The Sci-Fi List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

[domino harvey]

To Serve Man was the only episode on my shortlist until last night when I forced some others on there, so same here on that. It is indeed a genius concept and emphasizes a lot of fears about communication friction that drove anxiety in the era related to Otherness.

When I was a kid, I checked out an awesome book at the library that compiled a bunch of short stories later adapted to Twilight Zone episodes and believe it or not, I was first exposed to some of the classic episodes like this and Number 12 Looks Just Like You from their source text first!

[bottled spider]

A couple recently viewed British ones:

Man in the White Suit (Alexander Mackendrick, 1951)
Glorious porn for the hardcore laboratory glassware fetishist. (Guilty). The science in this is quite respectable. The concept of a super strong filament, for example, has enough theoretical plausibility to have been taken up by serious speculative science fiction writers like Clarke. And the explanation given for the new material’s stain resistance is similar to the mechanism of N95 masks, see The Astounding Physics of N95 Masks

While its science fiction credentials are well earned, the film is foremost an Ealing comedy, a refreshing, small-scale satire about capital and labour, cynics and idealists, individuals and mobs, one that takes a cheerful view of people acting in their own self interest. The physical comedy is enjoyable, succeeding in its modest ambition to amuse (in contract to physical comedy that exhausts the viewer in its attempts to be deliriously funny). The performances are good all round, with Guinness and Greenwood ideally cast as the leads. This one is bound to be high up on my final list.

Perfect Sense (David Mackenzie, 2011)
This is decent “what if” science fiction, exploring possible individual and collective responses to the strange neurological effects of a fictional pandemic. How street performance and fine dining might adapt to the changed world are among the film's more intriguing speculations.

At various points the film slips into a style typified by The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows. For a less charitable comparison, this would also be the style of a certain kind of earnest, emotive TV commercial. Lest that sound ghastly, the film knows what it’s doing, and i think it works if you can go along with it. An unusual film that will likely make my list.

[Dr Amicus]

I ran a course on Science Fiction at University for two years covering film, television and literature. I'd inherited the course from the originator who'd set it up centred around utopia / dystopia - a central theme I kept (I had to keep the essentials of the course) but found I could add some additional weeks due to timings. Amongst the standard weeks on Utopia, Dystopia, Frankenstein, Feminism and Cyberpunk I added weeks on Special Effects, Fandom and British SF. Each week had it's own screening and I changed some of the films - 1984 was replaced by THX-1138, Branagh's take on Frankenstein with Hammer's Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed, and The Matrix with Tetsuo II: Body Hammer. My reasoning here was the first two choices operate in dialogue with their source material, and that Matrix was at this point only a couple of years old and I thought everyone was likely to have seen it. The first week was on defining SF (I had planned to show Scream and Scream Again as a borderline horror/SF but was stymied by timetables) I had a handout with multiple definitions which grew from (IIRC) 2 sides to 4 in the second year. If I can track down my handouts and course planner I'll send it to anyone interested.

As suggested reading, John Brosnan's The Primal Screen is a good history of US (primarily) SF films until the early 90s. Brosnan is a good writer but he has a definite bias in expecting SF to be good science, and his tastes are occasionally contrary but it's a good read. The two Alien Zone anthologies are close to essential for academic SF articles - if by now relating to work in the late 90s / early 00s. I'd also recommend the Science Fiction Encyclopedia - this is the third edition, the previous two were books, the third online. John Clute is the key figure behind it - one of the most important critics in the field and hugely influential. It includes beside entries on authors and key themes (invaluable!) many short but insightful entries on films and TV series.

On the podcast front, I'm fond of The Coode Street Podcast with Jonathan Strahan (an editor) and Gary K. Wolfe (critic and academic). Largely based on the literature, they do tackle developments and approaches to the genre in addition to interviews with authors and (occasionally) critics.

I watched the above spoiler tagged film for the first time last night - and, if not as enamoured of it as some here, I'd agree it is fascinating viewing. The tension between possible explanations for events (from completely mundane to SFnal) reminded me of Todorov's work on the Fantastic, balancing between natural and supernatural explanations. The fact it could be read as SF from the beginning (based on title) is similar to a phenomenon Gary Wolfe has noted whereby SF readers may be more willing to approach a work as SF with only the barest of hints - in film terms I was thinking of Cronenberg's adaptation of Ballard's Crash. In itself, the film (and indeed book) are not ostensibly SF and yet could be read as such - although this is a product of familiarity with both Cronenberg and Ballard where you almost expect an SF work.

[Feego]

Regarding Five Characters in Search of an Exit,

SpoilerShow

I actually think the Toy Story franchise explored the same themes more successfully, but I’m not about to defend those movies being sci fi (though technically they are eligible).

It’s interesting to consider movies that fit the genre that I hadn’t considered as such before. Carrie, for instance, could certainly be considered sci fi since her powers are rooted in science. And yet, as much as I love it, that’s not a film I would vote for in this project. The Fury, on the other hand, fits more neatly in the genre to me. Perhaps because the latter deals with psychic powers being harnessed and used by a corrupt agency for world destruction while the former is interested in psychic power in a more personal context? But then again, sci fi can be personal.

I look forward to revisiting the Universal and Hammer Frankenstein series as well as various versions of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde to see how they stand up when viewed through a sci fi lens rather than just horror.

[domino harvey]

I'm more focused on getting in some additional 50s films over the next couple months, but I did by chance recently see a film that qualifies, I'll Never Forget You (Roy Ward Baker 1950), which reminded me of the recent La Belle Epoque in more ways than one. Tyrone Power is a modern-day nuclear physicist who moves to London to occupy an ancestral house, only to become consumed by the knowledge that based on diaries and papers left behind, he's destined to travel backwards in time to the late 18th century and swap places with his ancestor. He becomes consumed by the idea and romanticizes the past, studying up on everyone he will meet and encounter to "pass" when he arrives. Of course, when he does switch places, he learns quickly that he was too studious and is too sloppy and overeager to reveal information he could not possibly have. Before long, most people in his periphery think he's the Devil. The exception of course being Ann Blyth, who Power falls in love with primarily because there was no record of her in all of the material he studied. There are only two possible reasons for that and I was surprised the film chose the darker one (though it cheats by offering a light at the end of the tunnel that doesn't really make sense). However, like Bedos' film, this movie is a mess of tones and never fully capitalizes on the excellent parts of its premise. There are moments here that are so good that it's almost infuriating that the film isn't worthy of them-- take the exchange where Power tries to charm Samuel Johnson and his guests by quoting Boswell (while Boswell is in attendance!) and ends up terrifying a duchess by describing her as though she were already dead, or when Power knows a local painter is working on a portrait of Sarah Siddons and the painter is shocked to discover he knows the title which he has not revealed to anyone. But then we get some comically excessive glowing shots of Blyth that are so ethereal and pregnant that they become ludicrous and it becomes easy to be embarrassed for giving the film much latitude. Fox also did not bother to stack this with a strong stable of supporting actors to shoulder the bit parts, and it shows. I could see a longer miniseries remake of this same material being a great BBC production. As is, this is flawed but has enough interesting component parts to tide over anyone interested til it gets a better attempt.

[Rayon Vert]

It’s interesting to consider movies that fit the genre that I hadn’t considered as such before. Carrie, for instance, could certainly be considered sci fi since her powers are rooted in science. And yet, as much as I love it, that’s not a film I would vote for in this project. The Fury, on the other hand, fits more neatly in the genre to me. Perhaps because the latter deals with psychic powers being harnessed and used by a corrupt agency for world destruction while the former is interested in psychic power in a more personal context? But then again, sci fi can be personal.

I see those two the same way - the accent on psychic powers is definitely more pronounced in the latter, and just the presence of psychokinesis by itself in the earlier film just isn't enough personally to see it as anything other than horror. Otherwise it would make my list for sure.

[Toland's Mitchell]

Here's a link to a Darko Suvin essay about the genre (I'm not sure if it's the exact same one TWWB read):
https://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/17/suvin17.htm

...The theoretical discussion so far seems to lead to the conclusion that the scientifically validated, although sometimes anti-scientific, novum is, within the admittedly vague limits of fictional literature, the necessary and sufficient condition for an SF tale. If this is so, it becomes easier to heed Spencer Brown's stern epigraph to this survey and delimit SF against other types of writings. No doubt, as Philmusrightly reminded us, one should always talk of historical genera as of classes with "identifiable, if not absolutely definite boundaries," but such identification is quite enough for a generalizing theoretical approach.

The first boundaries to be drawn were those most immediately necessary - toward horror fantasy, naturalistic fiction, and fairy tale. There was wide agreement here that both SF and fantasy deal "with things that are not," but fantasy then deals with the subclass of things "that cannot be" and SF with that of things "that can be, that someday may be" (Brown). As Heinlein put it, "[all fiction] is storytelling about imaginary things and people"; fantasy fiction is "imaginary-and-not possible." Though Caillois does not testify to a good acquaintance with overmuch SF, he first suggested some fundamental distinctions in regard to horror fantasy and fairy tale; using them, Klein and Lem elaborated on the duality (nature vs. super-nature) and black intentionality of the "fantasy" universe towards its figures, in stark opposition to the singleness and the lack of intention in the universe of SF...

This was a good passage which I've generally agreed with for a long time. For me, science Fiction, even it's far-fetched, has to be rooted in reality and based on scientific theory. I also feel sci-fi (though not always) attempts to explain its scenarios and novums in a way that seems plausible even if it isn't. Easy example, Jurassic Park. The possibility of cloning dinos has been rejected by the scientific community, but Crichton presented the idea to us that made it seem believable and scientifically possible. Thus it's easily a sci-fi. But Star Wars is a gray area. I personally consider them fantasy films because of The Force, the energy field that allowed characters to move objects with their minds, and come back from the dead as ghosts. There's no basis in science for either of those things, nor do the films attempt to offer any scientifically plausible explanation as far as I remember.

[therewillbeblus]

Yeah I wouldn’t say it needs to be rooted in reality but I think that’s a matter of semantics, and if I get your meaning, largely agree- this is why Planet Terror feels like sci fi to me too. It’s preposterous, but the way the zombie outbreak is presented fits. I also think it’s a greater stretch and doesn’t align perfectly with hard science (though I don’t think that matters as much as the nature of a hypothesis which can include social science), but Batman Returns functions to me as a hypothesis of continuing the gen x vision of social decay and the implications on the physical environment becoming accepted as artificial, hollow, dark, and crime-ridden, while identities are diffused to a place of absolute congestion. I already linked my writeup on the first page, but I’ll probably be voting for it, though I bet I’ll be the only one (and wouldn’t even consider voting for another Batman film, because none of them really subjectively fit for me in the same way).

[colinr0380]

I watched the above spoiler tagged film for the first time last night - and, if not as enamoured of it as some here, I'd agree it is fascinating viewing. The tension between possible explanations for events (from completely mundane to SFnal) reminded me of Todorov's work on the Fantastic, balancing between natural and supernatural explanations. The fact it could be read as SF from the beginning (based on title) is similar to a phenomenon Gary Wolfe has noted whereby SF readers may be more willing to approach a work as SF with only the barest of hints - in film terms I was thinking of Cronenberg's adaptation of Ballard's Crash. In itself, the film (and indeed book) are not ostensibly SF and yet could be read as such - although this is a product of familiarity with both Cronenberg and Ballard where you almost expect an SF work.

It is interesting since both Ballard and Cronenberg have that background but Crash comes in both of their careers at a point where they are moving away from the sci-fi and into pure drama territory, but still with some of the same subjects being worked through. Both used fantastical concepts to paradoxically tell some of the most mundane (and disturbing) stories within them, as if the monsters or the environmental catastrophes or the spaceships were not the most interesting thing, but the human beings reacting to their new conditions. For Ballard I love his sci-fi short stories (reviewed by Christopher Hitchens in this piece) such as Thirteen To Centaurus or Billennium, but even there the power of them is the harsh light they throw onto the contemporary concerns. It is probably the reason why my father loved Iain M. Banks but could not stand Ballard at all because he found him "too depressing" (I'd suggest "too real" instead!)

I'd really like to read those course notes if they were still around Dr Amicus! I remember a few years back in that 42nd Street Forever thread your comments on that Charles Hawtrey starring film The Terrornauts adapted by sci-fi novelist John Brunner, so I thought you had a particular interest in sci-fi!

I still have not seen any Cloverfield film beyond the first, which I quite liked. I heard somewhere (perhaps erroneously?) that the sequels (particularly The Cloverfield Paradox) were originally non-Cloverfield scripts that got retrofitted into the series?

[therewillbeblus]

A few initial writeups:

Stalker could very well sit at my top spot of this list, partly because it’s my favorite film that fits as ‘science fiction’ but also because I think it’s the best dissection of the genre’s themes. We are essentially presented with an existential quest to a magical space that reflects the innate drive in mankind to search for tangible answers to life’s mysteries, in recognizing the advanced ego’s magnetism surpassing the contentedness of Adam and Eve’s initial ignorance. Though each character takes on names identified as their professions, and they embrace the superficial labels for their identities, stable signifiers as placeholders in the absence of spiritual beliefs.

The final stage supposes that perhaps these shallow identities are actually a safe haven from the wish-fulfillment that is potentially the real source of fear; the distrust of our own deep, repressed desires hidden from ourselves, perhaps because these deceptively strong egos cannot cope with what lies beneath. The science-fiction and fantasy elements are mirages, engulfed in a sterile, natural environment of dreary sewers and abysses of greenery. It’s a journey, an externalization of the necessary one we all must take internally and externally through living, to get to a place of acceptance over what we cannot- or perhaps do not want to- understand.

The deliberate pace reinforces a collision in moments of transcendental grace with lurking uncertainty and hopeless anxiety. The characters are all broken, lost, and struggle to self-actualize because they long for what cannot be given, and what exists outside of the ‘present.’ The message of the film is equally affecting, in refusing to grant serenity to the characters who refuse to enter- because that choice is also driven by a reptilian-brain fear, a fear from their reptilian-brain desires that they don’t want to define them, or to clash with their barely-sustainable comprehended identities. The cycle of life revolves around this anxiety, fear, and hopelessness, but also the motivation to continue living, developing and actualizing skills, exerting confidence and continuing on. The humility that is uncovered is not static, but it is profound, a magical experience in itself that somehow combats the ego and the id with a spiritual stance of harmony- even when its inebriation fades under the structure of corporeal systems and individualized aches.


Krakatit: Although I’m not one to delay gratification on recommendations, I’ve been saving this one for this project specifically. A kind of North By Northwest man-against-the-world adventure narrative, except traversed through surrealistic coding of dreams, memory, and inebriation, rather than physical space. This is equal parts noir, science-fiction, and horror, all stewing in the backdrop of war torn Europe’s fatalist core belief of an impending armageddon. The methods of introducing information, including via the style’s unpredictable aggression, flaring up in novel ways to disrupt our own holds on the narrative, keep us in a fugue state that is as fun as it is terrifying.

The timeline alone sways like a rocking boat leaving one seasick, pivoting from a Memento-esque first act that takes us backwards through various unprompted memories, back into the present and blurring our sense of reality from there after establishing an unreliable structure of narration, let alone narrator! By the time the film kicked into its final act, there had been enough traveling players and enigmatic women floating in and out that the paradigm felt like what a James Bond movie would look like if imagined as belonging to the horror genre, bearing all the markers of the spy franchise yet uncontrollably slipping into an ungrounded nightmare of delusions. I’m glad I left this film for a fresh viewing, and it should be a list contender for anyone interested in how fear of the apocalypse initiated a brand of sci-fi, with this film produced at the start of the Cold War.


Sound of My Voice: I remember seeing this for the first time, knowing nothing about it other than it being another Brit Marling creation after loving The East, and it’s stuck as my favorite of her work since (until recently when another watch of Another Earth challenged that position). Marling casts herself perfectly, with her natural gentle reassurance and frightening alienation emitting an energy that is a definitive enigma in personality. I’ve always felt that her strategy to embrace this strange allure contrasts with audience expectations from her basic-blonde attractiveness. In all likelihood she could have sold out into ‘the hero’s sidechick’ or ‘damsel in distress’ roles and lived comfortably with bigger budgets, and I’m forever grateful for her commitment to artistry over finances. Marling’s preoccupation with meaning and shifting perspective to get there is so in step with a specific worldview of confident surrender, that her approach to these uncomfortable topics breathes a completely novel quality.

She’d recalibrate this part again in Netflix’s The OA, but never better than here simply because the lack of world-building allows the mystery to be left without much baggage on either side of doubt or belief. Marling and Batmanglij take the audience on a ride that forces us to pit our rational skeptical and atheist parts against surrender to faith in the spiritual blank spots, careful not to negate the valid roots of our own unique reasons for our skepticism. The final moments are eerie and beautiful in the same way that MO’s Benilde is for me. The film opts to ask us to look in the mirror about what prevents or permits us from trusting the intangible rather than buy into any specific ideas, purely through preventing a slice of evidence in plain sight, gifting a tangible expression without strings to usher in anything more concrete for us. A surefire lock for the upper tiers of my list, along with the equally brilliant Another Earth.

[knives]

I'd be willing to do a separate Twilight Zone list, but mentally I treat these lists according to OG rules.

As to genre parameters, personally I'll be sticking to hard sci-fi except when I'm not (obviously I have to include the original Godzilla).

[therewillbeblus]

The problem with a separate Twilight Zone list is that out of all the anthology shows it probably has the least amount of sci fi (vs dark fantasy) that I’d consider for the final list. I’m not a huge Outer Limits fan but very well may have more eps in consideration after a run through.

Also as far as left-field qualifiers, I’m tempted to consider Jarman’s The Last of England.

[knives]

No, I meant a TZ list like the Simpsons one we did. Also no on the Jarman which isn't even the obvious choice among his historical survey films.

[domino harvey]

What are “OH rules”?

[therewillbeblus]

Knives, just because it’s not the “obvious” choice doesn’t mean it can’t be my favorite.. and the apocalyptic places he ventures in fueling his anger toward Thatcher and proposing England’s destruction as a result of the sociopolitical response to HIV doesn’t feel like a hard ‘no,’ but I’ll rewatch it to gauge for myself. I already admitted it’s a stretch.

[knives]

What I meant by that is that Last of England, although a truly great film, seems like such a massive stretch to be called sci-fi I personally can't conceive of an argument unlike with Jubilee.

What are “OH rules”?

Autocorrect being the bane of my existence. Basically I was referring to the original rules.

[domino harvey]

The guidelines in the first post are the original rules, as there has never been another Sci-Fi list. Anthology TV episodes have been eligible for almost the entire existence of the genre list projects, so it’s as OG a rule as it gets. As for a TZ list, you’d need to talk to swo about any potential TV list, that’s his purview

[therewillbeblus]

What I meant by that is that Last of England, although a truly great film, seems like such a massive stretch to be called sci-fi I personally can't conceive of an argument unlike with Jubilee.

Haha I literally just conceived an argument but okay, I didn’t say it’s good enough to get it on a list.

[therewillbeblus]

Speaking of films that are a stretch… is anyone going to be putting Mauvais Sang on their ballots? The science-fiction premise takes a backseat to the romance, to the point where it’s barely significant- though I’m wondering if there are more specific connections that I‘m overlooking linking the themes. I would make the case that all of Carax’s films take place in alternate realities, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re primarily “science fiction” films!

As for a few more clearly-defined genre films that use science fiction to explore the grating implications of apocalyptic horrors...




War of the Worlds (2005)

I watched the original and the remake as a double-feature a few weeks ago, and although there is something comfortably campy about the 50s film, the remake bests it in every possible way. Most importantly, Spielberg crafts a science-fiction film that concedes the utter horror of the situation by immersing the audience in Cruise and his family’s experience. The ensuing action is never offering the audience an ounce of reprieve from the fight or flight bare-knuckled tension and dissolving humanism that immediately plagues interpersonal confrontations as reptilian brains swallow our executive functioning.

Morality is viewed as a privilege granted by functional civilization, ready to be compromised in the face of self-preservation, with Cruise’s solution to Robbins’ risk one of the most unsettling scenes in Spielberg’s oeuvre, and we don’t even visually witness the event occur. The catastrophic voyage with a family who struggles to retain their lives, let alone their moral fiber, is a blend of exhilarating and exhausting apocalyptic stress. By making the narrative and expository technique provoking our fears of Armageddon rather than specific to an alien invasion, the effect is far more engaging under the universality of fighting the primal fear of sudden death.

Cruise’s character is one that I’ve come to absolutely love, especially in regards to common complaints about the film’s anticlimactic finale, which I think is by design.

SpoilerShow

Once Cruise reaches Boston, he’s completely drained and beaten, on his last legs. There is a drawn out moment where Cruise is going into the tunnel to hide, but points out the birds on the creatures to the army, so that they can go ahead and kill them. Cruise’s greatest asset to the ‘heroic’ finale is to recognize, point and then hide. He’s essentially been emasculated the entire film as far as his superhuman persona goes, with almost every setpiece demonstrating that he cannot overcome his limitations and flaws in typical movie fashion- and yet he’s still able to act heroically within those imperfections.

The end allows us to see Cruise as a survivor, one who has persevered through some intelligence and determination, but also through a lot of luck, situations of sacrificing his moral compass, and possibly as a consequence of only needing to be responsible for the safety of one child after the son leaves. The emphasis on luck as the aliens die as a result of our planet’s environmental construction is in step with Cruise’s humanity, for allowing us to ‘beat’ the aliens would be too much of a deviation of this cynical sociological horror that emphasizes our impotence. The camera’s meditation on Cruise’s weak look as he powerlessly falters to regain his composure out of a trauma-reactive state to point out the birds, helping as much as he can under suffocating immobility, projects the establishing attitude of this film.

Spielberg uses his strengths at striking the balance between affirming humanity, and involving his audience via fastening us to the dignified leads, as he relentlessly transports us through creative stages of a cinematic ride, partly joyous in its thrills but never relenting from its nightmare hold. The film’s oversaturated style of blinding bright lights and grainy darkened colors contribute to soaking the celluloid to envelop us further into its gloomy atmosphere. A few Spielbergs will make my list, but this one may top them all, even Jurassic Park, depending on if I rank based on the best films that can be categorized as science-fiction, or the best films indicative of science-fiction’s power to shake me and elicit thematic truths buried deep down about the human condition and social fears.


Seeking a Friend for the End of the World

I already gushed about this film’s hold on me in its dedicated thread, but as a science fiction film it pulls no punches in dictating the sociological effects of the apocalypse. Funnier than the Spielberg to be sure, but still incredibly dark and profound. Perhaps the most emotionally humanistic film that’ll make my list, with arguably the greatest ending in all of cinema. The last couple minutes of this masterpiece connects us to the characters within this science-fiction universe in perfect alignment, and simultaneously transcends the finality of the apocalypse to pure empathy as we look in the mirror and validate our own existence. I’m not one to cry at movies often, but the final moments of this film trigger the waterworks. The intimacy at seeing the world in the person across from you speaks ineffable volumes.

[bottled spider]

Phase IV (Saul Bass, 1974). The best special effects movie? Not spectacular effects, but spectacle cloys, where the fascination of the ant behaviour here, and the sheer aesthetics, would stand up to a few viewings. How the hell did they do it?

Zardoz (Boorman, 1974). Part of the appeal of Exorcist II: Heretic and Excalibur is their fearlessness. But having seen those first, I can't give Zardoz many points just for being fearlessly bad. The structure of the film is inherently rather static, it's an uphill task making a non-boring movie about bored people, and you get the feeling Boorman is just making stuff up as he goes along. The script would make a good case study for Robert McKee to dissect. The movie might be improved by replacing Sean Connery with Bruce Willis wearing an expression of baffled contempt throughout. Or maybe a delighted, preening Jean-Claude van Damme.

[Never Cursed]

For those who have seen it, is demonlover sci-fi? I can't quite tell from the descriptions I have read here and elsewhere

[therewillbeblus]

That’s a really good question. My initial reaction is that I wouldn’t say so, although one could absolutely make a case for it (there is a key element that takes Videodrome’s presentation of globalized technology wedging increased dissonance between capitalist logic and humanist acknowledgement, using a similar idea). The reason I edge toward the negative is that it’s rooted in what appears to mirror our reality (though certainly cynically predictive), enough so that there isn’t a clear hypothesis that would force a definitive fiction as the film’s primary function. However, if you haven’t seen the movie yet, I can’t recommend it highly enough, and I’d love to hear your thought on it- partly because it’s a personal favorite and I’m always looking for new recruits, and partly because I bet you’d write something very interesting in response. I’ll certainly be considering it now that you mention it.

[Never Cursed]

That's certainly a fair response - is there any Region A-friendly way of watching the uncut version besides the OOP DVD?

[therewillbeblus]

I’m not sure, you can check streaming sites, but on a quick search the OOP dvd seems to be available for relatively cheap. The Arrow blu is great though, and is yet another reason why going region free is an excellent idea.

[domino harvey]

Not sci-fi, though Connie Nielsen’s hair is outta this world