MovieChat Forums > Mysterious Island (1961) Discussion > Is Bill Warren Blind?

Is Bill Warren Blind?

posted 13 years ago by Deluge69-663-991830
15 replies | jump to latest

Bill Warren wrote an excellent book, KEEP WATCHING THE SKIES. He does an admirable (but sometimes overly petty critical)job of critiquing the Sci-Fi Movies of the 50's and early 60's. Genre fans will still find it worthwhile.

HOWEVER, in his review of MI, he states that Beth Rogan plays the "screaming mimi" and (Get ready for this all-time zinger) "Fails to make any kind of impression" THUD. The dumb pitfalls of being the high elitist critic, or some crap like that, hence always missing the main points.

Now, I feel that we should all chip in and buy Mr. Warren an expensive pair of eyeglasses. And that "each to his own" rationale doesn't really cut it.

Forgive my humbleness, but I'll still take that 'B Girl' in the hot mini-dress over the tiresome old "Oscar Winners."

I was never the A Student anyways. I found it way too traditional.

No offense to Bill Warren. Maybe he just has a great sarcastic sense-of-humor.

I just had to share this.

WHEW! Now I feel so much better.

The lesser of two evils is still evil. DRAT!

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

I agree, Bill Warren's take on Beth Rogan, along with many of his other comments, are mysterious, to say the least.

I like his book, Keep Watching the Skies, but he does get judgmental many times -- even as he criticizes other critics for being judgmental.

But the real problem is that in perhaps 75% of his entries, he makes mistakes -- in plot synopses, character names, facts about the films, and so on. I'm frankly shocked at how very many errors he has, especially for a supposed expert on the genre. Many of these are minor, but many others are pretty glaring. At other times, when he has no specific information, he simply makes assumptions and takes these as facts. So, as a reference work, the book is a good and interesting source, but with so many mistakes that you have to be careful not to accept everything at face value.

I also have a problem with some of the movies he insists qualify as science fiction. Sorry, but no matter how much you stretch and torture the term, films like The Crimson Pirate and Carolina Cannonball are not science fiction.

[–] Deluge69-663-991830 12 years ago

Something else that Bill Warren said which left me with that WTF!

In his book, he totally blows off OUTER LIMITS in a quick sentence, saying it was a lot of "pseudo science" with "fake looking monsters".

Did he expect real monsters?

Most true Science-fiction fans will put OUTER LIMITS up there, in spite of inevitable "imperfections".

And many of the ho-hum B films Warren seemed to champion also had even worse 'pseudo science' and 'silly looking monsters'. Even all the CGI today looks cartoonish and silly, just more "professional"

And Beth Rogen made no impression whatsoever?

No accounting for taste?

[–] telegonus 12 years ago

Bill Warren's a brilliant, erratic, highly opinionated writer.

I like him but I can see why he's not to everyone's tastes. He posts regularly at another site, btw. Keep Watching the Skies! is a classic IMO but I often disagree with Warren's take on films. Humor is not his strong point, thus Ed Wood's films don't appeal to him.

He was at his best writing about the top sci-fi flicks of the 1950-62 era such as The Day the Earth Stood Still and Them!. I don't own the book but I remember his review of Mysterious Island as being largely positive.

Maybe his strongest point as a writer is his passion for what he writes about. The guy absolutely loves sci-fi. On the other hand he's picky, picky, picky about all manner of things. He's an odd mix.

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

I don't know if I'd call Warren brilliant (an overworked word), but he is a good writer. He does have a sense of humor at times, but you're right, he treats some films, notably Ed Wood's, with more seriousness than they deserve (though Wood himself took his films seriously). I don't mind his opinions (I'm highly opinionated, as are many of us!), and I probably agree with the majority of his views, but even where I largely agree with him I often have differences with the tenor of his remarks.

Though you don't own "Keep Watching the Skies" it seems you're familiar with it. Of course, the book covers the period 1950-1962 you refer to, which is also the period of my greatest interest in sci-fi films, and I'll be completely immodest and say I know a great deal about these films too...which is why I see so many of the mistakes he's made. I can only add "careless" to his list of qualities, good and bad.

One problem with the book (originally two separate volumns) is that it was written in the early 80s, at the dawn of the home video era and before most of these films were available on VHS (and, of course, DVD). Therefore he dealt with many of them from distant memory, and a few he had seen not at all. He also never saw the original versions of foreign films, such as Toho's sci-fi and even British films, which colors his reviews (he deals only with Americanized versions) and makes them less knowledgeable and often mistaken in parts. And as I said, where he has no information he usually makes assumptions that he treats as facts, which generally leads to embarrassing misstatements.

I guess my central complaint would be, since he's so fond of the genre, why didn't he treat his subject with more indulgence, affection and, most of all, care? He has so very many mistakes that even I've caught that I can only assume there must be others in details he gives about subjects (such as original scripts, source stories and the like) that I have little or no knowledge of.

As I said, a good book, well-written, a wealth of information, a good resource, but it needs a huge amount of correction -- and updating!

By the way, what's the other site Warren posts regularly on?

[–] telegonus 12 years ago

I agree that Warren's book came out "too soon", as it were, and it needs revising. Actually, I think he has revised it, but as a person he's still the same, and if anything has grown more cranky with the years.

As to sci-fi of the period Warren focuses on, it's close to my heart as well, which is one of the reasons I value it so highly even as I can see what's wrong about it. It helps enormously that he saw most of the films he reviewed first run, as they were intended to be seen, in the theater, or drive-in as the case may be.

(The site is the Classis Horror Film Board, which you can easily google. One has to join to post, but it's easy enough. A Yuku site. My reason for not mentioning it is that I'm a bit worried that the admins here might delete my reference to it as it's not the IMDB, so it's a "rival" site. Bill uses his real name so you'll find him easily enough. Like the IMDB it has a lot of different boards, or folders,--I think they prefer that word--so you've got general horror, TV terrors, murder & mystery and so forth.)

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

Thanks, telegonus, I'll check out that site sometime. I wouldn't worry about the IMDb administrators deleting a reference to another board -- I've seen such references and they seem to be left alone. But I made a note of it just in case!

I'll also check to see if there's an updated version of "KWTS". Warren is nearing 70 now so perhaps that may explain any increase in his crankiness. And it may not make reevaluating past judgments any easier, either!

[–] Deluge69-663-991830 12 years ago

telegonus-

Always great to hear from you.

It surprised me when Warren blew off OUTER LIMITS as "pseudo science" with "fake looking monsters". You'd think there would have at least been a few episodes he liked. Most Sci-Fi fans have always championed it in spite of any "flaws" and nit picks.

And who's to say what is "pseudo science"? In Sci-Fi, we deal with future science and alien science, hence the possibilities could be endless. Movies are still dramas which can take 'acceptable and even plausible liberties', so I fail to see his nit picking problem.

He once mentioned that he did like THRILLER, at least some episodes. Naturally, the supernatural genre can take more liberties. Most people can accept Ghosts, demons, curses; etc.

But in Sci-Fi, we often need 'feasible explanations' for any weird events to occur, so one can suspend disbelief.

Some fans become annoying nerds with all their 'scientific knowledge'. Who's to say if laws of science, as we know, would apply in other areas of the universe?

[–] telegonus 12 years ago

Thanks, Deluge .

I'm not sure what Warren's beef with The Outer Limits is about. It's certainly not like 50s sci-fi, was a series that took itself and its themes rather seriously. Maybe it's that, as some CHFB contributors have noted (maybe Warren was among them) that TOL was sort of sci-fi Lite. I've been watching it on ThisTV over the last couple of years and it tends to stress the human factor over the "science factor", and if you watch several episodes in a row it can wear on you with its insistent liberal humanism, even as one may be in agreement with it. In this is much closer to The Twilight Zone than one might think (the upside being that when TOL got weird, usually with a Stefano script, it went way over the top in a way that the more middlebrow TZ didn't, as in such episode as Don't Open Till Doomsday and The Invisibles).

Glad to hear that Warren likes Thriller. Maybe its retro qualities appeal to him. It often plays like it's part of an old Hollywood continuum transferred from movies to television, from the Universal of Jimmy Whale, the RKO of Val Lewton, to the small screen. Thriller expands on the studio tradition in its own unique way, while TOL's episodes seldom channel the sci-fi of, say, Jack Arnold, let alone Roger Corman or Bert Gordon. The more I see of it the more it's come to seem like a dry run for Star Trek in its approach to science fiction. It's not the same but the patterns of the plots are similar, with humans running into aliens who as often as not seem like caricatures or expansions of various aspects of themselves. Kind of like the old Pogo comic strip "we have met the enemy and he is us".

[–] Deluge69-663-991830 12 years ago

Telegonus-

TOL's liberal humanism (like STAR TREK) was an obvious 'sign of the times' that is now more akin to the unappealing and dreaded 'political correctness' we are currently plagued with. It does come off rather preachy and even condescending today, (and the perfect example of 'preaching to the choir') but the 'optimists' will see it as being "ahead of its time". Sometimes, being "ahead of the time" isn't always the greatest of compliments.

It was OL's noirish look and mood that I found most effective. Frankenheimer's SECONDS seemed almost like a feature version of TOL, with it's grim and downbeat tone, and its very tragic ending. He must have watched a few episodes. And let's not forget all those disturbing 'social messages' from those turbulent times. It didn't matter if you were 'right or wrong', you were always wrong. No wonder that cynicism later set in.

Ironically, OL's low budget look added to the claustrophobic and isolated atmosphere, which now is considered the 'lost art'.

What still made shows like OL and THRILLER stand out was how they were produced as cinematic 'mini movies', as opposed to standard TV episodes.

Also, the commentaries on the THRILLER DVDs are well worth checking. They really did extensive and thorough research on it.

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

Just chiming in here to say I like you two guys' discussion here, which is very informed and interesting. Carry on!

[–] telegonus 12 years ago

I've yet to see the DVD's of Thriller. Deluge, do have some on tape, which I got off reruns from nearly twenty years ago.

Good call on Frankenheimer's Seconds. It does give off a TOL vibe.

TOL's modest budget does seem to enhance its effect, and they were especially effective in suggesting claustrophobia and/or entrapment, which came in handy many times as a large number of episodes deal with just those themes.

Thriller had a mini-movie look, too. Agreed. Excellent production values, way above those of the average series of its time. A somewhat latter show, also MCA/Universal, Kraft Suspense Theater, had feature film production values, and it was filmed in color, ran 1963-65, when color was still somewhat of a novelty, and its color is the best I've seen in a show from that period, Bonanza maybe excepted.

Indeed, the liberal humanism of those old shows is a mixed bag. I agree with you that a show being "ahead of its time" in the political and social attitudes it projects isn't in itself a virtue. Twilight Zone often plays like a blueprint for today's "political correctness". I don't mean that as a compliment . TOL was more surreal, and the somewhat earlier One Step Beyond doesn't "go there" at all, which makes it kind of a relief to watch, for while I may not know or be able to guess the outcome of a particular episode I always know that whatever it's going to be it won't be a sermon. John Newland didn't do sermons.

As to feature films feeling like or seeming to channel TV series, for me To Kill a Mockingbird often plays like an extended Twilight Zone, with two potential "monsters of the week", the terrifying Bob Ewell and the elusive and, in the end, ultimately benign Boo Radley. It wasn't filmed on the same lot as the Zone but for me it vibes similarly. Maybe it's that it's set in the recent past, as many Zones were, has the rustic-small town feel of an Earl Hamner TZ, emphasizes the innocence (or "innocence", as the case may be) of children and social outcasts. The movie had no aliens but Ewell and Boo came off as so alien in that sleepy Southern town as to be suitable substitutes.

[–] mel2000 7 years ago

TOL's liberal humanism (like STAR TREK) was an obvious 'sign of the times' that is now more akin to the unappealing and dreaded 'political correctness' we are currently plagued with.

The Outer Limits specialized in morality tales. Political correctness is a part of that territory.

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

Agreed. At times he excuses lapses in real science, at other times he takes after them. The whole point of sci-fi is to take the leap from known science into the fantasies -- and sometimes, real possibilites -- of science.

I especially think he's wrong to attack a low-budget movie (or TV series) for being "fake" without taking into real account its budget limitations. Again, he applies such standards haphazardly, sometimes excusing such things, other times being very harsh. (Yes, did he expect "real" monsters in The Outer Limits?!)

He also offers criticisms and judgments on a couple of films he hasn't seen -- yet he makes very definitive pronouncements about them as if he had seen them. This is dishonest, if not outright egocentric.

I have no problem with him pointing out the flaws in a film's plot or science or logic but I think this needs to be done with some degree of indulgence, set against each film's own terms. There are certainly bad sci-fi films that deserve criticism, but some consistency in one's approach seems in order.

[–] Blueghost 10 years ago

If what you say is true, then I wonder if he actually saw the movie.

[–] Randy-144 9 years ago

I saw Mysterious Island again last night. If Beth Rogan failed "to make any kind of impresssion" on Bill Warren then he must be suffering from a severely depleted testosterone level. Perhaps this actor -- http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0736622/reference -- is more to his liking.