Good morning, gentle readers, and ... WOOF!

Can you see that?  Can you see that -- along with that tiny imperfection in the Number 2 above -- we've managed to eek out an incredible 102 different trivia citations for the day?  Can you believe it?  Can you frakkin' believe it?  Why, that's an astonishing amount of data -- if I do say so myself -- and I just glanced into the day's archives and learned that I've an incredible amount more waiting for mention ... if I can just find the free time to get it all up there!

Wowza!

For those of you who don't know it, I'd originally worked very hard on the entire month of December because -- well -- it's my birthday month, and I did want it to be a bit special if for no other reason than to commemorate (sp?) my efforts.  There's nothing wrong with a measure of pride in one's work, and here's hoping that I live long enough to get everything I've uncovered with scads and scads and scads of research up in this space.  Seriously: I surprise even myself some days with all that I've in my files, and I do know that a few of you who frequent these corners of the Information Superhighway do enjoy this exchange as much as I.  So hats off to each of us in our shared appreciation of Science Fiction, Fantasy, Horror, and even more!

In case you missed it, I did post a pretty hefty look back into my thoughts regarding 1979's urban thriller The Warriors yesterday (review is here), and -- of course -- I realize that isn't so much related to a great deal of what's up here.  However, I stated in the opening that from time-to-time I do wander outside the lines -- especially as it relates to interesting new content -- and The Warriors remains one of the vivid yarns on my youth at the movies ... so there.  I hope you can appreciate my column as much as you do the other substance I share, and I'm glad that you'll allow me these other indulgences.

However, I'm busy with the wifey today so I will not be able to get up any other new posts beyond this one.  We've got something fun planned, and it's something I look forward to annually.  Also, tomorrow, I'm tied up with my volunteer gig all day, so I probably won't have anything fresh and inviting up.  I give you my word that I'll try to get the daily post up ... but even that may not quite fit into a very tight schedule.

So ... in the meantime ...
​

As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!

​-- EZ

Gentle readers, I’ve confessed that – from time-to-time – I like to wander outside the realms of the Fantastic that are so reverentially covered in this space to review something different.
 
As I’ve said, I’ve always been a lover of film and not just those which happen to fall under the Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror headings.  While I’m not all that much moved by conventional Dramas and Comedies, I still take them in on occasion, especially those that have been recommended to me from the kind folks I meet along the merry way of life.  Westerns and Film Noirs are also big, big, big favorites of mine (you’ll see a smattering of columns and reviews on the site covering them); but I do tend to turn my nose up with Musicals.  (I just never cared for them.)  And when one of these flicks inspires me to think and write about it a bit more, then I’m also apt to cover new releases of them – with the occasional review – in this space because venturing outside my preferred bubble is a solid act of creative renewal.  I get to ponder questions that stretch beyond spaceships, aliens, and ray guns; and there’s nothing wrong with pushing one’s brain in a different direction entirely.
 
Simply put, it’s good for the soul.
 
Today’s diversion: The Warriors (1979) was an R-rated film I had to sneak into theaters in order to see back in the days of my reckless youth, and I’m glad I did.  (I didn’t do that all too often, so, yeah, it was fun.)  Though I didn’t quite relish the cinematic adventure as much as did the friends who snuck in with me, I did think it was very well made, told a solid story, and crafted a layer of tension that rarely gets seen that well done up in the lights.  It had about everything any deserving tale should have – good characters, vivid scenery, a hint of romance (and some bromance), flashes of action and adventure – and I think it remains one of the better thrillers to come out of the 1970’s.
 
Recently, Arrow Films announced that they’d be releasing an all-new 4K Ultra HD restoration of the picture in December; and somehow I had the great fortune of scoring myself a pre-release screening copy.  With a bit of glee, I sat down and spent a few hours with it – the original cut as well as a director’s version I wasn’t even aware of – so I’m happy to share my thoughts on one of the seminal films of my youth.
 
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
​

From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A street gang known as The Warriors must fight their way from the Bronx to their home turf on Coney Island when they are falsely accused of assassinating a respected gang leader.”
 
If the early 1960’s cinematic sensibilities were ultimately responsible for educating mankind to what life on the street looked like, then leave it to the late 1970’s to radically correct that portrait from the sanitized era: Walter Hill’s The Warriors – adapted in part by the director from Sol Yurick’s novel of the same name – delivered the tale of an urban nightmare of survival across the night lights of New York City’s underworld, though at times it felt a bit light in substance if not even a bit glossy with its kinda/sorta embrace of a life in crime.  There’s no escaping that one truth, folks, that gangs account for a significant percentage of illegal and illicit activity wherever they do ‘business,’ but The Warriors would have you believing that these young men are just soldiers of a different sort … and nothing – in reality – could be further from the truth.
 
Naturally, any discussion of The Warriors practically requires an examination of the career of Hill.  Today, his may not be a household name, but for those of us who grew up in the 1970’s it was certainly one we recognized.  His debut picture – Hard Times (1972) – paired up screen heavyweights Charles Bronson and James Coburn in the story of illegal prize-fighting during the Great Depression.  The Warriors followed a few years later, but 1981, 1982, and 1984 respectively truly put the writer/director on the map with flicks like Southern Comfort (another tale of survival thematically similar to The Warriors), the box-office hit 48 Hours (still my favorite Hill picture), and Streets Of Fire (a kinda/sorta urban Thriller also set on the city streets but given a bit of Fantasy spin).  Those years alone show an incredible eye with a knack for delivering big scenes when they mattered most, and these films remain impactful – if even a bit cult – to this day.
 
What many don’t know is that along the way Hill was also expanding his skill set beyond just writing and directing: in 1979, he added ‘Producer’ to his resume in a big way, helping to bring Ridley Scott’s groundbreaking Alien to the silver screen.  In fact, Hill’s association with the whole Alien franchise lasted all the way through the somewhat underwhelming 2017 entry Alien: Covenant, a bit of a misfire in that universe so far as this reviewer is concerned.  He was a key player in delivering HBO’s award-winning Tales From The Crypt to audiences, and he left his mark on several smaller properties across the 50+ years spanning his career.  A glance at his IMDB.com profile suggests that his efforts have fallen off as of late, but count me among those who’d love to see more of his catalogue given the kind of treatment Arrow Films has given this forthcoming celebration of his 1979 sensation.
​

Evaluating The Warriors as one of his earlier prospects kinda/sorta diminishes the impact the project had in its time and place, but history is always written by the victors … am I right?  Depending upon where one searches and reads, it was released without much fanfare with a good number of professional critics drubbing it as low-brow entertainment beneath their (cough cough) deserving attention.  In fact, I’ve read that The Warriors both was and wasn’t a box office sensation; having lived through those days, I can tell you that it wasn’t much talked about that I can recall, but I caution readers to keep in mind that I was just entering high school at that point and didn’t follow industry trends as closely as I do today.  I’ve also read that the production grossed a surprisingly low $23 million at the box office, but that’s still not so awful given its reported $4 million budget.  Over time, I think it’s undisputed that the film has become a cult hit as well as one of those ‘closeted favorites’ of a great many storytellers, and it’s always great when classics find new life with younger viewers.
 
So, yes, I’ll agree to having a fondness for it, most of which I honestly ascribe to my appreciation of Hill’s particularly gritty style and his handling of like-minded subject matter.  The Warriors sounds, looks, and feels like a great hard-boiled novel (I’ve heard that the source material really only taps such territory), and its various characters arguably don’t have much depth beyond there respective place and circumstances.  In fact, audiences learn very little about The Warriors’ war chief Swan (played by Michael Beck) and are instead merely forced to accept his leadership bona fides because ‘they are what they are.’  He never quite demonstrates a knack for inspiring others and/or team-building, and every man on his squad (mostly) goes along with his leadership because … well … that’s what one does.  The only real challenge to his leadership comes from Ajax – an impressive screen job done by James Remar, one of my all-time personal favorite actors – and, yet again, we’re really only treated to their behaviors – his being rebellious – and given no wider context for who he is and why he resents authority the way he does.
 
However, I think it was writer, director, and actor Sylvester Stallone who once preached about the greatness of 90-minute films.  (For the uninformed, The Warriors clocks in at a lean and mean 93 minutes.)  Theater owners have long professed that such features give them the greatest bang for their buck – meaning that they can schedule the right number of showing for the right number of audiences to maintain peak profitability – and studios were all-to-happy back in the day to follow suit.  Because thrillers and action films chiefly attract young males (with some females, too), it’s often been suggested that character is less important and can be sacrificed in favor of greater pacing along with solid action sequences.  In this respect, I suppose it’s safe to safe that The Warriors fit the bill almost perfectly, dialing back such narrative nuance in favor of letting Hill truly do what he does best.  Me?  Well, I’d much rather a storyteller add ten-minutes to the run-time if that means I get to know a bit more about who these people are, why they behave a certain way, and maybe even a hint of what they hope to get out of life … beyond simply surviving.
 
None of this is meant to dismiss how effective The Warriors is at what it does best, and mostly it sets up this slim universe for the sole purpose of setting its characters in motion.  On that front, it achieves a measure of greatness few followers can hope to achieve, and I think that speaks to Hill’s driving focus on the page and behind the camera.  After its initial set-up, The Warriors – like its protagonists – are always in flight, be in walking or running or riding the subway.  They won’t stop until they’re home, and only then do they realize that maybe such sacred pastures aren’t even safe any longer.  But as it’s suggested that they somehow stood up for themselves by running and surviving, they’re granted a reprieve by the big baddies, The Riffs.
​

Who knows how long the peace will last?
 
Thankfully, there was no follow-up, as that would’ve only cheapened the whole affair.
 
Still, sometime in 2005, Hill was encouraged to somewhat reconsider his nifty little epic with the issuance of a director’s cut.  While I’m generally a fan of such ‘reconsiderations,’ I can tell you that this time the whole premise really falls flat.  (In fact, I think I laughed once or twice at these weird revisions.)  In a pre-taped introduction to the piece, Hill kinda/sorta alludes to the fact that he always viewed The Warriors as soldiers, though he never clarifies what war they were waging.  Basically, he tacked on an opening narrative that compares these gangbangers to Greek soldiers trying to march through enemy territory, and – I’m sorry, folks – all of it felt incredibly stupid.  (Thankfully, it’s very brief.)  Then, he essentially reworked the existing films transitions with some curious comic book style graphics … and really?  Good grief.  Stick with the original, people.  It’s what works best and might just be timeless all on its own.
 
The Warriors (1979) was produced by Paramount Pictures.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the good people at Arrow Films.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert … wow.  This restoration both looks and sounds absolutely fabulous, so much so that one might think all of this was originally shot on digital.  (There is one scene very late in the picture that an alarming degree of grain, and I can only assume that this must be owed to an inferior source material.)  If you’re looking for special features?  Well, once again, this is Arrow Films; and they never disappoint.  (At least, they’ve not disappointed me.)  Because this is voluminous, I’m going to do the obligatory copy-and-paste from their press materials, as that’s the only way to truly do it justice.  The collection boasts:

• EXCLUSIVE NEW 4K RESTORATIONS OF THE THEATRICAL AND DIRECTOR'S CUT OF THE FILM sourced from the original camera negative, supervised by Arrow Films and approved by director Walter Hill
• Theatrical Cut presented in original aspect ratio of 1.85:1 for the first time on home video
• Original uncompressed mono, plus stereo 2.0 and Dolby Atmos audio options for the Theatrical Cut, plus stereo 2.0 and DTS-HD MA 5.1 for the 2005 Alternate Version
• Optional English Subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing
• 100-page perfect-bound collector's book containing new writing by film critic Dennis Cozzalio plus select archival material
• Limited Edition packaging with reversible sleeve featuring original and newly commissioned artwork by Laurie Greasley
• Double-sided fold-out poster featuring original and newly commissioned artwork by Laurie Greasley
• 6 postcard-sized reproduction artcards
• Gang logo stickers

​

DISC ONE: THEATRICAL CUT

• New audio commentary by film critic Walter Chaw, author of A Walter Hill Film
• War Stories, a new interview with director Walter Hill
• A new roundtable discussion in which filmmakers Josh Olson (A History of Violence), Lexi Alexander (Green Street), and Robert D. Kryzkowski (The Man Who Killed Hitler and then Bigfoot) discuss their love of The Warriors and the work of director Walter Hill
• Battling Boundaries, a new interview with editor Billy Weber
• Gang Style, a new interview with costume designer Bobbie Mannix
• Armies of the Night, a new exclusive look at costume designs and photographs from the archive of designer Bobbie Mannix
• Sound of the Streets, a new appreciation of composer Barry De Vorzon and the music of The Warriors by film historian Neil Brand
• Isolated score option
• Come Out to Play, a new look at the iconic locations of the Warriors' Coney Island home turf
• The Beginning, an archival extra looking back on how The Warriors came to be, featuring interviews with producer Lawrence Gordon, actor James Remar, editor David Holden and writer/director Walter Hill
• Battleground, an archival extra in which director Walter Hill and assistant director David O. Sosna look back at the difficulties of shooting on location in New York City
• The Way Home, an archival extra focusing on the look of film with contributions from director of photography Andrew Laszlo
• The Phenomenon, an archival extra featuring director Walter Hill and the cast of The Warriors
• Theatrical trailer
• Image gallery

DISC TWO: 2005 ALTERNATE VERSION

• Archive introduction by director Walter Hill

To clarify (for those who care), I’ve received only screener copies of the discs, so I can’t speak to the efficacy of any printed materials (artwork, postcards, collector’s booklets, essays, etc.) as those are rarely – if ever – provided with screeners.  Such is life … but I do pride myself on being honest in my space.
 
Despite any shortcomings, this one still comes … Highly Recommended.
 
Dismissing the fact that The Warriors (1979) is only sparingly grounded in reality is honestly the best way to enjoy this sometimes thrilling, sometimes chilling meditation on – of all things – survival.  You can throw any other themes and/or messages out the window because – in this world – these streetwise punks band together out of necessity and then stick to their colors for the same purpose: alone, they’d be struck down one-by-one, but together they just might make it home alive.  Cinematography is excellent, pacing and editing is exceptional, and performances are about as good as they get in this universe.  Imagine that you’re watching a carnival theme park ride into the ultimate haunted house, and this journey continues to delight decades after its initial release.  Easily, this marks as one of Walter Hill’s crowning achievements.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary screening copy of The Warriors (1979) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review.  Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

​-- EZ

(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
 
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Linnea Quigley plays Malicia Tombs, a well-known horror actress who dies in a car accident under mysterious circumstances after leaving the set of her latest movie.  Fans and co-workers alike reflect on her life.  But someone believes she was murdered and sets out to get revenge for her death!”
 
Readers, I have occasionally taken IMDB’s plot summaries to task over their (cough cough) inaccuracies; and, sadly, that’s the case this morning.  While the provided synopsis has a modest element of truth to it, I might argue that it’s also blatantly misleading.  Now, I’ll not spoil it directly, but I would caution you that the summary feels like it was written to kinda/sorta deliver a classic misdirection: in fact, such a misdirection is probably a necessary component of getting viewers to watch this incredibly low-budget slasher production.  Otherwise, I wonder if anyone would’ve shown up at all.
 
Well … okay.  Maybe that sounded a bit harsh.  Apologies.
 
The name of Linnea Quigley brings with it a certain aura.  This celebrated actress long ago earned the title of ‘Scream Queen’ for her resume, one rich in the realm of Horror and Fantasy.  She’s definitely fashioned a career out of blood and guts on screens big and small, but – and this is only my observation – it would seem that of late she’s been relegated to increasingly smaller independent Horror outings, the likes of which tend to end up shuffled to pay cable channels or direct-to-video are that rarely gets authentic media coverage.  Yes, it sucks getting older, but Quigley’s fans understandably appreciate all that the lady does, so her reputation and appearance alone does guarantee a small measure of success for budding auteurs who might cast her in their forthcoming frights.
 
I have read a bit about Scream Queen (2002), and I’ve come to understand its production was somewhat fractured.  As I understand, it began life in the late 1990’s, but filming stalled at some point over what was likely a loss of capital.  Eventually, the project was completed, and it was released on home video with, probably, very little fanfare.  Though I’ve no way of knowing, I suspect this one was overlooked by a mainstream crowd, perhaps only finding embrace from the most ardent purveyors of the Horror section in Blockbuster stores of the day.  Such a thing happens to many small(ish), independent works, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.
 
Still, it’s kinda/sorta hard to muster up any serious praise for the effort expended.
 
Thankfully, it’s lean, clocking in at just under 80 minutes; and it largely sticks to what might say is an almost ‘classical’ slasher structure.  Following the format of an Agatha Christie outing, it’s basically a mildly bloody yarn about folks called to one mansion on a dark and stormy night wherein they’re dispatched to the afterlife one-by-one as viewers have to figure out whodunit.  (This is what I mean when I suggest it’s ‘classical’ in nature.)  Alas, it ain’t all that hard to reach that conclusion – again, trying to avoid spoiling any major details – but maybe I’ve seen too many iterations of this formula, leaving this one with a decided lack of freshness.
 
So … despite the fact that – quite literally – Scream Queen looks like it had no extraordinary budget (it could’ve been shot in any residential home by an assortment of gathered friends), it’s hard to fault this cast and crew for showing up and giving it an honest attempt.  It sticks too closely to meeting expectations of the narrative – the kiss of death for damn near any low-budget chiller to break into profitability – and never tries anything new, different, or inviting.  This kinda thing has been done to death in the Scream franchise alone, and I’m not sure those storytelling mechanics truly lend themselves to modestly budgeted knockoffs.  Quigley’s involvement alone – as welcome as that may’ve been – was just not enough to ‘burn the barn’ over such a bland concoction.
 
A noble attempt, true.  Just not revolutionary by any measurable standard.
 
Scream Queen (2002) was produced by … well, unfortunately I’ve no idea.  The usually reliable IMDB.com has no information and not even this release’s packaging gives me the specificity I look for.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the fine folks at Visual Vengeance.  As for the technical specifications?  Ouch.  This is a tough one, readers, because what you’re looking at – from the original – is some very dated and underattended source material.  While I’m no trained video expert, I can assure you that the provided sights and sounds are well below the bar for what’s available today.  But if you’re looking for special features?  Wowza!  Visual Vengeance has certainly rolled out the red carpet with this collection, and I’m doing the copy-and-paste for those interested in this sort of detail below.  It’s a fabulous assortment that should be the envy of any genre nut worldwide.  Take a gander:

• NEW SD MASTER APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR
• NEW Linnea Quigley Interview
• Audio Commentary with Writer / Director Brad Sykes
• Once Upon A Time In Horrorwood: Behind the Scenes Documentary
• Second Feature: Original Producer's Cut of Movie
• Editor Mark Polonia Interview
• Behind The Scenes Image Gallery
• Linnea Quigley Image Gallery
• Original Script Selects
• Original Trailer
• Visual Vengeance Trailers
• Six-page liner notes by Tony Strauss of Weng's Chop Magazine
• Collectible Linnea Quigley folded mini-poster
• 'Stick your own' VHS sticker set
• Reversible sleeve featuring original home video art
• Optional English subtitles
• REGION-FREE

 
Alas … it’s hard to give this one a ringing endorsement on any level.  I would say that Quigley’s fans will find it mildly delightful – a bit of a stretch – and why not?  Scream Queen stars one of the truly original scream queens ever to grace the screen, so I can appreciate the obvious irony of casting a major Horror talent to star as a major Horror talent in a low-budget send-up of indie-set slasher scene.  Sadly, it’s only occasionally fun and really only rarely finds a tone deserving attention … and by this time you can see whodunit from a mile away … which, incidentally, I think the camera may’ve been located a mile away from some of these fuzzy shots.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Visual Vengeance provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Scream Queen (2002) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review.  Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

​-- EZ

Good morning and welcome to Tuesday, gentle readers!  Here's hoping that your week is off to a great start!

Wowza, folks, I've done a quick glance at the day -- at least, the day so far as it matters to SciFiHistory.Net -- and it's definitely heavy with birthday citations.  What an incredible assortment of talent in front of and behind-the-scenes awaits you on your journey of discovery through the daily citations.  There are some heavy hitters in there as well, I might add, so be prepared to give it a very thorough once-over, as they say, and I think you'll be happily surprised with the rundown.  There are also a few movie launches in there, too, but not as many as I'd like to see.  I do have a handful awaiting posting from the archives, but I'm kinda/sorta short on time this morning as I have some volunteer work to get to this afternoon, and the clock is winding down a bit.

Yesterday, I did have a full slate of movie watching.  I finished up the new release of the camp classic Barbarella (1968) and posted a review (link here).  Over the years, it's been suggested to me by a great many that it's a flick that I should heartily love, but I've honestly always found it more than a bit flat in the story department.  While I'm not as familiar with the source material as I should be (copies are available on Amazon.com at a horrific price), I've seen enough to know that the film and the original comic strip aren't quite in sync so far as characters and sensibilities go.  Suffice it to say, I can see why it's always been considered a camp film, and I can understand why it's occasionally praised for some of its production details.  However ... as a good story?  Meh.  Hardly.

But ... to each his own, as they say ...

I also screened two others that I'm only just starting to pen reviews for, so keep your eyes peeled.  They'll likely be up tomorrow or Thursday, as time permits.  

Here's the real reason that you're here ...
​

As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!

​-- EZ

Though I’ve been assured that times have changed, the way Science Fiction and Fantasy fans used to interact early in their friendships would be to kinda/sorta quiz one another on their extensive film tastes.
 
“You’ve seen The Day The Earth Stood Still?  Well, what did you think of it?  Okay.  How about 2001: A Space Odyssey?  You worship the ground Kubrick walks on for that, right?  Okay.  What are your thoughts on the original Planet Of The Apes with Charlton Heston?  And how about The War Of The Worlds or any other films that came from George Pal?  You know who George Pal is, and you can name his films by heart, right?  Which of the original Star Wars films do you prefer?  It had better be the first one … or we can’t be friends!”
 
While there might be some exaggeration here and there, my general point is that like-minded folks prefer establishing just how like-minded they truly are, as friendships can be predicated on such nuance.  Back in my youth – yes, folks, I’m definitely talking about the days before home video – it was obviously a bit more difficult to establish a playing field as all of us were subject to the rotation of big screen releases and small screen broadcasts; if you missed a flick the first time around, then you never really knew when or even if you’d get a chance to see it.  Thankfully, that’s changed, and each of us has a veritable catalogue at our fingertips.
 
But a project as cultish and elusive as 1968’s Barbarella?
 
Well, not long after I graduated college, I made the acquaintance of an extraordinarily rabid SciFi junkie, and – yes – he was vastly more schooled in film titles than I was.  (On the other hand, I’d seen far more classic dramas and comedies than he had, and such is life.)  Still – with all that he had seen either whole or in part – one project that he absolutely worshipped was Barbarella, and – for the life of me – I couldn’t say why exactly.  To consider the film a great representation of Science Fiction – much less one of the genre’s (cough cough) crowning achievements – was just beyond me then as it is today.  I’ve given up even trying to understand any audience’s affection for the film as I think it only speaks to fringe elements of society for all the wrong reasons … most of which have nothing to do with good filmmaking and great storytelling to begin with.
 
Yes, yes, and yes.  I’m happy to explain.
 
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
 
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“In the 41st century, an astronaut partakes in sexy misadventures while seeking to stop an evil scientist who threatens to bring evil back into the galaxy.”
​

Most who know me know full well that when it comes to politics I do tend to lean a bit more to the right than I do the left; and they’ll often suggest that Barbarella is a production I don’t swoon over because of actress Jane Fonda’s association with it.  For those who don’t know it, Fonda is somewhat famously anti-American – my words, not yours – and she represents a wide swath of celebrities and free-love zealots from the bygone days of the 1960’s and early 1970’s.  Granted, a great deal of this reputation is tied entirely to a few protest from the woman’s siding with the North Vietnamese during the “Vietnam Conflict” (or whatever we’re calling it these days); and though I can’t recite all of the specifics I can say I understand the circumstances well enough to understand why those who oppose her have taken that stance.  But given the fact that I was in grade school at the time, I don’t put a whole lot of stake in things I didn’t witness, so that has little to do with my stance on this film.
 
Simply put, Barbarella is a bit of a narrative mess.
 
While it has a reasonably simple story – basically Barbarella is a government operative (or sorts) who gets sent to “rescue” a scientist who has turned bad – there’s so much else stuffed into nothing more than ‘silliness on parade’ that I’m not intrigued by the world-building.
 
For starters, the script – which is credited to an astonishing nine participants including director and Fonda’s husband Roger Vadim – postulates that the world of the 41st century is nothing more than peace and love.  In some ways, Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek was built on this same foundation to a degree, and it was then psychoanalyzed weekly by Captain James T. Kirk and his crew as they’d go about righting the wrongs of the galaxy.  Unlike Trek, however, which gives its crew a chief mission of exploration, Barbarella apparently serves a government whose operatives simply exist to roll around in four-minute sequences of disrobing in zero gravity.  To my knowledge, this agent of peace has no central purpose until one comes into being (think of it all as a script contrivance).  If the universe has peace, then why would it need agents to enforce said peace?
 
If we set that aside for the moment, then I’m still left with the central question of just who is this Barbarella and what is her purpose in life?  Vadim’s adaptation of the Jean-Claude Forest creation never quite explains anything in any small or great detail, instead encouraging the audience to accept the world, its people, and its planets at face value; and – dare I say? – Science Fiction fans have always longed for a bit more.  Yes, I know full well that all of this evolves from a comic strip with a light-hearted and titillating backbone, and that’s precisely why I bring it up: films and their scripts are movies, and they require a bit more substance than apparently any of these nine writers were willing to provide.
​
As a consequence, Barbarella – the film, not the character – is pretty much at the mercy of its writers; and I think a bit more was needed in that department.  Nothing develops organically – audience meets girl, girl crashes on planet, girl meets people of increasingly bizarre cultures, girl can’t stop having sex, etc. – and very little transpires without the objectives of giving Barbarella – the character, not the film – the chance for either a costume change or a sexual escapade, either in that order or vice versa.  For all of its presumed forward thinking, Barbarella – not the film again, not the character – shows us a tomorrow where sex has become a way of life as well as a form of currency, one usually chosen over actual legitimate currency that can be used to buy things … things like food, clothing, and shelter.  Apparently, none of that is needed in the future, and never forget that in Hollywood (of all places) sex sells.
 
Sigh.
​

At the risk of sounding like a prude, that premise isn’t strong enough to be the central definition of the main character.  (Well, unless this is porn, which it doesn’t even come close to.)  Because the Fonda character just stays at the mercy of everything happening around her – she never takes the role as an authentic mover and shaker – she never quite emerges as a hero/heroine in any definition of the word.  While she does complete her mission (to an extent), she doesn’t even play a part in the film’s finale as other players essentially bring all that boils to a head, leaving the scantily clad Oscar-winning actress along for the ride … and, yes, the pun was intended.  She takes plenty of them, after all, so let’s call it what it is!
 
So far as that’s concerned, Fonda is a comely talent.  She fills the part out of a somewhat sexually innocent and morally misguided do-gooder just fine and probably about as well as anyone else could do with what slim pickings the script provides.  The fact that this is little more than bloated cosplay apparently never kept her from pursuing the part – I’ve read that her acceptance did require some convincing from Vadim – and I can’t help but wonder what the actress thinks of the film decades later.  She puts her goods up on display sparingly here, and it would seem that she bought into the whole ‘tongue-in-cheek’ camp quality from conception to delivery.  So good for her in doing something that probably couldn’t get made in today’s hyper-conscious marketplace.
 
Also, I’d be remiss if I failed to mention that Barbarella has some impressive practical work in terms of set, costume, and prop designs.  Clearly the artisans had a certain look they collectively set out to achieve, and I can’t help but wonder how much of this could’ve been inspired by the original comic strip.  (I’ve seen panels of it online here and there.)  I’ve read some commentary from film scholars who’ve suggested that Barbarella and 1980’s Flash Gordon – both were produced by Dino De Laurentiis – stylistically exist in the same universe; and solely from the look of things I couldn’t quite argue with that comparison.  However, I’d still insist that Flash was given a hero’s journey to go upon in his bid to save his homeworld and stop Ming the Merciless, and the fact that he’s an active leader and not merely existing at the whim of those around him (and the screenwriters) will always put him head-and-shoulders above Barbarella … even though they might have similar hairstyles.
 
Films are always the sum of their parts, and Fonda’s parts nonetheless – tempting that they might be – were never great enough to elevate Barbarella to anything more than the cinematic exploitation of the male fantasy.  If you find wholesome bimbos erotic, then this film achieves its camp classic title just fine.  Me?  Well, I prefer characters – men and women – of greater substance, and on that barometer there’s just not much to celebrate in here.  The film’s obvious practical brilliance will always get a solid thumbs up from me – I do love so much of its look and feel – but the hollow core leaves me feeling like I missed the ultimate reason to take this ride … even though Jane gave it her girly best.
 
Barbarella (1968) was produced by Marianne Productions and Dino de Laurentiis Cinematografica.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the fine folks at Arrow Films.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert, I found the sights and sounds to this 4K Ultra HD release to be exceptional at all times; the film quite probably looks and sounds better than it ever has, and that’s wonderful, to be sure.  If you’re looking for special features?  Well, folks, this is Arrow Films that we’re talking about, and – so far as I’m concerned – they’ve damn near cornered the market on producing some of the finest physical media out there.  Just take a gander at what you’ve in store (copied and pasted from their press release):
​

DISC ONE - 4K BLU-RAY

• NEW 4K RESTORATION OF THE FILM BY ARROW FILMS
• DOLBY VISION/HDR PRESENTATION OF THE FILM
• NEW DOLBY ATMOS AUDIO TRACK, plus original lossless English audio and lossless French mono (featuring the voice of Jane Fonda)
• Optional English subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing
• Audio commentary by film critic Tim Lucas
• Alternative opening and closing credits (in 4K with Dolby Vision)
• Isolated score

DISC TWO - BLU-RAY

• Another Girl, Another Planet, an appreciation of Barbarella by film critic Glenn Kenny
• Paul Joyce's behind the scenes featurette, Barbarella Forever!
• Love, a two-hour in-depth discussion between film and cultural historians Tim Lucas & Steve Bissette on the impact and legacy of Barbarella
• Dress to Kill, a 30-minute interview with film fashion scholar Elizabeth Castaldo Lundén on Jacques Fonteray's world-changing costume designs
• Framing for Claude, an interview with camera operator Roberto Girometti
• Tognazzi on Tognazzi, actor/director Ricky Tognazzi discusses the life and work of his father and Barbarella star Ugo Tognazzi
• An Angel's Body Double, actor Fabio Testi discusses his early career as a stuntman and body double for John Phillip Law on Barbarella
• Dino and Barbarella, a video essay by Eugenio Ercolani on producer Dino De Laurentiis
• Trailer
• US TV and radio spots
• Image gallery

ADDITIONAL CONTENT

• Reversible sleeve featuring original and newly commissioned artwork by Tula Lotay
• Double-sided fold-out poster featuring original and newly commissioned artwork by Tula Lotay
• Six double-sided collector's postcards
• Illustrated collector's booklet featuring new writing on the film by Anne Billson, Paul Gravett, Véronique Bergen and Elizabeth Castaldo Lundén, and select archival material

 
Just so’s you know, as a professional reviewer I’m only provided a media copy of the discs, so I can’t speak to the efficacy of the printed materials as I’m given no access to those extras.  But this collection with featurettes and interviews and commentaries is wonderful, and this release should please fans who clamor for such attention.
 
Alas … only mildly recommended, and – even then – only for purists.
 
Make no mistake.  Barbarella (1968) is not a good movie.  It barely has a story, its central character never quite fulfills the tenets of a hero/heroine, and its pacing needed some serious tightening in order to keep viewers from possibly falling asleep.  Oh, I’ll concede that it has some relevance for having been made at a certain time and a certain place; but beyond a few artistic elements it has nothing but guilty pleasures to offer any serious aficionado of either Science Fiction, Fantasy, or just plain film in general.  Seen entirely as an oddity, it’s perfectly ok for a one-time viewing – get in and get the experience out of the way – and I suppose there’s nothing wrong with recommending it solely on that level.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray of Barbarella (1968) for the expressed purpose of completing this review.  Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

​-- EZ

You know, it's funny to reach a certain age and to look back on the obvious influences of one's youth.

In all honesty, folks, each of us probably watched more than a fair amount of nonsense, especially if we're from a certain generation.  Children's programming -- at least, of the education variety -- was really only coming into existence when I was a young'un; but -- filling the spot kinda/sorta as a placeholder -- was a great mountain of colorful small morality-play-style storytelling.  An awful lot of it was fanciful, and it tried to teach small lessons -- usually the type not so much associated with facts and figures as they were good behaviors -- and it's safe to say that it required a fair amount of imagination to make some of these worlds real ... or, at least, as real as they needed to be.  Kids have no trouble filling in those blanks, and this was the stuff of televised magic that was so much of Marty Krofft's resume.

​Yes, programs like H.R. Pufnstuf, Land Of The Lost, Sigmund And The Sea Monsters, The Lost Saucer, and Wonderbug get lampooned every now and then by some of the contemporary giants of comedy who obviously tuned in; but that's okay.  Krofft and so much of what he purveyed to his young followers wasn't always so much about story as it was about an intoxicating measure of wackiness -- some of which was obviously demonstrated visually by these bigger-than-life characters -- and just as Taylor Swift is real to modern audiences so were Witchiepoo, Cling, Clang, Big Daddy, and Cha-Ka.  And -- more importantly -- they never tried to sell us anything ... much like Taylor does.  Our relationship with them wasn't predicated on consumerism; they just wanted us to watch.

​How influential were his works?

Well, that's probably always going to be a question best answered by those who grew up on the stuff, but kudos to the Academy Of Science Fiction, Fantasy, And Horror Films for presenting the storyteller with a 2003 Life Career Award in recognition of the man's legacy in children's programming.  That honor may've come and gone with little fanfare much less major attention from the mainstream press outlets, but for those of us who do follow such developments it was an acknowledgement that simpler entertainment for simpler times did indeed warrant a bit of extra attention.  That's why I've always been glad to feature the entries of brothers Sid and Marty Krofft on SciFiHistory.Net: as much as they made me into the man I've come today, their various entities deserve to be rediscovered -- even at the risk of some minor embarassment -- by generations that followed mine.

Alas, none of us lasts forever, and word reached the Internet yesterday of the man's passing.

Our warmest wishes and prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Marty Krofft.

May he forever rest in peace.

​-- EZ

Well, well, well ... good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to the start of a brand-new week!

And ... how was your Thanksgiving?  Yes, yes, and yes: I certainly realize that not all of SciFiHistory.Net's readers abide well within the confines of the United States -- meaning that not everyone celebrates the famed Turkey Day -- but it's only polite of me to ask.  Mine?  Awww, thanks for asking.  It was ... filling!  Haha!  Yes, I ate a wonderful meal prepared by the wifey, and a good time was had by all.  Such is always the case when eating.  Enjoy every sandwich.  Truer words were never spoken.  So we ate, and we watched a bit of television, here and there.  We managed to make our way out to a few stores -- even went out and about a bit on the dreaded Black Friday -- but, honestly, there weren't any major crowds anywhere we visited.  I don't doubt that the hordes and hordes of nefarious shoppers were hunting down every last bargain; they just didn't frequent the corners we did.  And I'm alright with that.

​Believe it or not, I've already been asked my official opinion of the Doctor Who 60th Anniversary episode, "The Star Beast."  Well, my official opinion is that ... I just wasn't interested.  Who knows?  I may get around to watching it on Disney+, but reviews pretty much assured me that I probably wouldn't have much to say about it.  The Jodie Whittaker Years pretty much tanked any major fan interest I had with the franchise -- no, I'm not faulting the actress, I just thought that the writing was atrocious -- and I'm not sure that I'll go back.  I understand the love for Russell T. Davies, but now's a different time and a different place, and when political agendas take the forefront over characters and circumstances then I do tend to check out.  Good stories don't need social justice, and -- at my advanced age -- I'm really no fan of being preached at.  What can I say?  It is what it is.

​Rest assured: if I do decide to watch it, then I'll pen a review.  I'm just saying -- especially for those who've asked -- don't hold your breath.

Otherwise, that's my November holiday in a nutshell.  Now it's on to my upcoming birthday and the rest of the Silly Season, so it'll be busy 'round these parts.  I promise you that I'll try to get up some reviews along with any other announcements and/or commentary on major developments -- yes, I keep getting asked about Star Wars, but I don't know if I've any other take on the state of Lucasfilm that I've already said -- and it ain't easy to muster the strength to debate a property's destruction at the hands of so many people.  I will add to that that I strongly disagree with those who say putting a franchise in hibernation is a good strategy: all that inevitable does is ratchet up interest, and it doesn't even address the lagging quality (the real problem) of the stories.  Typically when these things return there's been no real change in management -- especially when you're dealing with corporate suits calling the shots -- so I'm unconvinced shutting down a program for five to ten years would do anything in this modern era.  I guess truth might tell.

​Perhaps -- for now -- it's best that I leave it at that, and I just turn my interest to where it normally goes in these daily promotion posts.  After all, there's plenty to be thankful about, and that's usually what I champion on a regular basis in this space.  When so much ill and crooked is going on out there, wouldn't you rather go to a spot where there's an astonishing 64 celebrations awaiting your discovery?  I know I would, and -- in that respect -- here you are ...
​

As always, thanks for reading ... thanks even more for sharing ... thanks even even even more for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!

​-- EZ

Folks, really ... hear me out on this one.

Yes, yes, and yes: I heard the news yesterday about -- cough cough -- Dave Filoni's promotion to something called 'Chief Creative Officer' or something thereabouts, and -- in all honesty -- my initial reaction was, "Erm ... hasn't he been in this position for some time?"  Truly, I thought I'd heard or read a statement to this effect previously, and -- yes -- I do read a lot of short articles here and there so I could be mistaken.  My point, however, remains the same: he's without question had his hand in the pot stirring everything up for a few years now.  I don't think any all-new title is going to make any difference.

Still, I've always cautioned readers and otherwise to "take a breath."  You know?  For me, it stretches back to the days in the 1980's and 1990's when a trailer or coming attraction would hit the silver screen, causing folks to proclaim, "Oh. My. God. This is going to be the BEST THING EVER!"  How many times did we then go see the completed film and have to suffer through an incredible amount of embarrassing disappointment over telling all of our friends and family to drop everything they were doing and go to see this film despite our having seen it and learned it was total crap?  I don't know about you, but that happened so many times to me in the 1970's and early 1980's that I realized I was never going to champion a trailer ever ever ever again.

True story, that is.

So that's why -- about a decade or two back -- I started actively trying to be a voice of reason online, likewise cautioning folks to not make too much out of any announcement.  Sure, that's great news for Dave ... but it is good news for fandom?  Some will understandably take the opportunity to engage in a whirlwind of sniping (snipping?) and/or clapping back, saying that this "promotion" proves without question that the ill-received Ahsoka series was secretly some kind of massive success for Walt Disney, Lucasfilm, and Star Wars ... when every measureable metric proves that could not be the case.  Its ratings were an unmitigated disaster, folks, and no title change and/or pay bump can change that fact.  In a sane world, Ahsoka would be an anchor around dear Dave's ankles: no, that's not worth cheering over in any sense but rather a statement of reasoned analysis.

​Like many, I've got no major problems with Star Wars: The Clone Wars.  I wasn't thrilled with Star Wars Rebels, but it had its moments.  And I'm on record as saying that I think Star Wars: The Bad Batch is, actually, quite a welcome diversion; yes, I understand those who suggest it's little more than a last gasp at the Clone Wars era, and that could be true.  But I've still enjoyed it, and I'll be sad to see it end once it does in this upcoming final season.  So a good deal of what Filoni has done hasn't spoiled anyone's childhood -- though I've heard others state otherwise -- and we'll just have to agree to disagree on that high ground.
​
​But ... does Star Wars matter any longer?

Readers, each of us has to make up our own mind on that question.

​That's what life is.  That's what art is.  Each of us gets to decide just how much meaning and/or impact we're going to take from any work, and that's the way it will always be.  In that regard, Star Wars really hasn't mattered for me since the Prequel Trilogy -- a few moments within The Clone Wars and maybe even a couple within early outings of The Mandalorian notwithstanding.  Like perhaps even George Lucas himself intimated when asked about the sale of the I.P. to the Walt Disney Company, it's become "product" and not "modern-day mythmaking."

And, yes, it shows.

And, yes, that blows.

At the end of the day, it is what it is ... and if you had asked me ten years ago if I'd ever have that epiphany regarding Star Wars -- perhaps the single greatest inspiration in my life writing about film and media -- I would've countered that it was improbable if not impossible.  Having been there since the beginning and having lived through those years of drought when there was, literally, no new Star Wars on the horizon, I always wanted more.  Now that I've seen what a corporation thinks Star Wars is and what its fans deserve, I'm not so sure I'll ever want it as much ever again.

The Force was with us, but -- like the stupid title of the JJ Abrams reboot suggests -- methinks it's gone to sleep and might stay there ... for a long, long time ...

​-- EZ

Do any of you ever just look at yourself in the mirror and say, "Jeepers, I hope I never grow up!"

No, no, and no: that isn't any kind of admission about any fear of growing older.  No, I'm talking about finding humor in everyday things, much like I think I've always done since Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure introduced me to joking about the number 69 every damn time I see it.  That's what I mean.  There's a level of juvenile appreciation to some humor, and I don't want to grow up if I can't take this juvenile attitude with me.  That's all I'm saying.

Otherwise ... good morning, gentle readers!  Welcome to Tuesday, November 21st.  Are your turkeys in the oven yet?  Have you even purchased them yet?  Is that turkey baking aroma starting to make your mouth water?  Well, of course, it's a bit early, but just the thought of it has me salivating, I can tell you that very much.  Yes, we're going to enjoy ours at home; and, yes, it'll likely be reasonably quiet.  Nothing wrong with that.  I generally try to give the little lady a hand in the kitchen, and we come up with some fabulous eating.  Can't wait.

Otherwise, I have slim pickings for you today, my friends.  Nothing all that much to report.  I spent the better part of yesterday's free time working on some site issues, and I haven't had the chance to watch and review anything yet this week.  I do have some items definitely on tap -- I received an email confirmation from a distributor just this morning regarding a small handful of genre titles headed my way -- so there's a time and a place for new content.  You'll have some stuff very soon.  And I did finish streaming Bodies on Netflix, and I've been tinkering with a short review of that.  Once it's up, you know where it'll be.

But I have som errands to run this morning -- getting ready to take off in a few minutes, in fact -- and I do have my volunteer gig this afternoon, so, alas, I likely won't have time to get anything else up today.  If I do, then I'll tweet it out for good measure.  But ... in all likelihood?  Probably not gonna happen.  Just too much going on today.

So ... without further delay ...
​

As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!

​-- EZ

Awwww!  Bless your hearts, readers!  You're going to drag me kicking and screaming into this burgeoning controversy!

I say that because -- as I often say -- I usually don't expend much (if any) thought on rights wherein I've no dog in the fight ... and I've long, long, long, long, long said that I'm no Marvel fan.  (No, I'm not a hater, either.)  For those who've missed my background, I largely grew up reading the wide, wide world of the DC Universe, and I really only occasionally crossed over into Marvel territory, so I just don't have much investment there.  Yeah, I'd pick up the random book here and there -- not usually the big event-type stuff but stories that looked interesting -- but I rarely (if ever) went back.  It was a one-on-one-off experience with me mostly, so I just little attachment and/or engagement with Marvel's stable of properties.

That said, I've dropped plenty of hints before that I do find a good handful of their flicks very fun; since I've never been all that moved by their various heroes and heroines, I just haven't followed the films closely enough to speak with any degree of intelligence on them.  Also, I do tend to prefer stand-alone experiences; while I'm all for building a vast tapestry upon which any number of players can join in at any time, I'm just no big fan of having to see the last four or five films or shows in order for me to be up on what's happening: that kind of investment will always bite you in the butt if you're not paying attention, and it ends up just leaving casual followers lost in translation.  So ... again ... while I'm not a fan, the Marvel Saga isn't something I loathe, either.  It's just one more avenue to be entertained, so I avoid grandstanding and/or making speeches about something I really know little about.

And, still, I get asked to sound off on the films from fans.  (No, no, no: I'm not angry.  I rarely get angry -- especially with readers -- but I just want everyone to know I don't consider myself an expert on All Things Marvel ... so please keep that in mind if I drag anything you like in the mud, albeit briefly.)

For all intents and purposes, I think it's safe to conclude that Marvel has jumped aboard the whole 'representation' bandwagon.  Such politicking rears its head from time-to-time -- even, back in the day, George Lucas is on record of creating Lando Calrissian because he'd heard one too many times that there were no black mainstays in the Outer Rim -- and ... well, what can I say?  It happens!  That doesn't necessarily make it right or wrong, mind you: it just is what it is.  Who am I to cast judgment on what story a creator wants to tell?  I'm essentially just like all of you -- I'm a viewer, I'm a consumer, I'm a fan (or not) -- but when it appears that something has been added and/or changed solely in response to some political outcry ... yeah, I'm offended as much as anyone.  (Again, keeping in mind that Marvel doesn't mean all that much to me, this offense is trivial.)

Functionally, what I'm trying to encapsulate is that because I'm a bit older and a bit more grizzled I just don't involve myself in things I feel are little to none of my business.

What that means, however, may not be what you think it means.

As an example, let me put it this way: if Marvel wants to destroy their entire line-up with race and/or gender swaps, why should I lose any sleep over it?

I know, I know, I know.  How dare you?  Don't you consider yourself a genre historian?  How can this not disgust and/or enrage you?  Well, it's because I'm old, so get off my lawn.  Folks, ask you parents or grandparents: we've all seen this sh#t before.  This is nothing new.  Some opportunists come along, and instead of creating their own Intellectual Property it's much easy to take a shot at success by coopting something that someone else has already established.  Ilk of this sort have absolutely no problem picking up heroes you've long worshipped and reshaped them into crusaders for whatever lunacy is the current political economy.  You say you want to stop Global Warming?  Bingo!  We'll recharge Thor to make him combat carbon emissions.  You say you want to limit the consumption of beef?  Voila!  We'll empower Hawkeye in the never-ending campaign to turn every last man, woman, and child into vegans.  You say there aren't enough crosswalks?  Bam!  Daredevil's new mission-on-the-street is the civic engineering, and he won't rest until every corner across America has a stoplight!

​No, it needn't make any sense because making sense isn't what's on the friggin' agenda, folks.  It's all about pushing culture in a direction in traditionally hasn't bent, and people like this has been engaging in action like this since the dawn of man.  It's just, sadly, how some of us are wired.  Rather than seek out and explore success with legitimate independence, they'll pilfer every conceivable hero in order to profit intellectually from the truly hard work done by authentic trailblazers ... all the while patting themselves on the backs for their own "creativity."  As I said: they're opportunists, and that's what opportunists do.

And -- definitively -- I encourage all of you not to lose any sleep over this.
​

Frankly, I started out the whole 'The Marvels' kerfuffle with not wanting to see the film to begin with, nor do I have any intention at this point going forward.  If that means that the creative powers that be who think they've somehow been empowered with calling me a racist, a bigot, a chauvanist, or any other label these 'no label' crowd wanna throw at their convenience, so be it.  I don't give a damn.  Judge me all you like.  In fact, if it's their contention that The Marvels isn't making bank because the racists, the bigots, and the sexists aren't showing up to watch their movie, then why is it they're not equally concerned that the previous box office success of the Marvel Movie Universe is, in the same argument, owed to accepting the reality that those showing up WERE the racists, the bigots, and the sexists?  You're okay taking their money when the heroes were men, right?  But now that they're women, you're just expecting them to show up anyway?

How exactly does that moral code work?

As I've often said when any feature doesn't gross the big bucks right out of the gate, it's worth exercising a bit of patience to see whether or not said feature might develop legs.  (This one certainly had plenty of vulva, after all.)  Sometimes, a flick's opening is light but over a few weeks it actually turns into a modest money winner; and -- despite the early trend looking otherwise -- the same could happen for The Marvels.  In fact, one could argue that all of the controvery both the Mouse House and its hoard evil minions might be trying to accomplish is to ratchet up interest by making folks want to see this out of spite even.  "What?  This one's performing as the worst in the Marvel's history?  Then ... we gotta go see it!"  Maybe some new adverts might even take that approach if for no other reason than they're already out (allegedly) a half-billion dollars on production and marketing costs ... so what's a few more million really hurt?

Should the failure of a female-centric superhero film be christened as the end of all that is good and fair and righteous in the universe?

Well ... correct me if I'm wrong, but when right-minded folks -- the type who are generally pushing for a bit more wholesome entertainment -- are decrying the level of violence in motion pictures, aren't they told to just shut up?  Aren't their concerns about a general loss of morality on the screen tempered with that tired old phrase: "Relax, it's only a movie!"  Why don't the concerns from the left side of the aisle warrant such casual flippancy in response?  Why should anyone be expected to explain just why he didn't want to burn his hard-earned cash by talking the family out to the cineplex to be preached to for $100 a visit?  Huh?  Why is it that their concerns deserve more time, effort, and exposure than do someone else's?  What?  Because they're the Harvey Weinstein class, and their grievances need to be aired?

Sorry for the language, gentle readers, but f#ck that.
​

Please, correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't it the Mouse House -- the ultimate owner behind the whole Marvel enterprise -- that acquired and sat on 2023's break-out blockbuster Sound Of Freedom?  Wasn't it that film that tried to pull back the Hollywood veneer that's sadly been plastered all over the whole child sex trafficking ring -- the one that the elites will tell you doesn't exist or isn't really that much of a problem (well, until Cindy McCain wanted credit for stopping it in its tracks in a Phoenix airport, which was a lie) -- and the film was rewarded with nothing but incredible box office performance?  Screw what the critics said about the film -- shills are bought and paid for every damn day on the Internet -- but the regular folks embraced the story, its characters, and its message ... and, yet, I'm supposed to take inventory of my morality because a film about three ladies in spandex didn't do well enough?

These are the folks actually destroying our culture, folks.  These are the folks who want you to feel guilty about driving a gas-powered vehicle, about eating a decent burger, and even over passing wind because you're destroying the planet.  Don't listen to what they say.  Don't even give an ear to what they preach.  Don't give them the time of day.  Don't spend a dime on their activist cinema if you don't want to, and use your money for that which both moves and motivates you.

These ladies aren't to blame for breaking the glass ceiling of failure, but, yeah, it's likely something that'll attach to their resumes for some time.  If you think Hollywood isn't going to take care of them regardless of the box office take, then I've a few bridges I'd like to sell you.  They'll do just fine ... though I'm guessing that The Marvels II might have some hill to climb before getting its green light.

And I'm perfectly okay with that.

​-- EZ