Greatest Movie Disappointments (Top 3 )

No. 3: Ripley’s Game (2002)

I have read Patricia Highsmith's original novel and I have seen the movie versions with Alain Delon and Matt Daimon. I love all three, including the countless differences between them, and I find Tom Ripley's character immensely fascinating, in a way even inspiring, though quite a bit chilling as well. I understand this movie – Ripley's Game – was based on a later novel by Highsmith, another instalment in the Ripley franchise, first published in 1974. This I haven't read. But I do hope it is far better than the screenplay.

It goes without saying that John Malkovich is a fine actor who would make a terrific Tom Ripley. If only he had a fine script to work on! The story here is perfectly idiotic; a five-year-old kid wouldn't buy such illogical behaviour. You want somebody dead, and whom do you hire for the job? A terminally ill and completely inexperienced picture framer. Give me a break, will you! The rushed action and the pedestrian dialogue only make the plot more incoherent – if that's possible at all.

What can one say about the cast? It’s probably unjust to blame the poor fellows. Nobody can pull off such trash convincingly, right? No, not quite. The novel was in fact filmed as early as 1977 under the title Der amerikanische Freund (1977). The story was pretty much the same preposterous crap, but the picture starred two fabulous actors, Dennis Hopper and Bruno Ganz, who did a truly great job and made it almost believable. Not so here. With the possible exception of Malkovich, the acting is hilariously inept. Who was this cruel person who lied to Dougray Scott that he could act at all? Any piece of wood will do a much better job.

The only thing this movie counts on is shock value. This it has. All murders – and there are many of them – are shown is the most graphic way possible, including a lovely scene of garrotting. So there is a good deal of pancake syrup around and the audience, provided that it's mentally deficient, is happy. For the sophisticated who are keen on higher pleasures, there are a few steamy soft-core scenes.

All in all, a stupendously dull and worthless movie: stupid story, weak acting, lots of unnecessary blood and gore. Even the visual side is drab to the extreme. The rating of this movie and the positive reviews it gets baffle me no end.

=========================================================

No. 2 The Big Sleep (1978)

This must be one of the most horrible remakes ever made. I don't have anything against remakes in general, provided that the new approach is fresh and convincing enough, and that one thinks carefully before doing again something that has long become a classic. Neither is the case here.

The only redeeming quality of this version of The Big Sleep is that it keeps much closer to Chandler's chilling novel than the classic with Humphrey Bogart. In 1978, it was possible to show on the screen nudity, drugs, pornography and violence quite unacceptable in 1946. But this is – let me repeat – the only plus of this version. Everything else is embarrassingly inferior to the original – either the book or the movie.

To begin with, moving the whole story to England is truly preposterous. Chandler is far too hard-boiled for the prudish Britons. Seldom have I seen a better illustration of the huge difference between the English and the American mentality. I no longer wonder that Americans and British insist on being cousins, instead of brothers and sisters.

Second, Robert Mitchum is insufferable. The man is stupendously dull! Pretty much all of his lines are delivered in a way that makes you think he would fall asleep there and then, or has just been woken up perhaps. After Humphrey Bogart's debonair and charming portrayal, it is truly unendurable to watch Mitchum's tired and tedious performance. I understand he stepped in the shoes of the famous sleuth in other movies, too. I do hope he improves vastly on this soporific mess.

The rest of the cast is entirely indifferent. The only sparkle comes from the very young Oliver Reed who does manage to convey something of the sinister character of Eddie Mars. The Sternwood sisters, whatever their English first names were, are laughably inadequate to their parts. The sensual charm of the elder has gone on holiday (and boy, is she plain!), and the nymphomaniac infantilism of the younger one is grossly exaggerated beyond any reasonable limits.

Last but not least, the direction, the cinematography and the adaptation range from passable to dismal – with a strong prevalence of the latter. Though the script is fairly close to the novel in terms of events and violence, it omits much too much of Chandler's (mostly) brilliant dialogue. Apparently, as I said, it's much too tough and slangy for the fastidious crime buffs on the other side of the Atlantic.

In short, watching this junk is a sheer waste of time. Much better read the novel or see the 1946 classic with Boggie and Bacall, or both. The old movie differs from the novel is quite a few ways, including a much more light-hearted atmosphere, but on the whole it is infinitely superior to the so-called remake.

======================================================

No. 1: 2001, A Space Odyssey (1968)

Let me make this clear in the beginning: the extravagant praise usually accorded to Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey I have always found frightfully perplexing. All the more so since Arthur Clarke’s eponymous novel is without any reservations among my all-time favourite books. The importance of Stanley Kubrick, however, ends with his stimulating effect over Arthur Clarke during the bizarre brainstorming out of which both the novel and the screenplay – written in parallel – were born. The complicated relationship between both mediums has been eloquently described by Arthur Clarke himself in his lovely little book The Lost Worlds of 2001 (1972). But it is the movie I am here dealing with.

Now, I wish there was other say to say it, but there isn’t. The movie is perfect crap! What exactly its classical status rests upon is an absolute mystery for me. It is a visual tour de force all right, but that’s just about the only asset it might possibly have. Except perhaps that some of its music is among the greatest ever composed; if, indeed, the movie has brought to more receptive ears the famous opening of Richard Strauss’ magnificent tone poem Also Sprach Zarathustra, that’s something; actually, this opening is famous more because of this movie than because of anything else, I think. As for the visual side, it is not nearly as impressive today as it must have been in 1968, of course, but it has aged surprisingly well. So much for the good sides, though.

For otherwise the movie is one failure after another. To begin with, a good many people have complained that when they saw it before the book, they didn’t understand the ending at all; only later did the novel make it clear. This is as expected – for the ending is an incomprehensible mess. What’s worse, the pace is appallingly slow. Imagine a spaceship landing that lasts for full ten minutes, during which you can appreciate Strauss’ famous waltz An der schönen blauen Donau, another masterpiece from the soundtrack. But even the greatest music cannot make the scene less tedious. Never have I seen a movie that drags so obviously and so painfully.

The whole cast is downright horrible. Keir Dullea is the dullest Dave Bowman one could possibly imagine. He never so much as raises his voice above monotonous whisper or changes the mask-like expression of his face. The famous dramatic dialogue with HAL, one of the highlights in the book, is ridiculously humdrum on the screen. Instead of the mighty collision between man and machine you are right to expect, you get two technicians – crashing bores, both of them – who discuss the board manual. The bland fellow, whatever his name was, who plays Heywood Floyd cannot act to save his life, poor thing. Just take a look at the conversation he has with the others while they are traveling to TMA-1 or the soporific conference before that. These guys are about to investigate the first solid proof of extraterrestrial intelligence ever discovered by the human race. Yet they are discussing the matter with a sort of chatty indifference as if it were the latest baseball game. Indeed, they may well get more excited about baseball.

In short, the immense philosophical depth of the novel is completely, absolutely and overwhelmingly missing from the screen adaptation. So are the suspense, the mystique and the drama.

Apologists, who are usually quite scornful to anybody who dares to criticize their cherished masterpiece, have tried to justify Kubrick’s static and inept direction with an utmost search for realism. Spaceship landings are really very slow, astronauts really are boring people, and so on and so forth. This, of course, is tosh. Realism is just the last refuge of mediocrity; nothing more, nothing less. The novel is, for the most part, quite realistic, yet it never feels dragged or tedious. The movie does all the time. Nor do I find Dave Bowman or Heywood Floyd boring on paper. Once Upon a Time in the West is one of the most realistic and slow-paced movies I have ever seen. Yet, it is one of my all-time favourites as well. How could this glaring contradiction be? It’s very simple, really. In addition to Ennio Morricone’s beautiful score, the cast is magnificent, perfectly selected to the last cameo. Above all, when it comes to evocative power and dramatic intensity, Sergio Leone’s masterful direction is unsurpassed. Stanley Kubrick doesn’t even come close.

Surely the movie must have been groundbreaking visually in 1968 – and perhaps not only visually indeed – but what is there to keep it in the stores 45 years later I have not the least idea. I wonder how far it would have gone had it not been accompanied by the novel, first published a few months after the premiere. For my money, speaking of 1968 and thought-provoking science fiction, Planet of the Apes is a far better achievement. It’s not perfect, that’s for sure; many things in it could have been improved. Nevertheless, it delivers compelling and stimulating entertainment from the opening scene to the end credits. Kubrick’s 2001, A Space Odyssey, no matter how much it may parade as a profound masterpiece, delivers only excruciating boredom and exasperating mediocrity. I have seen it twice, and enough is enough. Over and out.

Review: Alien Tetralogy (1979, 1986, 1992, 1997)

Warning!

Spoilers ahead!

Alien (1979)

This is the first and the creepiest of all Alien movies. It's the only part that actually works as a horror movie. As everybody even remotely interested in the matter knows only too well, blood and gore don’t really scare people. The Unknown does. This is brilliantly used in this movie. The first appearance of the title character is delayed to the last possible moment, and it’s used sparingly afterwards; neither could be said of the sequels. And the first movie, of course, has one great advantage by default: you know nothing of the alien. What it looks like, what it can do, what it wants… Feel the cold sweat on your forehead already?

The crew: four men, two women, an android, and a cat. 

But it's the characters that make this movie a classic. All of them are remarkably individual, compelling and superbly acted. There is no depth or development, but you're not looking for them in this kind of movie, are you? Sigourney Weaver, very young and surprisingly pretty here, steals the show as Ellen Ripley, and as intended for this is the movie destined to end the misogynistic era of sci-fi, but the rest includes solid performances by Harry Dean Stanton, John Hurt, Tom Skerritt and Yaphet Kotto. I was especially impressed by the sinister android of Ian Holm. He freaked me out completely. But this is not to say he isn’t thought-provoking; his concise and dispassionate analysis of the Alien is worth quoting:

I admire its purity. A survivor... unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.

"Delusions of morality". Wonderful phrase. This definition of purity applies to Shakespeare's villains also, especially Iago and Edmund.

John Hurt with a fine piece of costume.

The pace was a little slow, but the direction, as one might expect from Ridley Scott, was quite great enough to compensate for that. I was rather impressed with the plot. It flowed very smoothly and felt perfectly natural, including the android-twist and the ending. This is not always the case with movies in general and sci-fi in particular, is it? Visually stunning for 1979, I'd also say. All space ships, functional and derelict, as well as the mysterious and misty planet look beautiful. The Alien doesn’t, of course, but it’s marvellously, and horrifyingly, real.

In four words, hackneyed story, superlative execution. In other words, a true classic.

PS I was mightily pleased that the cat survived.

Aliens (1986)

To be blunt, I liked this one every bit as the first – and certainly more than the third. It's far less scarier than the original, but it's a good deal more exciting. And it delivers more than mere excitement; there is some food for thought, too. Just like Alien is sci-fi horror with a difference, Aliens is sci-fi action with a difference.

These are the movies really worth seeing: the ones with a difference. Mafia sagas with a difference like The Godfather and Scarface, westerns with a difference like Once Upon a Time in the West and Unforgiven, cops-and-robbers chases with a difference like Heat, historical epics with a difference like Gladiator... But let's get back to Aliens.

A termite-inspired Alien queen is about to get burned... 

Ruby has suggested that the finale with the Alien – but not Ripley – flying away into the vacuum of space is highly improbable, and she may be right; my physics education has always been neglected. But I greatly enjoyed the boxing match before that. That was an ingenious idea. Nothing succeeds like simplicity, and what could be simpler than a face-to-face fight with “bare limbs”? My only qualm is that the first finale was a trifle overblown (mighty explosions, mass destruction, last-second salvation, you know the drill). But that's not exactly something untypical for Jimmy Cameron. It’s part and parcel of the man, and one has to take it or leave it. Considering his virtues as director and screenwriter, a mild degree of epic megalomania is a small price to pay.

(Well, one more thing to complain about. Newt's proclivity to scream was unbearable. The pitch was way too high, not to mention the dynamics. Probably it has to be marked "fffff" in the score.)

Such a cutie!

Unlike Ruby, I found the macho marines rather amusing. Wasn't Bill Paxton's yellowish character hilarious? When in the beginning, knowing nothing of what they are about to face, he was bragging to Ripley what amazing guns they have, I laughed a great deal. Personally I would have added a Ripley rejoinder in the script, something like [since they have so many so great guns] "Have you got any brains and guts as well?" As it turned out, he didn't have either in excess.

Also, not all marines were hot-air balloons just about to burst under the pressure of testosterone. Michael Biehn's character was rather more human – and humane. It was nice that he survived, no? And there were some cool gender jokes among the rest:

Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?

No. Have you?

Now that's cute. On the whole, the characterisation in this movie is not on par with the previous one, but at least Ripley is further developed from the somewhat one-dimensional, if vivid, creature from Alien. In this respect, the mother-and-daughter relationship with Newt adds a special flavour. It will never strike you as something original or profound, but it’s kind of touching. Of course there’s a spooky android, brilliantly played by Lance Henriksen, who easily outshines the bunch of marines and comes to a most memorable fate in the end.   

One thing I liked more than in the first film was the expanded role of the nasty company (Blackmail & Co. it must be named). It's an effective counterpoint to the mass slaughter of the already-much-too-familiar monsters. What I disliked was that the company guy was played by a thoroughly mediocre fellow and that some of his arguments were a tad too blatantly expressed. He should be smarter than that. Still, it was nice to have a wider social dimension of the story.

In conclusion, I'm afraid I have to be considered a Cameron fan by now. Nobody's perfect, after all. For my money, the man provides stupendous visual entertainment with just the right dose of substance not to feel like I’m wasting my time.

Alien³ (1992)

Visually this movie is not unlike Beethoven’s late string quartets. It is a chamber piece of almost unrelieved gloominess, regularly descending into primordial and acutely claustrophobic primitivism. Here the musical analogy ends completely. What makes Alien³ a forgettable one-off affair, as opposed to timeless masterpiece which bears regular rediscovery, is that the visual appeal is its only virtue as far as I’m concerned.

The plot is simple, effective and rather original, but it gives little scope for development and characterization – and even that is not fully realised. Ripley is the lone survivor from a rescue capsule that crashes on a desolate planet inhabited by the cream of crime: murderers and rapists accompanied by a few unarmed guards and an awfully altruistic doctor with a dark past. What follows is a standard monster-hunt – or manhunt, depends on the point of view – which builds up to a fine climax that seems to preclude any further sequels. It must be said in defence of this movie that it never tries to impress you with childish methods like vast amounts of pancake syrup or gorgeous technological vistas of space exploration. The last part of the Alien film franchise all too obviously does (see below).

The most annoying thing about this movie is the strong religious streak that permeates it. I find it tedious, dated and puerile. And it's hard for me to believe that such human “monsters” could be fooled with proto-Christian fairy tales. Then again, though prominent enough to elicit an ironic smile, the religious stuff was certainly not overdone, and many of the charming inmates didn't seem to take it very seriously; besides, most of them not being terribly bright, I daresay it’s not so fantastic that they should fall for it.

It is much to the screenwriters’ credit that all prisoners are presented with sympathy and without any empty moralizing. Their religious leader (Charles Dutton) is a most fascinating character, a man of remarkable common sense, integrity and courage. Common sense and religion sound like mutually exclusive qualities, but they somehow manage to co-exist quite happily in this character. As for the prestige he enjoys among his flock of delinquent teenagers, it says something that the axe he was holding towards the end seemed to add very little to it.

Ruby has made a perceptive point about Ripley's "Christ-on-the-cross image" in the Grand Finale. It does fit with the pseudo-Christian inanity that occupies a minor yet unduly prominent place in the plot. I may add that Ripley went one better than Jesus. She saved the whole universe from the Alien, not just the miserable human race. Also, the concept of being eaten by a fierce predator is a wonderfully practical proposition to deal with, quite unlike the vague concept of sin.

Nevertheless, despite a nice touch here and there, the prisoners as a bunch of religious converts didn’t work for me. Neither did I find the gender issue especially memorable. Frankly, I didn't expect to. I understand Ripley should carry the banner of feminine strength and prevent sci-fi epics from descending again in the Dark Ages when the gentle sex was treated as though it was convenient furniture. I appreciate that and I enjoyed how stylishly it was done in the first two movies. Not so in this one. A lone woman among a herd of male perverts is hardly the right place for subtlety, insight or humour. If there were any, I missed them. In the good old days, Ripley had to cope with shipmates and marines, groups better suited to imaginative screenwriting than convicts with double Y chromosome.

This classic shot actually comes from the far-from-classic third movie.

 On the whole, I found little to admire in this movie. The Good Doctor (Charles Dance) had a lot of potential, but most of it remained unfulfilled; and he became a breakfast much too soon. Few of the prisoners were interesting in a quirky sort of way, but nothing terribly original or funny there. Ripley's character was already quite fleshed out in the first two films, and there was little the screenwriters could add here. Perhaps the slight carnal element was the only novelty. It wasn't exactly necessary, though.

But the visual side is truly extraordinary. And yet, even that was compromised by the disappointingly artificial monster: it was so obviously computer-generated that sometimes I was tempted to shout to the running victims something like "It's a hologram, stupid!" That's a strange thing to say, but the Alien in the first two movies, without the benefit of FX miracles, was much more realistic. It just looked terrifyingly real. This one didn't. Technology is a wonderful thing, but it doesn’t always produce the best results.

Apart from that slight hitch, the movie's a visual tour de force. The spacious sets of the old prison, decrepit to the extreme and illuminated by an ominous yellowish light, are quite haunting. Very apocalypse-like, very otherworldly, very effective. Such sets achieve that arrest of time of which Tennessee Williams wisely wrote in one of his essays, that sense of timelessness which is characteristic of all great art and which transforms mere occurrences into significant events.

Sadly, it was not enough in this case. Actually, it never is. There always must be some profound insight lurking behind the facade. This is what this movie lacks more or less completely.

Spanish poster

Alien Resurrection (1997)

As fourth parts of famous series go, this is quite good; I mean, it’s better than Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008). But there is another, more unfortunate, similarity between the two famous classics: the fourth instalment undoubtedly marks the lowest point. The good news is that Alien Resurrection is almost as mediocre as Alien³, even if neither is even remotely on par with the first two movies.

The major fault with this movie is that it tries to impress you in the most blatant ways. The profundity of slimy monsters is so great that is has the opposite effect: I am amused rather than scared. Towards the end a brand new species is born, as ugly and violent as they come, which comes to a very sticky end that’s indeed quite comical. Throughout the whole movie, the amount of gratuitous gore is stupendous. There are plenty of stunning space ships and stations, but that’s something of which I can easily have enough. It all builds up to a tremendously preposterous climax in the end. A final shot of post-apocalyptic Earth out of the blue is yet another irrelevant moment.

The basic idea of the plot makes sense. This is the first movie which tries to show how the human race might deal with the aliens when they are held in captivity and used for research. This is a stimulating direction. We have potential here. Sadly, it is never realized. After the first half an hour or so, which is confused enough anyway, the movie degenerates into monster movie pure and simple. It does not at any moment attempt to engage your central nervous system in anything more than a mental “Yuck” – or a physical “LOL”.

An Alien love story. 

The characters don’t really help the matter. Cloning Ripley completely from blood samples is fantasy, not science fiction, but the real problem is that she has been transformed into Superwoman who, moreover, is something like a close relative to the aliens. Whoever she is, she is certainly not Ellen Ripley from the previous movies. Apart from Call, an android character indifferently played by Winona Ryder, Ripley is surrounded by a bunch of black-and-white, cardboard stereotypes. The mad scientist and the dumb army officer dominate the scene but, despite the promising presence of Ron Perlman and Michael Wincott, all are equally dull.

The strained-to-cordial relationship between Ripley and the android is the only one that raises the script a little above the mental junk level. But like so much else in the movie it is poorly developed and often trite, dialogue-wise. When Ripley discovers Call’s robotic nature, which (surprise! surprise!) has been kept secret, she delivers one of the very few memorable lines: “I should have known. No human being is that humane.” Otherwise the dialogue is consistently pedestrian, occasionally adorned by hackneyed humour.

On the whole, this is not a bad movie. It just is totally mediocre and quite forgettable. It suffers badly in comparison even with the third film, not to mention the first two. A nice way to kill two hours but nothing more. 

Illustrated Bibliography of Books by Arthur C. Clarke

NB. The covers for the following bibliography have been collected from numerous places on the Internet. If you find some of your own, and if this offends your personal sense of property or legal copyright, let me know and I will remove them as soon as possible. This bibliography is compiled neither for profit nor for research purposes but entirely for fun.

NOVELS

1. Prelude to Space (1951)

In magazine, 1951.

Sidgwick & Jackson, 1953.

Ballantine, 1954.

Gnome, 1954.

Four Square Books, 1962.

New English Library, 1968.

Harcourt Brace, 1970.

Sidgwick & Jackson, 1970.

Ballantine, 1976.

Sidgwick & Jackson, 1980.

In French

In German, 1982.

In Italian, 1978.

In Italian, 1989.

Lancer, 1961.

Lancer, 1969.

In German, 1954.

In Italian, 1953.

Pan, 1954.

2. The Sands of Mars (1951)

Sidgwick & Jackson, 1951.

Gnome, 1952.

Pocket Books, 1954.

Corgi, 1958.

Pocket Books, 1954.

Sphere, 1969.

Signet. 1974.

NEL, 1982.

Bantam, 1991.

In Dutch, 1979.

In Dutch, 1952.

In Dutch, 1971.

In French, 1977.

In French, 1986.

In German, 1953.

In German, 1963.

In German, 1978.

In German, 1983.

In Italian, 1952.

In Italian, 1965.

In Italian, 1977.

3. Islands in the Sky (1952)

Sidgwick & Jackson, 1952.

Signet, 1960.

In Dutch, 1955.

John C. Winston, 1952.

In Dutch, 1975.

In French, 1954.

In German, 1958.

In Italian, 1954.

Digit, 1963.

Signet, 1965.

Singet, 1981.

Penguin, 1982.

Signet, 1987.

Signet, ????

4. Childhood's End (1953)

Ballantine, 1953. 

Sidgwick & Jackson, 1954. 

The SF Book Club, 1955.

Ballantine, 1960.

Ballantine, 1964.

Pan, 1966.

Ballantine, 1967.

Ballantine, 1969.

Harcourt Brace, 1970.

Pan, 1970.

Pan, 1977.

Del Rey, 1981.

Del Rey, 1982.

Pan, 1990.

Easton Press, 1995.

Del Rey, 2001.

Gollancz, 2001.

Gollancz, 2010.

Thor, 2010.

Del Rey, 1997.

In Dutch, 1976.

In French, 1977.

In French, 1988.

In French, 2003.

In German, 1960.

In  German, 2003.

In Italian, 1981.

In Portuguese, 1959.

5. Against the Fall of Night (1953)

Berkley, 1983.

Berkley, 1953.

iBooks, 2005.

In German, 1975.

In German, 1993.

Jove Books, 1978.

Pyramid, 1960.

Pyramid, 1962.

Pyramid, 1967.

Pyramid, 1970.

Startling Stories, Nov 48.

Perma, 1954.

6. Earthlight (1955)

Ballantine, 1955.

Ballantine, 1955.

Frederick Muller, 1955.

Ballantine, 1957.

In German, 1957.

Pan, 1957.

Ballantine, 1963.

Pan, 1963.

Pan, 1966.

Ballantine, 1969.

Pan, 1971.

Ballantine, 1974.

In French, 1975.

In German, 1984.

In German, 1985.

Ballantine, 1998.

In Italian, 1957.

In Italian, 1969.

In Italian, 1983.

7. The City and the Stars (1956)

Frederick Muller, 1956.

Harcourt Brace, 1956.

Signet, 1957.

In Italian, 1957.

Corgi, 1960.

Signet, 1961.

Corgi, 1965.

In Italian, 1967.

Gollancz, 1968.

Corgi, 1974.

Gollancz, 1986.

Bantam, 1991.

Gollancz, 1993.

Vista, 1998.

The SF Book Club, 2003.

Signet, 1975.

In Dutch, 1978.

In French, 1962.

In French, 1981.

In German, 1960.

In German, 1979.

In German,2011.

In Italian, 1957.

In Italian, 1967.

In Italian, 2004.

Gollancz, 2001.

8. The Deep Range (1957)

Frederick Muller, 1957.

In German, 1957.

Harcourt Brace, 1957.

The SF Book Club, 1960.

In Italian, 1962.

Signet, 1964.

Gollancz, 1968.

Harcourt Brace, 1970.

Pan, 1970.

Signet, 1974.

Pan, 1974.

In French, 1985.

Bantam, 1991.

Gollancz, 1994.

Vista, 1998.

Pan, 1976.

In French, 1972.

Gollancz, 2005.

9. A Fall of Moondust (1961)

Gollancz, 1961.

Harcourt Brace, 1961.

In German, 1962.

In Italian, 1962.

Dell, 1963.

The SF Book Club, 1963.

Pan, 1964.

Signet, 1974.

Gollancz, 1987.

Bantam, 1981.

Gollancz, 1995.

Vista, 1998.

Gollancz, 2002.

In Dutch, 1964.

In French, 1962.

In French, 1962.

In Turkish, 1984.

10. Dolphin Island (1963)

Gollancz, 1963. 

Holt, Rineheart and Winston, 1963. 

Berkley, 1968.

Dragon, 1968.

In German, 1977.

Berkley, 1982.

In German, 1985.

Puffin, 1986.

In Dutch, 1968.

In French, 1966.

In German, ????

In Italian, 1965.

In Italian, 1979.

11. Glide Path (1963)

Dell, 1965. 

Sidgwick & Jackson, 1965. 

Signet, 1973.

Bantam, 1991.

iBooks, 2003.

Signet, 1987.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Hutchinson, 1968.

New American Library, 1968.

Signet, 1968.

Arrow, 1971.

Arrow, 1976,

Inner Circle, 1983.

Legend, 1990.

Legend, 1991.

G. K. Hall, 1993.

Roc, 1993.

Roc, 1999.

In Dutch, 1969.

In Dutch, 1975.

In French, 1972.

In French, 1974.

In French, 1992.

In French, 2000.

In French, 2001.

In German, 1969.

In German, 1996.

In German, 2001.

In Hungarian, 1994.

13. Rendezvous with Rama (1973)

Gollancz, 1973.

Harcourt Brace, 1973.

Ballantine, 1974.

Pan, 1974.

Pan, 1974.

Del Rey, 1984.

Bantam, 1990.

Orbit, 1995.

SF Book Club, 2005.

Gollancz, 2006.

Gollancz, 2009.

Galacy, 1973,

Galaxy, 1973.

In French, 1975.

In French, 1980.

In German, 1975.

In German, 1977.

In German, 2008.

In Italian, 1973.

In Italian, 1982.

In Italian, 1999.

In Italian, 2012.

14. Imperial Earth (1975)

Gollancz, 1975.

Ballantine, 1976.

Harcourt, 1976.

In French, 1977.

In German, 1977.

Pan, 1977.

Del Rey, 1984.

Gollancz, 1988.

Bantam, 1991.

iBooks, 2001.

In Dutch, 1977.

In French, 1978.

In German, 1979.

In Italian, 1976.

In Italian, 2011.

15. The Fountains of Paradise (1979)

Gollancz, 1979.

Harcourt Brace, 1979.

Del Rey, 1980.

Bantam, 1991.

Vista, 1997.

Aspect, 2001.

Orion, 2001.

In French, 1980.

In French, 1982.

In German, 1979.

In German, 1985.

In Italian, 1979.

In Portuguese, 1990.

16. 2010: Odyssey Two (1982)

Del Rey, 1982.

Fantasia Press, 1982.

Granada, 1982.

Voyager, 1987.

Del Rey, 1987.

In German, 1985.

17. The Songs of Distant Earth (1986)

Del Rey, 1986.

In German, 1987.

Grafton, 1987.

Del Rey, 1991.

Voyager, 1998.

Voyager, 2001.

In French, 1987.

In German, 1987.

18. 2061: Odyssey Three (1988)

Del Rey, 1988.

Guild, 1988.

Del Rey, 1997.

Voyager, 1997.

In French, 1993.

In German, 1988.

In German, 1988.

19. The Ghost from the Grand Banks (1990)

Bantam, 1990.

Gollancz, 1990.

Banttam, 1991.

In German, 1992.

Orbit, 1992.

Gollancz, 2005.

20. The Hammer of God (1993)

Bantam, 1993.

Gollancz, 1993.

Bantam, 1994.

Orbit, 1995.

In  German, 2000.

In French, 1985.

21. 3001: The Final Odyssey (1997)

G. K. Hall, 1997.

BCA, 1997.

Del Rey, 1997.

Voyager, 1997.

Ballantine, 1999.

In French, 1999.

In German, 1998.

In Portuguese, 1997.

SHORT STORY COLLECTIONS

1. Expedition to Earth (1953)

Ballantine, 1953,

Ballantine, 1953.

Corgi, 1959.

Ballantine, 1965.

Pan, 1966.

Sphere, 1968.

Ballantine, 1969.

Harcourt Brace, 1970.

Sphere, 1972.

Sphere, 1972.

New English Library , 1983.

Del Rey, 1998.

Orbit, 1999.

In German, 1960.

In Portuguese, 1989.

2. Reach for Tomorrow (1956)

Ballantine, 1956.

Ballantine, 1963.

Ballantine, 1969.

Harcourt Brace, 1970.

Corgi, 1974.

Vista, 1996.

Del Rey, 1998.

In French, 1960.

In French, 1971.

In French, 1983.

In Portuguese, 1990.

3. Tales from the White Hart (1957)

Ballantine, 1957.

Ballantine, 1961.

Ballantine, 1966.

Ballantine, 1970.

Sidgwick & Jackson, 1972.

Ballantine, 1974.

Sidgwick & Jackson, 1976.

Del Rey, 1979.

Del Rey, 1980.

New English Library, 1980.

Del Rey, 1998.

PS Publ., 2007.

In Dutch, 1962.

In Dutch, 1973.

In German, 1984.

In Italian, 1965, abr.

4. The Other Side of the Sky (1958)

Harcourt Brace, 1958.

Signet, 1959. 

Signet, 1961. 

The SF Book Club, 1962.

Corgi, 1963. 

Signet, 1964. 

Corgi, 1966. 

Harcourt Brace, 1968.

Corgi, 1974.

Signet, 1977.

Signet, 1987.

Gollancz, 2003.

In Dutch, 1968.

In Dutch, 1978.

In German, 1984.

5. Tales of Ten Worlds (1962)

Harcourt, Brace & World, 1962.

Dell, 1964.

Pab, 1965.

Corgi, 1971.

Signet, 1973.

Corgi, 1975.

Pan, 1983.

Gollanncz, 1995.

Gollancz, 2003.

In German, 1963.

In Italian, 1987.

Signet, ????

6. The Wind from the Sun (1972)

Gollancz, 1972.

Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1972.

Signet, 1973.

Corgi, 1974.

Vista, 1996.

Gollancz, 2006.

7. The Lost Worlds of 2001 (1972)

Sidgwick and Jackson, 1972.

Signet, 1972.

Sidgwick and Jackson, 1972.

New English Library, 1982.

In German, 1983.

III. NON-FICTION BOOKS

III. 1. Interplanetary Flight (1950)

Temple Press, 1950.

Harper, 1951.

Harper, 1960.

Temple Press, 1960.

Berkley, 1985.

2. The Exploration of Space (1951)

Harper, 1951.

Temple Press, 1951.

In German, 1953.

Cardinal, 1954.

Pelican, 1958.

Harper, 1959.

Premier, 1960.

3. The Exploration of the Moon (1954)

Unknown edition.

Unknown edition.

4. The Coast Of Coral (1956)

Frederick Muller, 1956.

Harper, 1956.

In German, 1956.

5. The Making of a Moon (1957)

Harper, 1957.

6. The Reefs of Taprobane (1957)

Harper, 1957.

iBooks, 2002.

7. Voice Across the Sea (1958)

William Luscombe, 1974.
Rev. ed.

8. The Challenge of the Spaceship (1959)

Ballantine, 1961. 

Pocket Books, 1980. 

In German, 1960.

9. The Challenge of the Sea (1960)

Holt, Rineheart and Winston, 1960.

Dell, 1960.

In German, ????

Frederick Muller, 1961.

10. Indian Ocean Adventure (1961)

Artur Barker, 1962.

11. Profiles of the Future (1962)

The Scientific Book Club, 1962.

Bantam, 1964.

Pan, 1964.

Harper, 1973.

Pan, 1973.

Gollancz, 1999.

In Dutch, 1964.

Indigo, 2000.

12. Indian Ocean Treasure (1964)

Sidgwick & Jackson, 1972.

12. The Treasure of the Great Reef (1964)

Harper & Row, 1964.

Perennial, 1965.

13. Voices from the Sky (1965)

Harper & Row, 1965. 

Gollancz, 1966. 

In German, 1968.

Mayflower, 1969.

Pyramid, 1971.

Pyramid, 1976.

Pocket Books, 1980.

14. The Promise of Space (1968)

Harper & Row, 1968.

Hodder & Stoughton, 1968.

Lubbe, 1969.

Pyramid, 1970.

Berkley, 1980.

15. Beyond Jupiter: The Worlds of Tomorrow (1972) 

Little, Brown, 1972.

16. Report on Planet Three and Other Speculations (1972)

Gollancz, 1972.

Harper & Row, 1972. 

Signet, 1973.

In German, 1985.

Corgi, 1973.

17. The View From Serendip (1977)

Random House, 1977.

Ballantine, 1978.

Pan, 1979.

Del Rey, 1984.

18. 1984: Spring, A Choice of Futures (1984)

Del Rey, 1984.

Granada, 1984.

19. Ascent to Orbit: A Scientific Autobiography (1984)

John Wiley & Sons, 1984.

20. Astounding Days: A Science Fictional Autobiography (1989)

Gollancz, 1989.

Gollancz, 1990.

21. How the World was One: Beyond the Global Village (1992)

Gollancz, 1992.

Bantam, 1992.

22. The Snows of Olympus: A Garden on Mars (1994)

W. W. Norton, 1995.

Gollancz, 1996.

IV. COLLECTED EDITIONS

Across the Sea of Stars (1959)

Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1959.

From the Ocean, from the Stars (1961)

Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961.

Prelude to Mars (1965)

Harcourt, Brace and World, 1965.

An Arthur C. Clarke Omnibus (1965)

Sidgwick and Jackson, 1965.

The Nine Billion Names of God (1967)

Harcourt, Brace & World, 1967.

Signet, 1974.

Signet, 1987.

Harbrace, undated.

In French, 1986.

The Lion of Comarre / Against the Fall of Night (1968)

Harcourt, Brace & World, 1968.

Gollancz, 1970.

Corgi, 1972.

Pan, 1982.

An Arthur C. Clarke Second Omnibus (1968)

Sidgwick & Jackson, 1968.

Of Time and Stars (1972)

Gollancz, 1972.

Puffin, 1974.

Penguin, 1981. 

Roc, 1981.

Millemondinverno 1974: Tre romanzi completi di Arthur C. Clarke (1974) [Italian]

Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 1974.
3 novels: Earthlight, A Fall of Moondust, Childhood's End.

The Best of Arthur C. Clarke: 1937-1971 (1973)

Sidgwick & Jackson, 1973.

Sphere, 1973.

The Best of Arthur C. Clarke: 1937-1955 (1976)

Sphere, 1976.

Sphere, 1982.

In Portuguese, 1985.

The Best of Arthur C. Clarke 1956-1972 (1977)

Sphere, 1977.

Sphere, 1981.

Zomer op Icarus (1977) [Dutch]

Bruna, 1977.
14 short stories.

 L'etoile (1978) [French]

J'ai Lu, 1985.
14 short stories.

Four Great SF Novels (1978)

Gollancz, 1978.

Een Nieuwe Dageraad en Andere Verhalen (1979) [Dutch]

Elsevier, 1979.
8 short stories.

Spedizione di soccorso (1978) [Italian]

Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 1978.
11 short stories.

Arnoldo Mondadori Editore,. 2008.

La sentinella (1979) [Italian]

Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 1979.
9 short stories.

Medusa (1980) [Italian]

Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 1980.
13 short stories.

Le livre d'or de la Science-Fiction : Arthur C. Clarke (1981) [French]

Presses Pocket, 1981.
13 short stories.

Le vent venu du soleil (1983) [French]

Presses Pocket, 1983.
Actually a French edition of The Wind from the Sun (1972).

The Sentinel (1983)

Berkley, 1983.

Grafton, 1991.

Barnes and Noble, 1996.

i Books, 2000.

2001: A Space Odyssey/The City and the Stars/The Deep Range/

A Fall of Moondust/Rendezvous with Rama (1987)

Octopus/Heinemann, 1987.

Tales from Planet Earth (1989)

Legend, 1989.

Bantam Spectra, 1990.

Legend, 1990.

iBooks, 2001.

More Than One Universe: 

The Collected Stories of Arthur C. Clarke (1991)

Bantam Spectra, 1991.

By Space Possessed: Essays on the Exploration of Space (1993)

Gollancz, 1993.

Greetings, Carbon-Based Bipeds! (1999)

St. Martin Press, 1999.

Voyager, 1999.

The Collected Stories of Arthur C. Clarke (2000)

Gollancz, 2000.

Tor, 2001.

The City and the Stars / The Sands of Mars (2001)

Aspect/Warner, 2001.

The Ghost from the Grand Banks and the Deep Range (2001)

Aspect/Warner, 2001.

The Space Trilogy (2001)

Gollancz, 2001.

Odyssee im Weltraum (2001) [German]

Deutscher Bücherbund. 2001.
2001 + 2010.

3001: The Final Odyssey / The Songs of Distant Earth (2004)

Grafton, 2004.

Clarke's Universe (2006)

iBooks, 2006.