What do you think?
Rate this book
Harlan Ellison's Watching
Book by Ellison, Harlan
550 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1988
51 people are currently reading
608 people want to read
About the author
Harlan Ellison
1,075 books2,793 followersHarlan Jay Ellison (1934-2018) was a prolific American writer of short stories, novellas, teleplays, essays, and criticism.
His literary and television work has received many awards. He wrote for the original series of both The Outer Limits and Star Trek as well as The Alfred Hitchcock Hour; edited the multiple-award-winning short story anthology series Dangerous Visions; and served as creative consultant/writer to the science fiction TV series The New Twilight Zone and Babylon 5.
Several of his short fiction pieces have been made into movies, such as the classic "The Boy and His Dog".
His literary and television work has received many awards. He wrote for the original series of both The Outer Limits and Star Trek as well as The Alfred Hitchcock Hour; edited the multiple-award-winning short story anthology series Dangerous Visions; and served as creative consultant/writer to the science fiction TV series The New Twilight Zone and Babylon 5.
Several of his short fiction pieces have been made into movies, such as the classic "The Boy and His Dog".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews
December 3, 2008
Harlan Ellison is a bitter old crumudgeon, but that's why I love his writing. His poison pen is somehow full of charm and wit. He has a uniquely direct style, conversationally straight to the reader. And he is very convincing, he truly writes from his heart - in what he believes and what he believes important. This book is a collection of essays about cinema, particularly science fiction cinema, republished from a few different magazines. As writer (professional liar, he argues in a later essay) who has had a great deal of experience in movies and television - a lot of it amazing, check IMDB and be surprised - he shares some great insights into the absurdities and difficulties that writers face in the movie industry.
This book begins with some typical movie reviews but gradually (d)evolves in to a kind of episodic, foaming rant on the miserable state of (mostly 80's) cinema. The final essays are post modern-ly self-reflexive as he shifts away completely from film reviews (totally ignoring an earlier promise to dedicate a section to Cronenberg) and takes on the numerous dissenting readers who unwisely chose to write to the editors of the magazines. These wickedly funny diatribes directed toward Star Wars, Star Trek, Stephen King (movies), Robocop, Gremlins, science fiction "fans", agitated readers and anyone who has an "opinion" (as opposed to an "informed opinion") is pure delight to read.
Which is not to say he does not find ample words to praise movies, actors, cinematography, and other works he truly does like. And somehow, even though he detested Evil Dead 2, I couldn't help but agree with him - usually.
This book begins with some typical movie reviews but gradually (d)evolves in to a kind of episodic, foaming rant on the miserable state of (mostly 80's) cinema. The final essays are post modern-ly self-reflexive as he shifts away completely from film reviews (totally ignoring an earlier promise to dedicate a section to Cronenberg) and takes on the numerous dissenting readers who unwisely chose to write to the editors of the magazines. These wickedly funny diatribes directed toward Star Wars, Star Trek, Stephen King (movies), Robocop, Gremlins, science fiction "fans", agitated readers and anyone who has an "opinion" (as opposed to an "informed opinion") is pure delight to read.
Which is not to say he does not find ample words to praise movies, actors, cinematography, and other works he truly does like. And somehow, even though he detested Evil Dead 2, I couldn't help but agree with him - usually.
February 9, 2018
Ellison challenges the reader to think about entertainment (and life!), to try to learn something from it, and to try to understand and weigh myriad labeling concepts like worthwhile, enriching, mindless, educational, and on and on and on. It's like when you pay the dentist to do stuff to you that's uncomfortable; you know you'll probably be much better off for the experience when it's over. You can't always agree with Ellison (heck, I suspect he didn't agree with himself a lot of the time during some of these essays!), but his opinions are clear and passionate and he invites the reader to try to keep up with him. It's worth the ride.
July 20, 2008
I just finished the book, and am in awe of Ellison's ability to sustain a rant. He's so feisty! Harlan Ellison, who has written science fiction books and screenplays for decades, won all the big SF awards, and has seen the television and movie industry from inside and out, is an opinionated, bad-tempered, loud-mouthed (and foul-mouthed) know-it-all who won't shut up.
Who better to tell us what he really thinks about movies, especially science fiction (never, ever "Sci Fi", please!) movies? Who better to give us the inside story on how the movie establishment tried to kill the movie Brazil by insisting Terry Gilliam tack on a happy ending? Who better to rail against colorization, and then turn that attack around onto the directors who have abused the work of screenwriters for years, and are now getting a taste of their own medicine?
As a Star Trek fan, I especially loved his inside take on the first Star Trek movie, dubbed by Ellison (and everyone else) as "Star Trek: The Motionless Picture".
This book collects Ellison's columns from various magazines, including Cinema and The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction.
Who better to tell us what he really thinks about movies, especially science fiction (never, ever "Sci Fi", please!) movies? Who better to give us the inside story on how the movie establishment tried to kill the movie Brazil by insisting Terry Gilliam tack on a happy ending? Who better to rail against colorization, and then turn that attack around onto the directors who have abused the work of screenwriters for years, and are now getting a taste of their own medicine?
As a Star Trek fan, I especially loved his inside take on the first Star Trek movie, dubbed by Ellison (and everyone else) as "Star Trek: The Motionless Picture".
This book collects Ellison's columns from various magazines, including Cinema and The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction.
February 25, 2015
Ellison is primarily known as a writer of speculative fiction as well as TV shows, including the original Star Trek and The Outer Limits. His name comes up often as the inspiration for other writers. He’s the writer that other writers respect for his intellect and craft. So, I wanted to try out some of his work.
Reading this book was like being cornered at a cocktail party by an opinionated blowhard who has to tell me in a loud voice everything he thinks is wrong with the current state of cinema. It doesn’t matter what I think because he has no interest in any other person’s opinion. If I disagree with him, I am moronically wrong. If I do agree with him, it doesn’t matter, because I will never, never, never comprehend the true artistic depth of pure cinema.
I really debated whether to keep pushing my way through this book. Well, stubbornness prevailed.
And along the way, the book got better. In the second half of the collection, his tone lightened up and he poked more evident fun at his own curmudgeonly demeanor. He also better articulated his reasons for criticizing the inadequate state of cinema and how it was pandering to the lowest denominator. He executed lengthy critiques about why Spielberg’s thumbprint on movies like Gremlins and Young Sherlock Holmes was a bad thing, in the larger scope of things.
Did he educate me on what he perceived as the evident problems of Hollywood? Yes. Did I agree with his views? Sometimes. Was he full of himself? Definitely.
Still, the book was like being cornered by a blowhard, but as with many encounters in life, I did come away a bit wiser. The essays probably were more engaging in their original format – published monthly. Reading them back to back only emphasized the long-windedness and redundancy.
In the end, was it worth it slogging through?
Meh.
Reading this book was like being cornered at a cocktail party by an opinionated blowhard who has to tell me in a loud voice everything he thinks is wrong with the current state of cinema. It doesn’t matter what I think because he has no interest in any other person’s opinion. If I disagree with him, I am moronically wrong. If I do agree with him, it doesn’t matter, because I will never, never, never comprehend the true artistic depth of pure cinema.
I really debated whether to keep pushing my way through this book. Well, stubbornness prevailed.
And along the way, the book got better. In the second half of the collection, his tone lightened up and he poked more evident fun at his own curmudgeonly demeanor. He also better articulated his reasons for criticizing the inadequate state of cinema and how it was pandering to the lowest denominator. He executed lengthy critiques about why Spielberg’s thumbprint on movies like Gremlins and Young Sherlock Holmes was a bad thing, in the larger scope of things.
Did he educate me on what he perceived as the evident problems of Hollywood? Yes. Did I agree with his views? Sometimes. Was he full of himself? Definitely.
Still, the book was like being cornered by a blowhard, but as with many encounters in life, I did come away a bit wiser. The essays probably were more engaging in their original format – published monthly. Reading them back to back only emphasized the long-windedness and redundancy.
In the end, was it worth it slogging through?
Meh.
July 7, 2008
If you admire Harlan Ellison because he dares utter all the criticisms of what is stupid and mindless in our popular culture that you, yourself, would utter if you were not so timid or polite, you will like this book.
If you liked the biopic "Dreams With Sharp Teeth," you'll like this book. Ellison was the same prickly guy in the 70s and the 80s that he is today.
If you thought the 1970s "Star Wars" trilogy was the tritest of trite plots lamely supported by then-state-of-the-art special effects, but have always been afraid to admit it, you'll like this book.
If you think Steven Spielberg has had more misses than hits, you'll love this book.
The book is a collection of many of Ellison's movie reviews (or really, movie criticism in the best sense of the word) over the years, mostly reviews of SF and fantasy flicks. One caution - the reviews can be repetitive, even monotonous. Ellison wrote them rather sporadically, and many of the reviews were published two or three months after the previous review. A reader reading them as they were originally published would surely have found the same criticisms leveled at Spielberg and his protégés far less monotonous than one who reads three of them consecutively in an evening.
Ellison does hold some unaccountable opinions. On the strength of his praise of "Raiders of the Lost Ark," my husband and I, who had not seen it in decades, rented it, and even went to the trouble of projecting it on our 5-foot screen - and I thought it was rather stupid and tedious. Why Ellison, who in other reviews takes Spielberg and his ilk to task for using cartoon violence conventions in live action films, and for asking us to suspend our disbelief without giving us any reason to do so, found anything praiseworthy in "Raiders" is a mystery.
Repetition and puzzlement aside, the book is worth dipping into, if not necessarily reading cover-to-cover. Not only is Ellison's language crisp (nowhere crisper than when his pen is dipped in poison), but he writes the kind of movie criticism that is becoming a lost art, the kind that asks that a movie be both entertaining AND have redeeming qualities as a work of art. Moreover, Ellison points out that viewers will rise to the expectations Hollywood has of them - if you provide them with schlock, they'll eat it up, but if you give them a truly entertaining movie that demands something of them, too, they may in fact surprise you with their enthusiasm for it.
If you liked the biopic "Dreams With Sharp Teeth," you'll like this book. Ellison was the same prickly guy in the 70s and the 80s that he is today.
If you thought the 1970s "Star Wars" trilogy was the tritest of trite plots lamely supported by then-state-of-the-art special effects, but have always been afraid to admit it, you'll like this book.
If you think Steven Spielberg has had more misses than hits, you'll love this book.
The book is a collection of many of Ellison's movie reviews (or really, movie criticism in the best sense of the word) over the years, mostly reviews of SF and fantasy flicks. One caution - the reviews can be repetitive, even monotonous. Ellison wrote them rather sporadically, and many of the reviews were published two or three months after the previous review. A reader reading them as they were originally published would surely have found the same criticisms leveled at Spielberg and his protégés far less monotonous than one who reads three of them consecutively in an evening.
Ellison does hold some unaccountable opinions. On the strength of his praise of "Raiders of the Lost Ark," my husband and I, who had not seen it in decades, rented it, and even went to the trouble of projecting it on our 5-foot screen - and I thought it was rather stupid and tedious. Why Ellison, who in other reviews takes Spielberg and his ilk to task for using cartoon violence conventions in live action films, and for asking us to suspend our disbelief without giving us any reason to do so, found anything praiseworthy in "Raiders" is a mystery.
Repetition and puzzlement aside, the book is worth dipping into, if not necessarily reading cover-to-cover. Not only is Ellison's language crisp (nowhere crisper than when his pen is dipped in poison), but he writes the kind of movie criticism that is becoming a lost art, the kind that asks that a movie be both entertaining AND have redeeming qualities as a work of art. Moreover, Ellison points out that viewers will rise to the expectations Hollywood has of them - if you provide them with schlock, they'll eat it up, but if you give them a truly entertaining movie that demands something of them, too, they may in fact surprise you with their enthusiasm for it.
February 14, 2012
Essential for all lovers and students of film criticism, Ellison's humor, wit, intelligence, and vitriol are on fine display in these essays, starting with his earliest film reviews in the mid-1960s. You will want to see every film he mentions, even if his response is vicious and demeaning - you'll want to see for yourself if it's that bad (or that good)! Hilarious and infuriating in equal measure, this collection is a great survey of the inimitable Ellison style.
May 24, 2008
The only problem I had with this book is his analysis of Risky Business; he completely missed the critical subtext because it was supposedly a teen sex romp. On the plus side, He loved David Lynch's Dune. Turns out I'd been making the same arguments for the excellence of the movie that he makes in his essay. In other words, he's brilliant.
Read
June 1, 2013Just as good as the first time I read it.
Ellison is a genius.
Give this one a try if you don't own the complete works of Ellison.
Ellison is a genius.
Give this one a try if you don't own the complete works of Ellison.
February 14, 2014
This is a collection of movie reviews, written by Harlan Ellison© (hereafter referred to as "the Author" because making that mark has me playing the organ with the keyboard). I initially got this book because I had heard good things about Harlan Ellison's review of Star Wars ("Luke Skywalker is a Nerd and Darth Vader Sucks Runny Eggs"), and Star Trek: The Motion Picture ("Star Trek-The Motionless Picture"). None of the Author's reviews are available online, for obvious reasons, so I bought this collection to edify myself. Both of these essays are incredibly well-written, rather thought-provoking, and scathing to the point of sharpened acid. The book was, in short, what I expected.
What I did not expect was to spend the next month reading his other essays while watching their attendant subjects. I now look at the movie Gremlins through new eyes. Eyes that now perceive the seeds that would eventually find full flower in the butchery that was Transformers. For that matter, the Author was able to diagnose the problems in Star Wars that would eventually hamper the prequels, back in August of 1977
The Second Installment of the book begins when Ellison started writing a column in the Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction in August of 1984. They are not a series of stand alone reviews per se, but more an ongoing exposition of film and the film industry by the author, who happens to really know what he is talking about. The author manages to catch fleeting references in films long before the ability to pause and rewind was available to reviewers. He was catching amazingly subtle nuances upon first viewing in the cinema!
The author also has a prodigious knowledge of the history of movie-making. His ability to recall where he first saw a particular camera trick or plot element is amazing. I have had classes that took a few weeks and couldn't deconstruct a particular film the way the author does in a few paragraphs month after month.
I apologize if this review sounds glowing, but I was genuinely impressed. I will say that I disagreed with several of his reviews, but unlike most reviews I disagree with nowadays, I found myself hard-pressed to justify my dissent. Ellison is punctilious about placing his reviews upon a foundation of reasoned thinking. this never seems stuffy because he is screaming it at you with some of the most creative invectives I've ever heard. The writing in these reviews is enjoyable, and often hilarious.
If you like your Cows sacred, don't read this. If you like your Cows well-prepared, with cheese, this is a book for you. I wish I had had this when I took film classes in college.
What I did not expect was to spend the next month reading his other essays while watching their attendant subjects. I now look at the movie Gremlins through new eyes. Eyes that now perceive the seeds that would eventually find full flower in the butchery that was Transformers. For that matter, the Author was able to diagnose the problems in Star Wars that would eventually hamper the prequels, back in August of 1977
The Second Installment of the book begins when Ellison started writing a column in the Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction in August of 1984. They are not a series of stand alone reviews per se, but more an ongoing exposition of film and the film industry by the author, who happens to really know what he is talking about. The author manages to catch fleeting references in films long before the ability to pause and rewind was available to reviewers. He was catching amazingly subtle nuances upon first viewing in the cinema!
The author also has a prodigious knowledge of the history of movie-making. His ability to recall where he first saw a particular camera trick or plot element is amazing. I have had classes that took a few weeks and couldn't deconstruct a particular film the way the author does in a few paragraphs month after month.
I apologize if this review sounds glowing, but I was genuinely impressed. I will say that I disagreed with several of his reviews, but unlike most reviews I disagree with nowadays, I found myself hard-pressed to justify my dissent. Ellison is punctilious about placing his reviews upon a foundation of reasoned thinking. this never seems stuffy because he is screaming it at you with some of the most creative invectives I've ever heard. The writing in these reviews is enjoyable, and often hilarious.
If you like your Cows sacred, don't read this. If you like your Cows well-prepared, with cheese, this is a book for you. I wish I had had this when I took film classes in college.
February 10, 2012
Despite his arcane verbiage and frequent detours this book is good, funny, and easy to read: more so when he's reviewing a movie I've seen than b-movies I haven't. Also possibly my favorite title for an essay collection ever.
July 25, 2018
Film criticism is a sticky subject. There are three routes a critic can take when writing reviews.
One: One may make an attempt to establish a persona, appealing to a specific fan-base, and thus write their reviews in such a way to appeal specifically to that fan-base, despite how they actually view a film.
Two: One may make a valid attempt to objectively view each film their review, through some sort of imaginary, impartial lens, in attempt to lend "credence" to their reviews, and thus becoming (in their own eyes) an authority on the subject.
Three: Balls to all of the above. A film reviewer will attempt to give THEIR unhinged thoughts upon the subject with no effort made to objectivity, or consideration for their audiences' feelings.
Ellison, is definitely a number three. While his writings on the subject are often scathing criticisms, with profanity-laden rantings, they are nonetheless well thought-out, and even if one disagrees with them, if one knows the person behind the reviews one may certainly come to understand why he feels the way he does. This is HONESTY folks, in the critic industry something that seldom was, or seldom is.
One: One may make an attempt to establish a persona, appealing to a specific fan-base, and thus write their reviews in such a way to appeal specifically to that fan-base, despite how they actually view a film.
Two: One may make a valid attempt to objectively view each film their review, through some sort of imaginary, impartial lens, in attempt to lend "credence" to their reviews, and thus becoming (in their own eyes) an authority on the subject.
Three: Balls to all of the above. A film reviewer will attempt to give THEIR unhinged thoughts upon the subject with no effort made to objectivity, or consideration for their audiences' feelings.
Ellison, is definitely a number three. While his writings on the subject are often scathing criticisms, with profanity-laden rantings, they are nonetheless well thought-out, and even if one disagrees with them, if one knows the person behind the reviews one may certainly come to understand why he feels the way he does. This is HONESTY folks, in the critic industry something that seldom was, or seldom is.
March 1, 2019
Just a great fucking writer and a great book.
March 31, 2013
Harlan Ellison Thinking in the movies
In the 1970’s Harlan Ellison published “The Glass Teat” a compilation of his articles he published in the L.A. Free Press. The articles were a critical assessment of television of the period and they became instant classics. “The Glass Teat” became part of the curriculum at numerous colleges and their media departments. In “Watching” Ellison takes his critical and rhetorical skills to the movies.
“Watching” covers a much broader span of time than “The Glass Teat” from the early 60’s until the late 80’s. In his articles, Ellison goes from straight movie reviewing to more behind the scenes and critical assessments of movies tackling subjects such as the “auteur” method of filmmaking, colorization, the so called homage and to the more subliminal messages behind the movies. Unless you’re a rabid Ellison fan, his opinions on movies are never predictable and they may surprise or shock you but the reasoning behind his informed opinion is sound.
In writing his articles, Ellison’s passion for the subject would get the better of him and he’d take off on digressions that would make even the best critical essayist jealous. Ellison is always the first to admit to the digressions and tries to control them, but even against his own will Ellison’s reviews can stretch across two or even three articles because of his digressions. However, in the hands of Ellison those digressions are always interesting and thought provoking. I can’t think of any other writer who can do this.
It’s been a while since I’ve had the pleasure of reading anything of Harlan Ellison’s and in reading “Watching” rediscovered that Harlan Ellison is a sheer pleasure to read! “Watching” captures Ellison’s sense of humor and occasionally you’ll find yourself laughing out loud at some points, agreeing with others, wondering at some, and disagreeing with him, but Ellison is always interesting and thought provoking. One note when reading “Watching”, or anything by Ellison for that matter, you better sharpen up your vocabulary, you're going to need it.
After reading “Watching” you’ll realize that when the lights go down and the movie comes on Harlan Ellison is thinking about the movie, and by reading “Watching” it’ll make you a better watcher of movies.
In the 1970’s Harlan Ellison published “The Glass Teat” a compilation of his articles he published in the L.A. Free Press. The articles were a critical assessment of television of the period and they became instant classics. “The Glass Teat” became part of the curriculum at numerous colleges and their media departments. In “Watching” Ellison takes his critical and rhetorical skills to the movies.
“Watching” covers a much broader span of time than “The Glass Teat” from the early 60’s until the late 80’s. In his articles, Ellison goes from straight movie reviewing to more behind the scenes and critical assessments of movies tackling subjects such as the “auteur” method of filmmaking, colorization, the so called homage and to the more subliminal messages behind the movies. Unless you’re a rabid Ellison fan, his opinions on movies are never predictable and they may surprise or shock you but the reasoning behind his informed opinion is sound.
In writing his articles, Ellison’s passion for the subject would get the better of him and he’d take off on digressions that would make even the best critical essayist jealous. Ellison is always the first to admit to the digressions and tries to control them, but even against his own will Ellison’s reviews can stretch across two or even three articles because of his digressions. However, in the hands of Ellison those digressions are always interesting and thought provoking. I can’t think of any other writer who can do this.
It’s been a while since I’ve had the pleasure of reading anything of Harlan Ellison’s and in reading “Watching” rediscovered that Harlan Ellison is a sheer pleasure to read! “Watching” captures Ellison’s sense of humor and occasionally you’ll find yourself laughing out loud at some points, agreeing with others, wondering at some, and disagreeing with him, but Ellison is always interesting and thought provoking. One note when reading “Watching”, or anything by Ellison for that matter, you better sharpen up your vocabulary, you're going to need it.
After reading “Watching” you’ll realize that when the lights go down and the movie comes on Harlan Ellison is thinking about the movie, and by reading “Watching” it’ll make you a better watcher of movies.
April 27, 2019
I just don’t get tired of the way Ellison articulates his anger and righteous indignation when faced with what he perceives as the stupidity and lies of his fellow man. The man can write the hell out of a sentence and can stack paragraphs into highly entertaining structures of compelling persuasion. Plus, he knows moviemaking having worked in and around Hollywood for 30 years, and his reviews are well thought out. Like nearly all his work, I thoroughly enjoyed this compilation of his old movie reviews.
Read
October 11, 2016I started reading Harlan's essays, introductions, and afterwards in AGAIN, DANGEROUS VISIONS.
The fiction is secondary to me. I love the criticism, and journalism. That's where I hear his voice most clear. The man is singular. The writing is stellar. The time spent reading his work is an investment.
The fiction is secondary to me. I love the criticism, and journalism. That's where I hear his voice most clear. The man is singular. The writing is stellar. The time spent reading his work is an investment.
March 17, 2018
Ein dickes Buch von Harlan mit Filmkritiken. Was kann man mehr vom Leben wollen. Seinen Job und sein Talent?
Sicher.
Der Mann hat außerdem einen guten Geschmack. Bagdad unter den ersten Zehn, wenn nicht Nummer 1. Es gibt aber auch betrübliche Ausnahmen (Back to the Future war ein guter Film) und gerade das ist ja auch tröstlich. 9/10
Sicher.
Der Mann hat außerdem einen guten Geschmack. Bagdad unter den ersten Zehn, wenn nicht Nummer 1. Es gibt aber auch betrübliche Ausnahmen (Back to the Future war ein guter Film) und gerade das ist ja auch tröstlich. 9/10
September 7, 2012
A pain in the ass whose opinions wear thin, this collection is for Young Iconoclasts only. For the rest of us, life is too short to hang around listening to the bloviations of a hack Star Trek writer. Shrill and unpleasant.
February 24, 2013
Ellison as reviewer has lost none of his prowess from the days of his column "The Glass Teat." Laugh out loud funny? Absolutely. Thought provoking? Always.
November 21, 2021
Absolutely awful. Of course Ellison was an excellent writer, so we get some good turns of phrase and some penetrating, insightful reviews here and there.
BUT and its a big BUT, mostly Ellison has terrible taste and was a complete Hollywood hack. Examples? Mickey One is a a great move. Soccerer is a brillant homage. Dune absolutely briliant. Princess Bride is "Witty" and too good for the audience, "Up the Sandbox" is enjoyable. Meanwhile, Back to the Future is drek. Star wars is empty and dumb, and Mel Brooks is unfunny.
Whats even worse is Elllison rarely makes a persuasive case for any of his minority opinions. He just adopts an attitude of superiority and issues pronouncements. And not in a funny, rollicking Menckeque way either. And man, does he ramble!
Other problems:
1) We get far too many long winded reviews of mediocre films. i didn't really want to read 9 rambling pages about film Hommages and The Young Sherlock Holmes or 6 pages on The Music Lovers or 11 pages on how wonderful Alien Nation was. Does anyone watch these turkeys anymore?
2) And too many wordy digressions, random political opinions, insider-jokes that need to be explained, and rants about letters Ellison has gotten from readers.
Plus Side: His review of Star Trek; the mostion picture was spot on.
BUT and its a big BUT, mostly Ellison has terrible taste and was a complete Hollywood hack. Examples? Mickey One is a a great move. Soccerer is a brillant homage. Dune absolutely briliant. Princess Bride is "Witty" and too good for the audience, "Up the Sandbox" is enjoyable. Meanwhile, Back to the Future is drek. Star wars is empty and dumb, and Mel Brooks is unfunny.
Whats even worse is Elllison rarely makes a persuasive case for any of his minority opinions. He just adopts an attitude of superiority and issues pronouncements. And not in a funny, rollicking Menckeque way either. And man, does he ramble!
Other problems:
1) We get far too many long winded reviews of mediocre films. i didn't really want to read 9 rambling pages about film Hommages and The Young Sherlock Holmes or 6 pages on The Music Lovers or 11 pages on how wonderful Alien Nation was. Does anyone watch these turkeys anymore?
2) And too many wordy digressions, random political opinions, insider-jokes that need to be explained, and rants about letters Ellison has gotten from readers.
Plus Side: His review of Star Trek; the mostion picture was spot on.
August 18, 2024
Make William F Buckley more cantankerous and less WASPy and you've got Harlan Ellison. He loves "Big Trouble in Little China" and "Peggy Sue Got Married" and the Tom Selleck/Gene Simmons tour de force "Runaway" and hates "Star Wars", "Robocop" and "Back to the Future. He calls out readers, by name, that have responded to previous columns, wails on Hollywood, and describes arguements with Walter Koenig. All is redeemed by his final writing in the book on "The Daisy", which I was hoping to see more the same brilliance. Bonus: my edition, hardback from the Glendale Public Library, has penciled margin notes by a pedantic reader commenting on word choice, puncuation, references used (special call out to "cupidity") which Harlan would have hated, and secretly enjoyed. Worth checking out this specific version!
May 7, 2025
This is a collection of the author's essays/columns on movies/films. While all of the movies mentioned are now over 30 years old, the pieces are still enjoyable as they display Ellison's unique style and wit. I would not want to be on the receiving end of his commentary.
July 18, 2018
Very interesting connections between the world in 1989 and the world today. Reviews of movies and television and comments on media.
December 8, 2019
Harlan oh Harlan
ELLISON., as always is at his best when his angst is on display. His fans will love the depth of his insight and his detractors just don’t matter. We miss you!
ELLISON., as always is at his best when his angst is on display. His fans will love the depth of his insight and his detractors just don’t matter. We miss you!
September 19, 2023
The Gremlins and Spaceballs essays are required reading
July 10, 2025
Mr. Ellison was the first to admit that Star Wars was a crappy movie... and I'll always love him for it.
July 25, 2013
You'll learn more from one Harlan Ellison movie review than you did in a week of any college history or media class.
He's done the screenplays for various movies to varying degrees of quality, and he's honest about that, which gives him MAD credibility points with me (self-effacing is the path to free, open blasting of others). He blasts movies on the premise that, if they're bad, they've lied to you and sucked the very life out of your existence and should be punished. He's got lots of backstage insight and, even though a great deal of the films in this book are dated by the nature of the films discussed (ever seen a 10 page essay about how bad "Gremlins" was?) which slows the book down in spots, it's over 400 pages of the most erudite, informed, intellectually stimulating slamming you've ever read. He makes you want to go to the video store and stock up on everything in the 80s to see if its as bad as he says it is. I don't agree with every review (and some reviews aren't even reviews, but diatribes about how jacked up society and art is, and these are often chilling), but I am thoroughly engaged with every review, and what more could you ask for?
A must for movie fans or anyone looking for intelligent writing that dares you to not own a dictionary. The book literally makes you smarter.
He's done the screenplays for various movies to varying degrees of quality, and he's honest about that, which gives him MAD credibility points with me (self-effacing is the path to free, open blasting of others). He blasts movies on the premise that, if they're bad, they've lied to you and sucked the very life out of your existence and should be punished. He's got lots of backstage insight and, even though a great deal of the films in this book are dated by the nature of the films discussed (ever seen a 10 page essay about how bad "Gremlins" was?) which slows the book down in spots, it's over 400 pages of the most erudite, informed, intellectually stimulating slamming you've ever read. He makes you want to go to the video store and stock up on everything in the 80s to see if its as bad as he says it is. I don't agree with every review (and some reviews aren't even reviews, but diatribes about how jacked up society and art is, and these are often chilling), but I am thoroughly engaged with every review, and what more could you ask for?
A must for movie fans or anyone looking for intelligent writing that dares you to not own a dictionary. The book literally makes you smarter.
Read
June 14, 2015Ellison takes the battle directly to the enemy, telling the readers of The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction that they are idiots for liking Star Wars, Gremlins, Goonies, and virtually everything else issued by Hollywood in the late '70s and '80s. Most amusing are the columns where he takes on the readers that write in, fansplaining to him that he should just sit back and enjoy the movies (much as readers of today write in to the NY Times to tell Manohla Dargis the same thing) and not be such a killjoy.
Of course, Ellison being Ellison, even though his column of responses to readers who he feels represent the humorless side of science-fiction fandom is amusing, one of the letters was clearly intended to be a humorous response, written in Ellison's own style, and his own lack of humor about himself means he takes it at face value, leading to an embarrassing tirade.
More enjoyable than his books of TV criticism, due to fewer self-serving anecdotes about what a playboy he is. Also, he's retired his failed coinage of "scuttlefish," although there are attempts to use a new coinage, "trogs," for the same concept. Luckily, only once or twice and not every couple of pages.
And he was right on about the direction Hollywood was moving, although dead wrong about people tiring of superhero movies.
Of course, Ellison being Ellison, even though his column of responses to readers who he feels represent the humorless side of science-fiction fandom is amusing, one of the letters was clearly intended to be a humorous response, written in Ellison's own style, and his own lack of humor about himself means he takes it at face value, leading to an embarrassing tirade.
More enjoyable than his books of TV criticism, due to fewer self-serving anecdotes about what a playboy he is. Also, he's retired his failed coinage of "scuttlefish," although there are attempts to use a new coinage, "trogs," for the same concept. Luckily, only once or twice and not every couple of pages.
And he was right on about the direction Hollywood was moving, although dead wrong about people tiring of superhero movies.
May 23, 2009
Disclaimer: I only read his essays about Lynch's Dune.
Written during the period Ellison was the in house reviewer for Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, his deity like status within SF gave him free reign. Much like the D.F.Wallace essays about a Lynch film I reviewed recently, the author's killer wit and occasional genius are on display, but he also was in desperate need of an editor.
Through self-aggrandizing diarrhea we can extract that Ellison thought highly of Dune, forgiving its operatic bulging due to the nature of the subject matter (writing the screenplay for which Ellison turned down years earlier). Only he and Newsweek's David Ansen gave the film anything close to positive marks. Ellison's out: it's long and complicated and subtle so naturally everyone who loved Star Wars would hate Dune.
He also gives a great conspiracy theory as to why the film failed, and hilarious anecdotes about the studio buffoonery that took place just before the film's release. I don't want to ruin the fun, so you'll have to investigate for yourself.
Written during the period Ellison was the in house reviewer for Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, his deity like status within SF gave him free reign. Much like the D.F.Wallace essays about a Lynch film I reviewed recently, the author's killer wit and occasional genius are on display, but he also was in desperate need of an editor.
Through self-aggrandizing diarrhea we can extract that Ellison thought highly of Dune, forgiving its operatic bulging due to the nature of the subject matter (writing the screenplay for which Ellison turned down years earlier). Only he and Newsweek's David Ansen gave the film anything close to positive marks. Ellison's out: it's long and complicated and subtle so naturally everyone who loved Star Wars would hate Dune.
He also gives a great conspiracy theory as to why the film failed, and hilarious anecdotes about the studio buffoonery that took place just before the film's release. I don't want to ruin the fun, so you'll have to investigate for yourself.
September 11, 2013
It's difficult to fully get enthusiastic about this book unless you agree with every single thing written in it and it is a very big book. Harlan Ellison sticks to his guns about just everything. I can respect that, but I found at times that the old man's suspension of disbelief was lacking and he bugged on meaningless details. I mean, who cares if the traffic in L.A is fluid in LETHAL WEAPON. It may be a lie, but it's not a critical lie. It has nothing to do with the story being told.
Ellison is at his best when he goes gonzo and makes himself a character of his review. His epic narration of DUNE's production cycle and his spirited defense of Terry Gilliam's BRAZIL's integrity comes to mind. Otherwise, I found Ellison to be sharper and more critical when he hated what he saw. His more pertinent reviews are often negative. As much as I like RAMBO and ROBOCOP, Ellison's vehement hatred for them made me smile and well...he made some good points about them. It was a good reading overall, yet I can't see myself going back to it other than for re-reading one essay at the time.
Ellison is at his best when he goes gonzo and makes himself a character of his review. His epic narration of DUNE's production cycle and his spirited defense of Terry Gilliam's BRAZIL's integrity comes to mind. Otherwise, I found Ellison to be sharper and more critical when he hated what he saw. His more pertinent reviews are often negative. As much as I like RAMBO and ROBOCOP, Ellison's vehement hatred for them made me smile and well...he made some good points about them. It was a good reading overall, yet I can't see myself going back to it other than for re-reading one essay at the time.
January 8, 2009
A compilation of Ellison's opinionated columns from the 60s, 70s and 80s. He's not my favorite author, nor my favorite columnist - I just don't agree with his tone in is many of his more critical instances - but usually his insights are at least engaging. For example, I don't know of many other reviews in print that slam Star Wars (the film we now know as Episode 4: A New Hope).
But what I bought the book for, and the reason I'd recommend it, is for his pieces about the rise and fall of David Lynch's space opera, "Dune". Fantastic. That, and the article about the script he wrote based on the Kitty Genovese murder that William Friedkin was set to direct.
Abrasive but capable of some charm. Good stuff.
But what I bought the book for, and the reason I'd recommend it, is for his pieces about the rise and fall of David Lynch's space opera, "Dune". Fantastic. That, and the article about the script he wrote based on the Kitty Genovese murder that William Friedkin was set to direct.
Abrasive but capable of some charm. Good stuff.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews