3 Movies Ruined by their Endings, pt 1: Saturn 3

Maybe it's apocryphal or maybe my google-fu skills still wear a yellow-belt, but I'd heard that Raymond Chandler said that a good mystery is one you'd read even if the ending was lopped off. Maybe his aunt said it.

There are a few anvil-like literary novels I wouldn't mind whittled to a Reader's Digest condensed version. One famed author's novels could break toes, but they sucked me in. Nonetheless, three-quarters of the way through, I'd read enough to divine the ending. The characters seemed to be caught up in the same dance routine over and over with different backgrounds. Who hasn't watched a TV series that should have ended a season or two earlier?

Sticking a good landing is hard. It is the culmination of imagery, motifs, plot and character and sense. You don't want to overdo it or under-do it. It's what you leave the reader when he closes the book: the resonant image, the memorable phrase, the embrace of heroes and death throes of the villain.

Because it's hard to do well, it may be one reason so many writers leave it out, making it artful. (I differentiate this from the writer who stops because you can guess the next scene.)

Here are three movies that failed for me, or were merely marred, due to their ending. Although the problems of the ending may have been caused elsewhere, they manifested themselves in the ending.

Saturn 3

Here's a movie that should have been a golden child. You've got John Barry (winner of an Academy Award for Star Wars' art direction), Martin Amis (winner of the James Tait Black Memorial Prize and twice listed for the Booker), Farrah Fawcett, Kirk Douglas, and Harvey Keitel (all nominated multiple times for their acting--whether they deserved it, someone else can decide). So what could go wrong?

It sounds like much did, behind the scenes. Barry's grand artistic vision was nixed, Douglas was blamed (Amis), and Keitel refused to do post-production work. The movie was up for three Golden Raspberries (as one of the worst movies of the year).

But the set-up is actually pretty smart. Captain Benson [Keitel] cannot do space-flights, rated as "potentially unstable." He proves this rating by killing Captain James, taking his identity and place on the flight to Saturn 3. He arrives and builds a robot with an organic brain. He keeps telling Alex and Adam [Fawcett and Douglass, respectively] that Adam will leave and Alex will stay with Capt Benson/James. He has a direct link with the robot which he can control although it appears to have its own intelligence as well. He appears to have a master-plan, and Adam is not included.

What's beautiful here is this battle between the generations which is also conflated to be a battle between man and machine although the promised thematic build never arrives.

I'll add the trailer here, but it makes it look awful, which it sort of is. It is a movie of possibility up until the ending, so don't watch the trailer if you're watching what it could have been because it will spoil your appetite. The IMDb rating of 5 feels about right. Passable entertainment. Unless you're a perfectionist, then by all means, watch the trailer, laugh and skip the movie. Or watch it if you're actively seeking camp.

Spoilers

We the audience await information that is never delivered. What was Benson's goal to begin with? What is his plan? Benson kills James in the opening, but why isn't the body noticed (sliced and diced or not)? Won't he and James be missed?

The robot has a rather short development period and immediately has moral qualms about Benson, but what are the robot's goals? Why doesn't it try to communicate earlier? It's great in terms of plot that he cannot share his intentions, but what stopped him and why is he later suddenly capable? What is the point of putting Benson's skull over his photo-receptors? What does his final goal end up being (if it changes)?

Douglas turns his station into a combat zone, but who knows what is what and why? There is no foreshadowing and explaining of tools and instruments. Make-shift weapons materialize. The worst moment is trying to kill the robot the same way twice. The first attempt failed, but if Douglas sacrifices himself, it will work?

There's Keitel's dubbed voice, which sounds robotic. Is he meant to? Is it because he's cybernetic, part man, part machine? Or is it just bad acting? It seems intended, just as the robot is part man and machine. Moreover, Adam also gets a port. Is he intended to control the robot, too, or... something else not explained?

Even Alex is mysterious. Her back story suggests she has never seen Earth. Is she a machine, created on Saturn 3? a kind of clone? a fertilized egg hatched on Saturn 3? or just the biological child of people in space? Is space that colonized? Who is she and why is she desired by both men and machines? There's a pointless denouement with her going back to Earth, but it had never been her desire, and it isn't clear what it ends up meaning to her.

Did the original story or script explain these things, and some producer, actor, or director pound out the interesting stuff? Or was it never in there to begin with? Stephen Gallagher wrote the novelization, and one wonders if he were allowed the latitude to have the novel make sense. If you can sense an intelligent narrative out of what's here, you'll probably enjoy the film, up until the ending.