45 years ago, the worst science fiction film was released in the cinema, hoa by critics: “Who dares to pay for that?”

If the kind of science fiction has offered us many nuggets in the cinema through decades (Star Wars, Interstellar, Matrix, return to the future, and, the wild robot, first contact…), he also imposed a few failures for us. Similarly, To stay polite. And among the biggest misses ever produced, we can mention in particular Saturn 3 released in 1980.

The worst science fiction film?

Yet carried by an excellent trio (Farrah Fawcett. Kirk Douglas, Harvey Keitel), directed by the legendary Stanley Donen (One day in New York, let’s sing in the rain) and written by Martin 45 years ago, worst science Friends (the author behind The area of ​​interest), Saturn 3 Never reaches its potential.

What does it say? In an isolated space station on a Moon in Saturn. Major Adam (Kirk Douglas) and Alex (Farrah Fawcett) are the only inhabitants, conducting crucial research to solve the food crisis on Earth. Their routine is brutally interrupted by the arrival of Captain Benson (Harvey Keitel). a psychopath responsible for introducing a new robot prototype, Hector, which works with real human cells. The latter. with an artificial intelligence advanced and poisoned by the demonic spirit of Benson, quickly develops a dangerous obsession for Alex, leaving the couple trapped in front of a malicious and unpredictable machine.

“The level of intelligence of the scenario is scandalously low“

Today with a Average note of 30% sur Rotten Tomatoes, Saturn 3 Above all, had the right to one of the most scathing criticisms of American journalism at the time. In the columns of Chicago Sun -Totes. Robert Ebert – a journalist recognized and respected in the community (he won a Pulitzer in 1975 as a reward for his work), had indulged in a settlement of accounts that had become legendary with the years.

While attributing a star to the film. Robert Ebert wrote: “Since the literary genre of the SF encourages the greatest possible ideas, how is it that The cinema versions always seem attracted by the idea of ​​being stupid, stupid, stupid? (…) How, today, can we still have films like 45 years ago, worst science Saturn 3? Who dares to pay for that ?“

Veritable fan of 2001 The Odyssey of Space. Silent Running or Third -type datingEbert proved to be stunned by the history of Saturn 3 : “The level of intelligence of the scenario is scandalously low. The story is so stupid that she would make any college class in the country laugh. And yet it was funded.”

“A waste of shameful money“According to the criticism

Between the elementary laws of physics that go through the hatch. a love triangle without any credibility, heavy issues written with the feet … Saturn 3 In the eyes of Robert Ebert, a festival of unbearable clichés would be in the eyes.

“This film is incredibly stupidabsolutely improbable from a scientific point of view. a waste of shameful money“, He deplored in his criticism. An anger so deep that he even sent advice to project funders.

“If producers 45 years ago, worst science want to continue producing films with such low standardsI think they should. in a fairer way, simply give their money to random -style directorshe wrote. The results could not be worse“.

If you were looking for a nanar to watch during your summer vacation, you know which one to choose!