformation begins showing signs of violent behavior and teams of armed security teams have been sent to eliminate the problem before it gets even more dangerous, she sticks by his side.

The movie is a great science fiction testament to how sciences can quickly spinout of control and how humanity can be influenced by the smallest and sometime unknown bugs within the most well thought out scientific experiments.

The movie “The Fly” is worthy of (Renting: Yes - Buying: Yes)

Ben Stein goes through great lengths to convince us that this has nothing at all to do with religion. Maybe he should've watched his own movie. After informing us that this is about science, we hear tale after tale of scary godless atheists who were converted to this horrifying Darwinian thought. In case the audience wasn't bright enough to get the point, droning ominous music plays throughout the entire film, that is until Ben Stein's rousing and liberating speech at the end. I think we may just have another Martin Luther King, Jr. on our hands.

Now onto what the movie has to say. Basically, it's a grand conspiracy theory that attempts to show the way in which mounds and mounds of evidence regarding intelligent design (better termed "Creationism") is discarded and hidden from the public in an effort to turn the world into Nazis. You may think I'm kidding, but I'm actually half-serious. Stein actually does draw the comparison of scientists to Nazis on multiple occasions. But back to the topic at hand. Stein ignores one extremely tremendous issue: creationism/intelligent design isn't science! At best it could be described as philosophy but in reality only the conservative and fundamentalist religious branches tend to have any interest in the subject at all.

The fundamentalists are right when they quickly point out that evolution cannot explain the origin of life, but this is a limit of all science, not the theory of biological evolution. Science is a study of the observable, and there is nothing observable about life origin as it only occurred once. Unless a way is discovered to repeat it, this is simply outside the realm of science and evolution. Yes, religion may give an answer, but it is hardly evidenced or provable, meaning that it has no place in a science classroom.

To compound the film's already illogical base, individuals were actually conned into making this film. Famed author of The God Delusion Richard Dawkins stated that he was lied to regarding the film's title and focus. He states that when making quipping remarks regarding intelligent design, the interviewer laughed right along with him. He also describes the way in which he attempted to discredit intelligent design, but was edited into the film as seemingly supporting it. For anyone even slightly familiar with Richard Dawkins, they would know this to be untrue.

Another such example of dishonesty is that which was shown toward the gentleman who discussed the "crystal theory," and was edited to appear as if he believed this theory. He in fact does not at all, but was simply attempting to dignify Stein's question regarding currently existent theories of origin within the scientific community.

Constantly repeated throughout this boring and artless film is the notion that the scientific community is unwilling to discuss intelligent design, which is beyond untrue. I have sitting beside me a book entitled Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism. This is a detailed and complex work thoroughly addressing the arguments levied against biological evolution. I would find it difficult to believe that anyone would find the book evasive. I also am holding a book titled Evolution and Religious Creation Myths by none other than Oxford University Press. For those unfamiliar with Oxford University Press, they are also responsible for the printing of America's most comprehensive Bible. So to say that academics or science doesn't take the arguments for intelligent design seriously is a bit ridiculous.

Lastly is this ridiculous notion of evolution leading to Holocaust-like violence. For those unfamiliar with Hitler, he was not an atheist, rather a Catholic. His hatred for Jews was rooted in probably large part to his Catholic heritage. To quote Dr. Dawkins, "Martin Luther himself wrote a book called On the Jews and their Lies from which Hitler quoted. And Luther publicly said that ‘All Jews should be driven from Germany.'" Bill Maher is quoted in the film as saying that we should "regulate religion" rather than guns or drugs. I see more of a tie from religion to horrendous acts than from the theory of evolution to horrendous acts when discussing Hitler. To insinuate that modern scientists are stupid enough to commit acts of genocide in the name of science is insulting to the entire hard-working scientific community.

Any biological scientist dealing with evolution will explain that this theory exists to describe natural behavior, not to encourage human interaction based on such behavior. One can actually see the opposite in fields such as psychology and sociology, which work to help people overcome oftentimes animalistic instincts by use of evolutionary theory.

So in the end, this film only serves to throw fire on the already sensationalized conspiracy theory regarding scientists and evolution. There are many explanations for why this debate rages on, but I have a theory. It seems to me that humankind wants to feel as if they are above all other forms of life, sort of an innate self-superiority. When admitting that all life relies on, and comes from, other life, a piece of that superiority is lost. They often mask this by saying that without this innate superiority, without being "in the image of God" as Creationists put it, we are unimportant.

However, this argument falls flat when one realizes one can approach this from an opposing perspective. When we become a part of all earthly life, and all earthly life becomes a part of us, one could argue that it raises the value of all life. The interdependency allows us to appreciate the beauty and complexity of life, something that people like Stein may never be able to experience.

I learned that too much heat will cause evaporation and precipitation causing great deadly storms. Those storms in the movie caused many problems. Many people died because of that. I felt bad while watching because it could happen to all of us. All the storms, big waves, deadly winds and deaths are what are store for us in the future if the present mindless abuse and misuse of the Earth and its resources are continued. If there is no effort on the part of each individual to contribute, no matter how small, to the efforts being made to save the Earth, if we do not try to stop the global warming from worsening, our own demise from its effects in inevitable. It is as if Mother Earth is chastising her children for the wrong doings they have caused themselves and other creatures as well.

The Earth isn't asking much from us. It needs respect and love. Respect would be in the form of proper appropriation of resources, putting things in its proper place and using things the way they were meant to be. Love would be in the form of being able to safeguard the resources remaining and trying to help revive its renewable resources. As a student, I myself can show my love and respect for the Earth. I can start to plant a tree wherever and whenever possible. I can spearhead a recycling program in our community which will be done until it becomes second nature to everyone. I can do campaigns and slogans to urge other members of my community to do the same. If I can do those, so can other people. You and I - we have our duties and we should fulfil them not for anyone else but for ourselves and the ones we love.