The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction Movies (Facts on File Film Reference Library)

Rating:
Summary: Wish I'd read the reviews before buying it. . .
Review: . . . because the three negative reviews below reflect my own judgment as well. Fortunately, I didn't pay full price. I bought the book at a used book store, hoping for a useful guide to sci-fi flicks that I should try to catch when they appear late nights on T.V. But I soon found that many of Henderson's opinions were just the opposite of mine. For instance, he pans movies like Terminator 2 and Aliens, while praising Alien 3, Battle Beyond the Stars, and Tri-Star's Godzilla (failing, by his own admission, to comprehend why Godzilla fans didn't like it). And, as noted by the others below, his criticisms often seemed inconsistent, praising a quality in one film (such as its campiness) that he criticized in another.

Of course, that his opinions were different than mine doesn't mean they were wrong. But I soon decided that for me, at least, this was not the guide I was looking for.


Rating:
Summary: Brilliant!
Review: Author C.J. Henderson doesn't back down on his reviews of what the 'majority' may think, or what a typical movie-goer may believe just because a film is produced or directed by a big-name like Speilberg, Lucas, or Cameron.

Why did 'Star Wars: The Phantom Menace' fail? Why did 'The Matrix' succeed? Why did the original 'Star Wars' fail or succeed? And, for these movies that failed-- how could they have been better?

This book is recommended for movie buffs, indie filmmakers, film analysts, and the like.

Rating:
Summary: What a jerk.
Review: I had the chance to pick this up in Barnes and Noble the other day, and I'm glad I skimmed through it before buying it.

First, though, some good news--the book does have a bit of merit. Having a huge list of science-fiction movies and information on each is pretty cool. But Henderson should have stopped there.

Instead, he decided to add his opinions to the mix, which are actually wrong. It's rare to find an opinion that is factually wrong, but he manages to do it--his opinions are consistently in poor taste and inconsistent in logic (as another reviewer has noted). He will praise a movie for one thing and then criticize another for the exact same quality.

He has called some of the worst movies ever (Alien: Resurrection, Armageddon) classics and said that they excel where all other movies fail. He has a huge vendetta against James Cameron, for some reason, and calls all of Cameron's good movies (The Terminator movies, The Abyss, Aliens) overblown and pointless. To praise Alien 4 for being new, innovative, well-acted, with good action scenes, and being fun while criticizing Aliens for being dull, over-focused on special FX, and poorly written... well, that's just wrong.

Everyone can have their opinions, whether they fit with the majority or not. But you need to be consistent in your opinions.

Henderson's other major flaw is that he is completely unaware of the outside world. He never once mentions, "This movie was very popular" or "This movie was not well-received by critics." He simply gives his own opinions and writes them in such a matter-of-fact tone that it doesn't feel like you're reading a book of opinions at all.

I would've been thrilled to read a book that had fresh, bold opinions on movies if they were written well and if the author didn't seem like a complete #$!hole.

In closing this review, I'd like to point out something on the Amazon.com review above. It mentions that the book would be good for "Indie film makers" and the like--people who are supposed to be going against the grain of mainstream Hollywood movies. This strikes me as very amusing; I can't think of a more false statement. Henderson's opinions are almost exactly like a mainstream, Hollywood hack artist. If you want a breath of fresh air, just think for yourself instead--this book is poison for the mind.

Rating:
Summary: Very disappointed
Review: The author of this book takes a smug, superior attitude in his reviews, that I found very off-putting. I should have known I was in trouble when, early in his introduction, he says his basic premise is that 90% of everything is garbage. He then proceeds to demonstrate that view in his reviews. And, despite his know-it-all attitude, I spotted several errors of fact in various reviews, for example, his referring to the Gene Barry character in War of the Worlds as Dr. "Clayton", as though Clayton were the character's last name. This may seem like a small item, but the author himself continually nitpicks the movies he is reviewing, so turn-about is fair play. I would give the book one star, except for a few insights I found. However, I decided the book was not worth keeping as a reference, and have already disposed of it at a used bookstore.

Rating:
Summary: Pretty lazy for "research"
Review: The best thing about this book is the foreword by William Shatner. Let's face it, anything Shatner does is bound to be entertaining. However, the rest of the book is a huge disappointment. Points for effort are given to author Henderson as he clearly loves sci fi films, but that is no excuse for lazy writing. For instance, his review of the first Godzilla film, a classic milestone, is nothing you haven't read before. However, the rest of the Godzilla films, save for G 1985 and 2000, are all summarized by this tiring line: Please see Godzilla, King of the Monsters. Even King Kong vs Godzilla has this (and refers to it as a "minor film." The G series are all summed up on a sentence or two each in the GKOTM review, as are the heisei series in G 1985.

Normally, such a book wouldn't be looked down as harshly, except books like Phil Hardy's Overlook Science Fiction Encyclopedia have set the standard for how to analyze the genre properly and insightfully. Hardy uses alot of psychological analysis in many of his reviews, and keeps it as objective as possible, and when he is subjective he allows you to see why (whether you agree or not.) Henderson on the other hand merely says "it is good" "it is bad" without saying why. He speaks of GINO (Tri-Star's G film) as being "completely respectful of its original source material" and wonders why fans and critics didn't like it. Well, if Henderson had done his research, he would have known why the film was universally bashed, and making such comments like his only invites hardcore GINO bashers to further vent. Henderson should have explain how it was respectful rather than tell us. There is nothing wrong with a differing opinion as long as you can explain your reasons for it. Otherwise, it becomes a hollow statement.

Of ID4's liberal use of science, he states that "it's reduced to its most simplistic form in many cases, at least it's reasonably accurate." He also claims the ALIEN series got better after part two, which he called the worst of the series. Again, I have no qualms about differing opinions, but he states that ID4 is an entertaining movie all around despite its inaccurate science and yet blasts ALIENS for being a special effects spectacle that throws basic science out the window. Again, I have no problems with opinions but I do have a problem with inconsistency, and the comparison of his reviews of ID4 and ALIENS symbolizes much of what the problem is.

There quite a few reviews that are summed up with a sentence and supposedly witty remark, but it does nothing for the reader to grow curious about the film's content. Though there are some reviews where he hits the mark (his reviews for Jurassic Park and Cronenberg's The Fly for instance are dead on,) there just isn't enough of it to make me continue further. Hardy's reviews are consistent and thought provoking. Henderson's are lazy and frustrating.

In short, if you already own Hardy's book, don't bother wasting your money on Henderson's. However, if you have nothing and want a good place to start a book collection of genre films, this book is affordable and would make a nice gift for simple minds.