Only rated a 6.8?

I know that there are scientific problems and plot-holes galore in this movie, but I'm surprised that it only rates a 6.8 here.

First of all, this film was one of the earlier attempts to create serious science fiction for the big screen. There had been a few movies prior to this one--"Forbidden Planet" comes to mind--but in 1966, sci-fi was still largely thought of a a genre for the kiddie set. This movie, along with "2001," "Star Trek," really set the stage for the good sci-fi that was to come in its wake.

Secondly, its a pretty good movie in its own right. I still watch it every few years, and despite the aforementioned plot-holes, it still holds up pretty well. When viewed in the context of its times, it's absolutely amazing. When I saw it the first time on television, around 1972, I was knocked out by the story and especially the effects. I think it is important to judge any film at least partly in the context of the time in which it was created. So it doesn't have mind-blowing CGI we are used to today. By the standards of 1966, the effects are state of the art.

Most importantly, this film has had a HUGE effect upon subsequent films and our culture in general. Think about all the references to this movie that you see in other films, on television, or how it is referred to in every day conversation. Almost everyone knows about this movie. Even though some of the references to this movie come in the form of spoofs, it remains that the film is set squarely in the cultural psyche of our times.

So I wish it had a better ranking. Somewhere between 7.0 and 7.5 would be about right in my view.



"He was running around like a rooster in a barnyard full of ducks."--Pat Novak