Page 2 of 9

Manchurian Candidates

Richard Condon’s The Manchurian Candidate is one of the defining Cold War thrillers of American literature. Published in 1959, it captures a world of paranoia, espionage, and ideological extremism at the height of the Red Scare. The novel follows Sergeant Raymond Shaw, a decorated Korean War veteran who, unbeknownst to himself, has been brainwashed by Communist agents into becoming an unwitting assassin. The real tragedy (and brilliance) of Condon’s construction is that Shaw’s mother, Eleanor Iselin, is the true villain: an ambitious, ruthless woman who manipulates both her son and her husband, Senator John Iselin, a demagogic McCarthy caricature, to seize political power.

Condon’s prose is cynical and darkly humorous. His world is one where politics is theatre, patriotism a mask for greed, and psychological control the ultimate weapon. The book’s central concept, the creation of a sleeper assassin through brainwashing, tapped directly into Cold War fears about Communist mind control and the fragility of individual will. It is both satire and nightmare, a vision of America’s self-destruction through hysteria and manipulation. The novel’s mix of political cynicism, psychological horror, and sexual tension (especially the quasi-incestuous relationship between Shaw and his mother) gives it a lingering unease that transcends its pulp roots.

John Frankenheimer’s The Manchurian Candidate (1962), starring Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey, and Angela Lansbury, was the first screen adaptation of the novel, and is remarkably faithful in tone to Condon’s original, even as it alters several key details. The setting remains within the Cold War, with the Communist conspiracy intact, but Frankenheimer reshapes the story for cinematic clarity and impact.

The film drops much of Condon’s verbose narration and focuses on stark, paranoid visuals and taut performances. Laurence Harvey’s Raymond Shaw is a more tragic, wounded figure than in the book, while Angela Lansbury’s portrayal of Eleanor Iselin is chilling, a manipulative political matriarch who weaponizes maternal affection for control. Her relationship with Shaw remains disturbing, though Frankenheimer’s film makes it more symbolic than explicit.

The satire of McCarthyism is sharpened: Senator Iselin becomes an obvious buffoon, his hysteria exploited by his wife for her own Machiavellian ambitions. The eerie brainwashing sequences, shot with dreamlike cross-cutting between a genteel ladies’ tea and a Communist demonstration, remain some of the most haunting scenes in American cinema in the sixties. Frankenheimer’s film ends on a tragic note, with Shaw breaking free of his conditioning just long enough to stop the assassination but sacrificing himself in the process, a finale that feels more moral and cathartic than Condon’s more cynical ending. The movie is both a product and a critique of its time, when Americans feared both Communist infiltration and their own government’s capacity for manipulation.

Jonathan Demme’s 2004 remake reimagines The Manchurian Candidate for a post–Cold War, post–Gulf War world of corporate power and digital control. The Communist brainwashers are gone. In their place stands Manchurian Global, a multinational conglomerate symbolizing the new face of power: corporate, financial, and global rather than ideological.

Here, the soldiers were captured during the Gulf War, and the brainwashing is achieved not through crude psychological techniques but through biotechnology and microchip implants. The shift mirrors the new century’s fears: not of Communist ideology, but of corporate totalitarianism, surveillance, and technological control. Raymond Shaw (Liev Schreiber) is now a congressman and war hero groomed for the vice presidency, while Denzel Washington’s character (renamed Major Ben Marco) becomes the paranoid veteran uncovering the truth. Meryl Streep’s Eleanor Shaw is modeled less on McCarthy-era figures than on modern political dynasties, her mix of maternal warmth and icy calculation evokes Hillary Clinton as filtered through Lady Macbeth.

The 2004 version trades Cold War dread for corporate conspiracy and biotechnology anxiety. It is slickly directed and well-acted, but its atmosphere of dread feels more diffuse. The brainwashing, once shocking, now feels metaphorical: a commentary on media control, marketing, and mass manipulation. Yet it lacks the biting satire of the novel or the surreal power of Frankenheimer’s film. Its conclusion, in which the brainwashing plot is uncovered by the authorities but kept secret from the public, attempts some sort of closure but can feel naive at certain points, and never reaches the tragic resonance of 1962’s climax.

As a story, the novel remains the most conceptually rich and biting. It captures the spirit of Cold War cynicism with vicious humor and invention. But Frankenheimer’s 1962 adaptation is the most engaging and entertaining, a perfect marriage of paranoia, late noir aesthetics, and tragedy. Its sharp political satire and unforgettable performances give it enduring power.

Favorite Non Giant Movie Monsters

  • Count Graf Orlok (Nosferatu, 1922)
  • Frankenstein’s creature (Frankenstein, 1931)
  • Gillman (Creature from the Black Lagoon, 1954)
  • Alien (Alien, 1979)
  • The Thing (The Thing, 1982)
  • Brundlefly (The Fly, 1986)
  • Pinhead (Hellraiser, 1987)
  • Pale Man (Pan’s Labyrinth, 2007)

In chronological order.

Three Times Tron

When Tron premiered in 1982, it was unlike anything audiences had ever seen. Made by Walt Disney Productions and directed by Steven Lisberger, the film combined live-action footage with computer-generated imagery in ways that were not just new but revolutionary. Yet for all its visual daring, Tron remains a strange hybrid: a movie that wedded an almost childishly simple story to some of the most sophisticated visual technology of its time.

At its core, Tron tells a fairly naive story. Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges), a brilliant but wronged programmer, is digitized and transported inside a computer, where he must battle malevolent programs to reclaim evidence of his stolen work. Inside the digital world, programs appear as humanoid avatars of their users, a literal personification of software that feels endearingly clumsy today. The notion that “programs” could have personalities, faiths, and gladiatorial games seems laughably anthropomorphic, a product of a pre-internet imagination still struggling to visualize the invisible.

The plot unfolds as a straightforward hero’s journey filtered through a video-game lens: Flynn becomes a digital messiah, liberating enslaved programs from the tyrannical Master Control Program. There’s little emotional depth or philosophical nuance. The dialogue often lapses into techno-babble or spiritual platitudes about “the users”. Yet, this simplicity arguably works in the film’s favor, allowing the visuals and the conceptual world to take precedence, and its mythic overtones give a primitive sense of grandeur to what might otherwise be just a chase movie in neon armor.

Where Tron truly excels is in its audacious use of technology. Disney’s animators, effects artists, and computer scientists achieved a technical marvel long before digital filmmaking became standard practice. Though only about fifteen to twenty minutes of the film are genuinely computer-generated, the entire aesthetic (fluorescent lines, geometric light patterns, and glowing grids) feels entirely digital. The look was achieved through a combination of backlit animation, optical compositing, and early CGI, giving Tron a coherence and abstraction that was utterly unique at the time.

It was the first major studio film to make computer imagery a central design principle rather than a mere novelty. The light cycles, data tanks, and disc battles remain iconic, not because they are realistic, but because they are pure visual ideas, machines imagined through mathematics and art rather than mechanical engineering. In this way, Tron anticipated the future of digital aesthetics: clean, glowing, and immaterial.

Tron occupies a peculiar space in film history. It is both a corporate experiment by Disney (eager to regain relevance with younger, tech-savvy audiences) and an avant-garde visual project closer to experimental cinema than traditional science fiction. Its neon landscapes and geometric compositions recall the work of artists like Oskar Fischinger or early video art installations. The narrative might be clumsy, but the imagery evokes something visionary: a dream of humanity’s entry into the digital frontier.

When Tron: Legacy was released nearly three decades after Steven Lisberger’s 1982 original, it promised both a revival and a transcendence, a digital myth brought into the 21st century. Directed by Joseph Kosinski and scored by Daft Punk, the film sought to update Tron‘s primitive neon vision into a sleek cyber-symphony of light, geometry, and electronic pulse. What emerged was a visually dazzling but philosophically muddled sequel, oscillating between reverent mythmaking and narrative incoherence.

Even Tron: Legacy‘s fiercest critics concede its audiovisual power. Kosinski and cinematographer Claudio Miranda created one of the most distinctive digital worlds in modern cinema, a realm of sterile beauty, reflective surfaces, and minimalist architecture. Every frame seems designed like a concept art painting: light cycles streaking through black glass, towers pulsing with faint luminescence, Daft Punk’s robotic beats synchronizing with the visual rhythm.

The film’s aesthetic coherence is extraordinary, a total design vision that feels more like an art installation than a story. In this sense, Legacy continues what the original began, not a plausible depiction of computer space, but a dreamlike abstraction of it. It is less about technology than style as metaphysics, a meditation on control, perfection, and isolation rendered through geometry and sound.

Narratively, Tron: Legacy functions as a mythic sequel rather than a direct continuation. Sam Flynn (Garrett Hedlund), the disaffected son of Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges), enters the digital world (the Grid) in search of his long-lost father. Inside, he finds a totalitarian system ruled by Clu, a younger digital replica of Flynn who has turned his creator’s ideal of “perfection” into fascist tyranny. The story echoes countless archetypes: the prodigal son, the fallen god, the rebel angel.

And yet, beneath its mythic ambitions lies a host of unanswered questions. How can a digitized human bleed? Why does Flynn’s avatar age? How can a purely digital being like Quorra become flesh in the real world? Why does Tron, after years as the villainous Rinzler, suddenly revert to heroism without explanation? None of these have consistent answers, because Tron: Legacy is not really science fiction. It is digital mysticism.

Its rules are spiritual, not logical. The Grid is portrayed less as software than as an alternate dimension shaped by human thought. Flynn’s aging represents psychological weariness. Quorra’s materialization symbolizes enlightenment crossing into reality. Tron’s “conversion” is the awakening of a suppressed conscience. The film borrows the form of science fiction but uses it as a language for myth, sacrifice, and transcendence.

It is impossible to watch Tron: Legacy without sensing the influence of The Matrix trilogy. Both depict digital realms indistinguishable from reality, overseen by artificial overlords and populated by programs with human personalities. The parallels are striking. The Grid vs. The Matrix: self-contained digital worlds reflecting humanity’s flaws and aspirations. Clu vs. Agent Smith: the creation that turns on its creator, obsessed with perfection and control. Castor vs. The Merovingian: decadent exiles who understand the system better than its heroes. Flynn vs. Morpheus: aging guides who see beyond binary logic. Sam vs. Neo: reluctant heirs to a digital destiny.

However, while The Matrix builds an intricate philosophical architecture around its virtual world, merging cyberpunk with Gnosticism, existentialism, and Buddhist allegory, Tron: Legacy gestures toward profundity but rarely engages it. It borrows the aesthetic grammar of The Matrix (slow-motion combat, slick monochrome interiors, leather-clad deities) but not its intellectual rigor. The result is a film that feels profound while saying little that withstands scrutiny.

The film’s emotional core, the relationship between father and son, offers genuine resonance. Jeff Bridges gives a weary, Zen-like performance as the elder Flynn, a digital ascetic torn between guilt and enlightenment. His dual role as both creator and destroyer (Flynn and Clu) provides the story’s most potent theme: the hubris of trying to perfect the imperfect. In that sense, Legacy flirts with theological depth, with a creator imprisoned by his own creation, echoing Milton’s Paradise Lost more than any programming manual.

Yet the film is also a $170 million corporate product designed to sell both nostalgia and a new generation of merchandise. Its pacing alternates between meditative stillness and promotional spectacle. The human story is often drowned out by digital bombast. For a film about the boundary between real and virtual, it sometimes feels emotionally simulated and curiously cold.

Tron: Ares (Joachim Rønning, 2025) is the third live-action film in the franchise, following Tron (1982) and Tron: Legacy (2010). It takes place about fifteen years after Legacy, and features the rivalry between two corporations, ENCOM and Dillinger Systems, as they fight to bring digital constructs into the real world.

The film does attempt to preserve the franchise’s core concept: users, programs, and digital worlds bleeding into the physical world. But it also shifts the focus from the earlier theme (user/program relationships, deification of the user) into more recently familiar “AI in our world” tropes (corporations, digital beings entering meatspace). It is a semi-sequel (or a soft-reboot) rather than a seamless continuation.

One of the film’s stronger aspects is how it visually nods back to the original Tron aesthetics: neon lines, stark light/dark contrast, reflective surfaces, and minimalist digital architecture. While the original (1982) was limited by its time, its aesthetic language was iconic. Tron: Ares brings that back, especially when programs or entities from the Grid enter the physical world (or vice versa), showing light trails, digitized forms, and the sense of “digital becoming material”.

The plot, however, is weak and full of “unexplained science” moments, particularly regarding the so-called permanence code. This algorithm allows information transferred from the digital world to remain in the real world as matter, from an orange tree to a war machine to a “digital sentient being”. But how would that work? How is that mass created? Where do the atoms come from? Is energy converted into matter, or is there some pre-existing “matter bank”? The film treats this as a technological given rather than even trying to explain it. 

The original Tron remains a landmark for its time: daring, low-budget yet visionary, conceptually brave in its depiction of the digital world. Tron: Ares doesn’t have the same surprise factor (how could it?) and the large budget gloss sometimes dilutes the conceptual edge. The first Tron could be rough and experimental, while this third film is slick and commercial. But it’s still the original that holds cultural weight.

Bad Practices in iPad Games

Sometimes I get asked why I never mention iPad games. Well, that’s because I stopped playing them a while ago. The design philosophy in the current iPad gaming landscape is pernicious, and it made me quit.

Too many iPad games today treat players not as participants but as data points in a monetization funnel. Here are a few practices that annoy me the most.

Most iPad games today run on a carefully calibrated system of deprivation. No matter what you do, you’re always missing something: a few more gold coins to upgrade your hero, a handful of gems to finish construction, or a few energy points to attempt another level. The game will happily sell you what you lack, for real money.

This isn’t accidental. Developers deliberately structure progression so that natural play slows to a crawl after the first few hours. Each new upgrade costs exponentially more, and actions are locked behind timers that can only be skipped by paying real money. It’s a psychological trap, exploiting impatience and the fear of wasted time. What begins as entertainment becomes bookkeeping, an endless loop of waiting, paying, and waiting again. The sense of reward no longer comes from achievement, but from relief: the relief of buying your way out of a delay the game itself created.

In the past, you played games when you wanted. Now, they play you according to their own schedule. “Daily missions”, “weekly events”, “limited-time offers”: these are not bonuses, but tools of behavioral conditioning. Miss a few days and your streak resets, miss an event and your character falls behind. The result is a subtle but powerful transformation of leisure into obligation. Many players don’t realize how much of their day is shaped by digital calendars owned by others. Instead of deciding when to enjoy a game, you’re checking in to maintain progress. The pleasure of play gives way to the anxiety of keeping up. Games no longer fit into your life, you are expected to fit your life around them.

Then come the ads. At first, they seem harmless. Watch a thirty-second video to earn an extra life or a bonus chest. But soon, they become unavoidable. Some games tie essential rewards exclusively to ad-watching, while others interrupt play with mandatory commercials that offer nothing in return. This relentless intrusion reshapes the very structure of the experience. You’re not really playing anymore, you’re performing a repetitive ritual of interruptions, exchanging your attention for digital trinkets. And it’s not just annoying, it’s exploitative. Many ads are misleading, often promoting other games with fabricated footage, and the constant exposure erodes the sense of immersion that good games depend on. The player becomes the product, and their time the currency.

The competitive side of iPad gaming has fared no better. In theory, multiplayer modes should reward skill, strategy, and teamwork. In practice, they often reward only one thing: spending power. Pay-to-win mechanics create a world where the best gear, characters, or power boosts are available only through real money purchases. The consequences are predictable. Players who don’t pay are crushed by those who do. The ladder becomes a measure of disposable income, not talent. Communities fracture into “whales” (big spenders) and “free players”, the latter treated as fodder to populate the ecosystem. The illusion of fair competition vanishes, leaving behind a kind of economic warfare dressed up as entertainment.

If scarcity and pressure weren’t enough, randomness seals the trap. Loot boxes and gacha systems mimic gambling: you spend money for a chance to obtain a rare item or character, without knowing the odds. The excitement of possibility keeps players hooked, but the reality is bleak: the house always wins.

Some games soften the blow with “pity systems” that guarantee a rare drop after a certain number of failures, but these thresholds are calibrated to maximize spending, not fairness. The combination of bright colors, slot-machine sounds, and near-miss psychology isn’t entertainment, it’s manipulation wrapped in confetti.

Even ostensibly fair systems, such as battle passes, often mask deeper fatigue. A well-designed pass could offer steady rewards for regular play, but most games overload them with tasks, timers, and multiple paid tiers. To finish the pass, you must log in daily, complete repetitive chores, and perhaps even pay for “exp boosters” to make it in time. The game becomes a second job, a contract signed under the illusion of fun.

Monetization doesn’t stop at the surface. Many iPad games deploy subtle psychological tricks: fake discounts on items that were never full price, perpetual countdown timers that never truly expire, or oversized “buy now” buttons placed where your finger naturally lands. Some even sell “quality of life” features (basic conveniences like faster auto-play or larger inventories) as premium upgrades. Every design choice is optimized to nudge you toward spending, not playing.

Social features, too, have been co-opted. Guilds and alliances should build camaraderie, but they’re often engineered to create guilt and obligation. You’re asked to donate resources daily, participate in timed events, or risk being expelled from the group. What could have been community becomes coercion, a network of mutual dependence sustained by anxiety.

Some games pretend to solve these problems by calling themselves “idle”. In theory, that means they respect your time and that you earn progress even when not playing. In practice, idle systems are often a disguise for more aggressive monetization. Auto-play features frequently perform better than manual play, turning the player into a spectator while the game runs itself. Progress depends on waiting for timers to expire or paying to make them expire faster. The loop remains the same, only the pacing changes.

None of this is an accident. The modern iPad gaming economy is shaped by powerful incentives. User acquisition costs are high, so once a player is captured, every mechanic must maximize retention and revenue. The App Store’s charts reward daily engagement and in-app purchases far more than artistic merit or originality. And because a small percentage of players (“whales”) account for most of the profits, game design increasingly caters to them at the expense of everyone else. Add rising production costs and the pressure to match console-level visuals, and the result is an environment where aggressive monetization feels not just acceptable, but inevitable.

It doesn’t have to be this way. There are still developers who resist the dark gravity of free-to-play economics. Games that charge a fair upfront price, that offer transparent expansions instead of manipulative microtransactions, that sell cosmetics instead of power. These titles let players progress at their own pace, take breaks without punishment, and enjoy gameplay that feels like discovery rather than labor. They publish their odds openly, respect offline play, and treat players not as a resource to extract but as guests to delight. But, unfortunately, those games are rare.

For the rest of us, awareness is the first defense. Pay attention to how a game structures its economy. Notice how often it interrupts you, how it measures your time, how it tries to sell you back the patience it just took away. Refuse to buy “solutions” to problems the game created. Support studios that charge honestly and design fairly. Write reviews that call out manipulation in clear, specific terms. And above all, remember: if a game feels like work, it’s not you who’s failing, it’s the design that’s exploiting you.

Favorite Movies About Apes

  • King Kong (Merian C. Cooper, 1933)
  • Planet of the Apes (Franklin J. Schaffner, 1968)
  • Gorillas in the Mist (Michael Apted, 1988)
  • Congo (Frank Marshall, 1995)

In chronological order.
Only one movie per franchise.

The Other Three Airports

Airport (1970) was so successful that it paved the way for three sequels. Unfortunately, none of them was on par with the original movie.

Airport 1975, directed by Jack Smight, was easily the worst one. Released four years later, it clearly reveals how quickly the franchise shifted from melodramatic ensemble drama to pure spectacle. The premise is simple to the point of absurdity: a midair collision between a small plane and a jumbo jet leaves the cockpit crew dead or incapacitated, forcing a flight attendant (Karen Black) to pilot the aircraft until rescue arrives. That’s it, a single setup stretched into nearly two hours of shouting, turbulence, and increasingly implausible heroics.

Where the first Airport balanced human drama with technical realism, Airport 1975 turns those elements into clichés, aiming for spectacle over story, and hysteria over tension. It’s both unintentionally hilarious and historically significant: the film that marks the moment when the “disaster movie” became self-parody.

The credits claim Airport 1975 is “inspired by the novel by Arthur Hailey”. In truth, there’s almost nothing of Hailey left. His original 1968 book and the 1970 film adaptation were grounded in procedural detail, exploring the complex interdependencies of an airport system under stress. His themes were about human competence, bureaucratic failure, and the beauty and danger of technological progress. The sequel jettisons all of that. The only surviving element from Hailey’s world is Joe Patroni (George Kennedy), the no-nonsense maintenance engineer, a minor character in the first film, now magically promoted to Vice President of Operations. Everything else (the midair collision, the stewardess at the controls, the nun with the guitar, the bizarre passengers) is original, though “original” may not be the right word. It’s really a pastiche of Hollywood sensationalism.

Everything that worked in Airport (the grounded realism, the professional tone, the believable human flaws) is mishandled here. The dialogue, once clipped and procedural, has devolved into a soap opera. The cross-cutting tension between the control tower and the plane, once exciting, now feels repetitive. And the star ensemble, once dignified, is now a circus of mismatched personalities: Charlton Heston growling as macho pilot Alan Murdock, Karen Black visibly miserable as the panic-stricken stewardess, and a gallery of celebrities who seem unsure whether they’re in a drama or a variety show. It was a hit at the box office but a critical embarrassment, the kind of movie that made the parody Airplane! (Abrahams, Zucker & Zucker, 1980) inevitable.

The first Airport reflected its time’s casual sexism, with stewardesses as glamorous accessories and female characters often defined by romance or hysteria. But Airport 1975 takes that dynamic and amplifies it into caricature. Karen Black’s Nancy Pryor, the film’s de facto protagonist, is portrayed less as a capable professional than as a trembling, weeping woman thrust into a responsibility she’s unfit to handle. Her male colleagues, especially Charlton Heston’s Murdock, talk about her as if she were a child. “She’s just a stewardess!” becomes a repeated line, almost a refrain. Instead of exploring the psychological tension of being alone in the cockpit, the film milks it for male heroics: the man on the ground shouting instructions, the woman barely coping, and the ultimate salvation arriving (literally) in the form of a male savior (Heston winched through the cockpit window).

Gloria Swanson, playing herself on board the doomed jet, is one of the movie’s strangest touches. The aging silent film legend, dictating her memoirs to her assistant mid-flight, brings a surreal, meta-textual layer, but not intentionally. But that’s not even the most bizarre or mismatched cast member. Linda Blair, just one year after The Exorcist, plays a sick child who never stops smiling, seemingly in a different emotional universe from everyone else. George Costanza’s father, Jerry Stiller, appears in a minor role, supposedly in comic relief. Erik Estrada, later famous as Poncherello in CHiPs, plays a swaggering co-pilot who dies minutes into the story. And to top it all, there’s the singing nun. Helen Reddy as Sister Ruth serenading Linda Blair with a folksy song on guitar is, by general consensus, one of the most excruciating scenes in the history of the genre. It’s meant to humanize the passengers and offer emotional respite, but instead it feels like the filmmakers mistook The Sound of Music for realism.

The movie’s central image, a gaping hole in the cockpit windshield, also provides endless unintentional comedy. In real life, of course, the sudden decompression from such an event would cause catastrophic structural failure and likely suck everyone out. In the movie, though, people stand around chatting calmly while wind whistles in the background, as if someone merely cracked a window. The absence of depressurization effects reveals the film’s approach to realism: none whatsoever. 

The passengers’ reactions to the crisis are so exaggerated and poorly acted that the film often feels like a parody of itself. Extras flail their arms, scream on cue, and faint in synchronized rhythm. The hysteria is theatrical rather than human, a kind of collective overacting that annihilates any tension.

By 1975, the disaster movie formula had become industrial: each picture needed a new set of celebrities, a new catastrophe, and a new way to out-shout the last. Subtlety and realism were casualties of the genre’s own success. Airport 1975 stands as the most transparent case of that self-destruction.

Airport ’77 (Jerry Jameson, 1977) was a step up from the previous fiasco, in tone, direction, and coherence. Universal tried to course-correct: bring in a new director, a more grounded script, and a cast packed with vintage Hollywood royalty. The setup this time is a privately owned Boeing 747, filled with art treasures and VIPs, that crashes into the ocean after being hijacked and ends up resting on the seabed. What follows is a hybrid between an air-disaster film and an underwater survival drama.

One of Airport ’77‘s most striking features is its cast, a cross-generational lineup that looks like a tribute to Hollywood history. James Stewart plays Philip Stevens, a wealthy art collector who owns the doomed jet. His presence lends gravitas even though his role is mainly confined to ground control. Stewart’s dignity elevates even the most ridiculous lines. Joseph Cotten and Olivia de Havilland, both legends of the 1930s and 1940s, add a touch of faded grandeur, their elegance underscoring how far the franchise has drifted from the sober professionalism of the 1970 original. Christopher Lee also gives a restrained, dignified performance, no small feat in a movie about a submerged 747.

Representing the “younger generation”, Jack Lemmon stars as Captain Don Gallagher, a responsible, unflappable professional, the kind of role he rarely played, and one he approaches with understated realism. Lee Grant and Brenda Vaccaro add spice to the cast, though their subplots are essentially filler. The result feels like an Old Hollywood reunion trapped inside a popcorn thriller. It’s oddly touching, even as the script doesn’t quite know what to do with all that talent.

The science of Airport ’77 feels shaky. Once the plane crashes and sinks intact to the ocean floor, the movie asks us to believe that it remains both structurally sound and pressurized hundreds of feet underwater. The final act, in which the Navy raises the plane using giant inflatable air bladders, is even less believable. While lifting submerged objects with buoyant devices is possible in engineering (and was famously dramatized decades later in Raising the Kursk), the notion of quickly elevating a fully intact 747 (probably a 200-ton object) in one piece is more fantasy than engineering.

Airport ’77 sits in an odd place in the series. It’s probably the best-made of the sequels, but also the most unintentionally elegiac, a movie about sinking that feels itself sinking. Watching James Stewart and Olivia de Havilland deliver dignified performances amid absurd circumstances mirrors Hollywood’s own decline into spectacle-driven excess.

By 1979, the Airport franchise was running on fumes. The first film had been a prestige studio production, but its sequels were increasingly mechanical. The Concorde… Airport ’79, directed by David Lowell Rich, is the final, delirious stage. It takes the disaster formula (star ensemble, airborne peril, melodramatic subplots) and cranks it to absurdity.

The premise is already ludicrous: a corrupt arms manufacturer (Robert Wagner) tries to assassinate his own girlfriend, TV journalist Maggie Whelan (Susan Blakely), because she’s about to expose his illegal weapons sales. Instead of silencing her discreetly, he decides to blow up the Concorde she’s flying on, killing a complete passenger list of diplomats, celebrities, and airline staff, to prevent the leak.

This is corporate damage control as interpreted by a Bond villain. Wagner’s company controls advanced missile systems, so he launches actual military-grade missiles at a commercial supersonic jet. When that fails, he sabotages the Concorde’s cargo door, causing havoc on board. It’s an escalating series of assassination attempts so disproportionate they cross into farce.

The script seems unaware of its own absurdity. It plays the attacks straight, with heroic music and solemn reactions. What might have been a tense espionage thriller becomes an accidental satire of late-1970s paranoia and corporate amorality. Capitalism so ruthless it’s literally self-destructive.

George Kennedy’s Joe Patroni returns for a fourth and final appearance, completing one of cinema’s strangest professional evolutions: from chief maintenance engineer (Airport) to vice president of operations (Airport 1975) to consultant and technical adviser (Airport ’77) to Concorde pilot (Airport ’79). It’s as if a car mechanic had become CEO and then suddenly started racing Formula One. Patroni’s transformation from blue-collar engineer to supersonic pilot is utterly implausible. He would need tens of thousands of flight hours, special Concorde training in France, and type certification for a craft that required two co-pilots with extensive test-flight experience.

By 1979, though, Patroni wasn’t a character anymore: he was an institution. Kennedy plays him with deadpan sincerity, as though he knows the entire film depends on his gravelly authority. In a way, Patroni’s improbable career mirrors the series itself, with each installment trying to ascend higher, faster, and further from reality, until it flies right off the edge of reason.

The movie’s centerpiece sequences feature the Concorde dodging heat-seeking missiles by performing aerial maneuvers worthy of a fighter jet. The real Concorde, of course, was a long, slender supersonic transport, fast but not agile. Its wings were optimized for high-altitude speed, not dogfighting. Pulling high-G evasive rolls and inverted dives would have shredded the airframe or knocked everyone unconscious. And yet, in the film, the jet performs full barrel rolls, vertical dives through mountain passes, and near-instant turns to dodge not one but two missiles. The sequence is scored like an action ballet. The audience is meant to gasp, instead they giggle. This was supposed to be the height of Cold War techno-thriller tension, but it ends up as the Looney Tunes version of aviation heroics. As if the missile ballet weren’t enough, the writers outdo themselves with a sequence in which Patroni’s co-pilot (French star Alain Delon, playing Captain Paul Metrand) decides to depressurize the Concorde mid-flight, open a cockpit window, and fire a flare gun to fool an incoming missile. It’s easily one of the most gloriously insane moments in 1970s Hollywood cinema.

Between missile attacks and cabin decompressions, the movie makes time for romance. Alain Delon, the embodiment of Gallic cool, falls for flight attendant Sylvia Kristel, fresh off her Emmanuelle fame. Their chemistry is surprisingly gentle and human, a calm interlude amid chaos, though their scenes feel like they belong in a different film entirely. The French setting gives the movie a veneer of sophistication, as if Universal wanted to borrow a bit of European chic to offset the silliness. But the romance feels underdeveloped and tonally dissonant. The script alternates between pseudo-poetic pillow talk and mechanical exposition about missile guidance systems. Still, Delon brings gravitas, and Kristel’s serene demeanor almost makes the nonsense around them seem poignant (for a few fleeting minutes).

In the final act, the Concorde is damaged by another attack, leaving it with a gaping hole in the fuselage and a hydraulic failure. Yet the crew manages to fly it manually and land on a snowy mountainside near the Alps. In reality, such damage would cause explosive decompression, catastrophic structural failure, and uncontrollable roll moments, especially at supersonic speed. The Concorde’s frame was built for pressure equilibrium, not patchwork survival. Even subsonic flight would be impossible with that kind of breach.

The snowy crash landing pushes the movie fully into fantasy. The plane glides gracefully onto a snowfield, passengers are mildly shaken, and everyone exits smiling. It’s not a disaster, it’s a ski commercial. The movie ends not with tragedy or awe, but with absurd optimism, the cinematic equivalent of a shrug and a champagne toast.

The Concorde… Airport ’79 was a commercial disappointment and a critical laughingstock. It didn’t just kill the Airport series, it effectively killed the disaster genre that Airport had popularized. Audiences had moved on to the new spectacle of space (Star Wars), realism (The China Syndrome), and adult drama (Kramer vs. Kramer). Airport ’79 felt like an artifact of a bygone era: glossy, inert, and oblivious.

Favorite Movies About Dragons

  • Dragonslayer (Matthew Robbins, 1981)
  • Dragonheart (Rob Cohen, 1996)
  • Spirited Away (Hayao Miyazaki, 2001)
  • Reign of Fire (Rob Bowman, 2002)
  • How to Train your Dragon (Sanders & DeBlois, 2010)
  • Age of the Dragons (Ryan Little, 2011)

In chronological order.

The first Airport

The seventies were the decade of disaster movies, and no series represents that better than the Airport franchise.

Airport (1970), directed by George Seaton and produced by Ross Hunter, is one of the defining films of the disaster genre. In fact, it created it. Based on Arthur Hailey’s 1968 best-selling novel, the movie portrays the crisis-filled operations of a Chicago airport during a blizzard, culminating in a bomb threat aboard a Boeing 707. With its ensemble cast (Burt Lancaster, Dean Martin, Jean Seberg, Jacqueline Bisset, George Kennedy, Helen Hayes, Van Heflin), glossy production, and high-stakes melodrama, Airport was a massive commercial hit and an Academy Award success (ten nominations, one win).

It arrived at a time when commercial aviation symbolized progress, cosmopolitanism, and modern anxiety all at once. Its mixture of glamour, procedural realism, and human frailty struck a chord with audiences, and its influence extended into the 1970s with a slew of imitators and sequels.

Hailey’s novel was famous for its documentary-like realism and multiple intersecting storylines. The film stays broadly faithful to that structure and to most of the major characters: the beleaguered airport manager Mel Bakersfeld (Lancaster), the suave pilot Vernon Demerest (Martin), the PR officer Tanya Livingston (Seberg), and the elderly stowaway Ada Quonsett (Helen Hayes). However, Seaton streamlined Hailey’s more detailed bureaucratic and operational passages. The novel spent extensive time describing radar systems, air-traffic procedures, and administrative rivalries. That’s a level of depth the film could only suggest. The movie simplifies or romanticizes many subplots, turning the material into melodrama rather than procedural realism. Where Hailey focused on systems under stress, Seaton focused on people under pressure. Still, the adaptation preserves the novel’s essential tone: an almost reverent fascination with the machinery of modern air travel and the human fallibility that complicates it.

One of the most striking things about Airport today is how quaint it feels as a depiction of aviation culture. The film is an accidental documentary of late-1960s jet-age glamour and logistics. Air travel was a luxury, with passengers dressed formally, meals served with silverware, and airline staff exuding near-military decorum. Equally revealing is what’s absent. There are no metal detectors, no computerized boarding passes, and minimal security. Passengers stroll to the gate minutes before departure. The bomb plot hinges on the ability of a man to walk aboard with a briefcase of explosives, something unthinkable today. The airport itself, with its snowed-in runways, typewriters, and control towers filled with analog gauges, feels like a cross between a cathedral of modernity and a stage play about industrial hubris. And fifty years later, the movie’s casual sexism (stewardesses’ roles, Dean Martin’s flippant charm) and the mix of glamour and chaos in public infrastructure evoke a bygone age, not just of air travel but of optimism in technology.

Airport was Alfred Newman’s final score before his death, and it’s a masterclass in classical Hollywood orchestration. Newman, who had been one of the studio system’s most influential composers (with over forty Oscar nominations and nine wins), wrote a score that oscillates between stately grandeur and rising tension. His central theme, brassy, confident, and sweeping, embodies the romance of aviation. Yet his underscoring of the crisis scenes is crucial, with the gradual layering of suspenseful motifs during the bomb subplot sustaining the film’s tension when the dialogue threatens to drag. Newman’s use of brass and percussion gives mechanical urgency to the airport setting, while his leitmotifs for Ada Quonsett and D.O. Guerrero (Van Heflin) add warmth and pathos. Without Newman’s score, much of the film’s suspense would dissipate. The music provides propulsion, turning what could have been a talky ensemble drama into something that feels airborne.

In a cast of movie stars, Helen Hayes, the “First Lady of the American Theater”, shines in a different light. As Ada Quonsett, the elderly stowaway who sneaks onto planes for fun, she delivers the only entirely endearing and emotionally resonant performance. Her mixture of comic timing and gentle melancholy recalls the screwball heroines of an earlier age, grounding the film in humanity amid its mechanical chaos. Hayes won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for the role, and deservedly so. She brings both levity and wisdom, stealing every scene she’s in, a remarkable feat in a movie crowded with Hollywood glamour and technical spectacle. In a sense, she represents the innocence of travel itself: the wonder of flight before it became routine and impersonal.

Though often dismissed by later critics as glossy pulp, Airport deserves recognition for its craftsmanship and its influence. It codified a narrative structure that would dominate the 1970s: multiple intertwining stories converging on a single disaster. It also marks the transition between two eras, the last gasp of Old Hollywood studio gloss and the dawn of the modern blockbuster. The film’s pacing and melodramatic tone feel dated today, but its fascination with infrastructure and crisis management foreshadows the procedural realism of later television dramas. Its mix of star glamour and catastrophe spectacle became a blueprint for The Towering Inferno, Earthquake, and even TitanicAirport is a polished, sometimes soap-operatic but ultimately iconic film, faithful in spirit to Arthur Hailey’s novel, fascinating as a window into the aviation world of its era, elevated by Alfred Newman’s majestic final score, and humanized by Helen Hayes’s luminous performance. It remains both a disaster film prototype and a nostalgic elegy for the Jet Age’s faith in order, beauty, and flight.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Zander Dulac

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑