Movie: Chosen Survivors (1974)
Directed by Sutton Roley
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL
Plot:
Forced by the military into a cave a third of a mile underground, a collection of strangers find out that they've been chosen to survive a nuclear holocaust. Hilarity and bats ensue.
Reaction:
I was really looking forward to this session because, at its heart, we're talking about 1970's era disaster movies, which is kind of cinematic comfort food for me.
Interestingly, this movie seems to be two stories sewn together in a reasonably seamless manner. The first is the Gilligan's Island story line of several (in this case 11) people cut off from the rest of the world and trying to rejoin civilization. The other story, which Joe reasonably compared to Hitchcock's The Birds is one of animals running amok.
The biggest problem with the movie is that there was little real character development. Joe noted -- and he was correct -- that the characters were clearly distinct from each other. And he was willing to give the film props for that. But I found I didn;t care about any of the characters. There was nothing to make me care about any of them -- whether they lived or died, or suffered. These people were very sterile and uninteresting. Which gets me to the sets. There was a kind of sterility to the scenery that made it seem very impersonal. Rightly or wrongly, I associate that sterility with early to mid 1970's science fiction -- The Andromeda Strain, Space 1999 come to mind. Now maybe that sterility makes sense. But it makes it harder to empathize with the people. This would have been more enjoyable if I had been able to care about them.
Chosen Survivors is not a great movie by any stretch of the imagination. But it delivers on its promise, and is worthy of a respectable 6.
Ratings:
Me: 6
Joe: 9.9
Sean: 2 out of 4
Bechdel:
Chosen Survivors passes the Bechdel test, I think. There must have been a point when two of the female survivors talked to each other about something other than men. But I don't recall for sure. Certainly the male protagonists were more crucial as the movers of the plot. Which, I guess is the whole point.
Bechdel:
Chosen Survivors passes the Bechdel test, I think. There must have been a point when two of the female survivors talked to each other about something other than men. But I don't recall for sure. Certainly the male protagonists were more crucial as the movers of the plot. Which, I guess is the whole point.
That type of sterility really began with “2001 a Space Odyssey”, a film (despite my usual “genre generosity” in forming a numeric rating) that I despise… largely FOR that sterility, and ultimately for its muddled and incomprehensible ending! And YES, it definitely influenced SPACE 1999 – for the worse! And had its influence on “Chosen Survivors” as well! …Thankfully, not TOO MUCH influence!
ReplyDeleteHow many films have we seen in Keith’s class where there are many characters, and most of them are indistinguishable from one another? Even complexion and hair color (something, regardless of the lack of characterization that may exist in the script, the producer or director would have SOME control over, mitigating said sameness), isn’t used to any helpful extent! …“Alien Rip-Off Month” comes to mind as a session that yielded films of this nature.
But, there’s no confusing the characters here! They were all cast – and written – to be distinctive! You may have wanted “more” (…and I certainly see your point), but the ambitious setup, and the effort toward providing individually distinct characters (to the extent they were), before the bats take over the story, very likely prevented that “more” you were seeking!
In contrast with the other films I’ve alluded to, I feel it was sufficient! Not perfect, but sufficient.
While I’m taking up so much of your comment space, I should also offer a few words about my personal ratings criteria. Since some of us have our own personal rating methods, it would be helpful to occasionally describe them here!
My ratings DO seem “generous” and are most often higher than the ratings of others.
But, that’s because I don’t rate the genre films we see against OTHER GENRE FILMS, but to the totality of all motion pictures! That includes all eras, all types, and all genres!
Romantic comedies (save any starring James Cagney), musicals, and anything starring Adam Sandler and/or Jim Carrey, rate down near (if not even BELOW) a ZERO!
Genre films (Sci-Fi, Horror, Suspense, Giallo, Film Noir, Western, and older Gangster and Detective/Mystery), because I view them as the polar opposite of that which I mentioned above) get an automatic “9” rating – and the degrees fall between 9.0 and 10! George Romero’s “Night of the Living Dead” and Tod Browning’s “Freaks” are examples of “10”s! The Giallo “Tenebrae” even went so far as to get an impossible “12 out of 10”!
Don’t feel guilty about occasionally “over-grading”! I say, go with what you feel at the moment! As the Blog’s host, you can always go back and change it later… like on next Zmedsday!
I was actually thinking about "2001" while I was writing about the sterility that I associate with the early to mid 1970s. But I didn;t mention it because it came out in 1968 and I didn't feel like including clarifying comments. Even if the trend started in the late 1960's I associate it with the 1970s -- and I may be right; it's fully possible for a trend to start in the latter part of one decade and peak in the next. I'm gonna be too lazy to research it.
DeleteAt any rate, I hated 2001. It was reasonably good from a technical sense, and Kubrick did a lot to get the relevant science right. But he let the science get in the way of storytelling, and it was just boring. Oh, yeah, it was also a pretentious peace of shit.
As to ratings, well, you can rate them how you like. But if you rate something a 9.2 (as you did "The Demons") most people aren't going to see that and understand that that means you "HATED" (your word, and you indicated that it should be capitalized) it. Since this is my blog I focus on my impressions, while reserving the right to reference others' comments. I don't want to commit to always explaining what you had to say for the sole purpose of letting my other reader know what you mean when you give something a 9.
But if you want to come up with some succinct wording that I can include as a parenthetical disclaimer, well I'm open to the ide of including it. Maybe as a footnote? Something like *Joe explains that "yadda yadda yadda." Either way, you're free to give these films whatever ratings make sense to you.
As for my ratings, I don't want to try to put my method (if I can be said to have one) into words. I do know that it has been increasingly seeming wrong to me to explain that I didn't care for a film and then give it a 7 or 7.5. I think I got this one right. A 6 says it's decent and watchable but not great.
“…But if you want to come up with some succinct wording that I can include as a parenthetical disclaimer, well I'm open to the ide of including it. Maybe as a footnote? Something like *Joe explains that "yadda yadda yadda." Either way, you're free to give these films whatever ratings make sense to you.”
DeleteActually, that’s a good idea! Please try something like: “Joe rates all genre films on a curve, from 9.0 to 10.”
It can become a regular part of these posts, just like “Hilarity ensues”!
Works for me.
Delete