One of the traits I find so endearing about Science Fiction and Fantasy is that it’s forever a’changing.
 
As those involved with the “science” of COVID today will tell us, Science evolves; and as these fresh discoveries come to light we adapt to what might inevitably be a whole new set of circumstances.  As the Science grows and we learn what we didn’t know before, so does the storyteller find an alternative set of dynamics from which to spin his or her webs of adventure and intrigue.  Likewise, the technological advances that go hand-in-hand with mechanical evolution typically mean there are new ways to tell such stories, and these developments push storytellers in even bolder, perhaps crazier, perhaps more inventive directions.
 
Such was the predicament of SciFi in the early 1950’s.
 
Mankind was just entering its Atomic Age, and this burgeoning Science was at one time thought to be the harbinger of serious space exploration.  Consequently, Hollywood rushed to deliver films that tapped this fertile ground, picking man up off his Big Blue Marble and throwing him out amongst the stars.  Features like Forbidden Planet (1956), Destination Moon (1950), and Rocketship X-M (1950) showed audiences what hope the future could hold (or even what catastrophes waited in the wings); while It Came From Outer Space (1953), The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951), and The Thing From Another World (1951) reminded us to keep our guards up because not all that was green was good when it came to terrestrial and extraterrestrial encounters.
 
Flight To Mars (1951) found itself smack dab in the middle of these a’changing times.
 
Clearly, it’s simple story – five travelers on a trip to the Red Planet – was something screenwriters had already explored.  Without anything to distinguish itself visually or scientifically, the film could easily be lost in the shuffle between what was and what was becoming the wide, wide world of cinematic Science Fiction.  Thankfully, it turns seventy years young this year and is still around, at least so much so in this 4K restoration from The Film Detective so those of us who appreciate from whence we came can go back and take another look at a genre just becoming the entertainment juggernaut it was destined to be.
 
(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 my 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 product packaging:
“Five Earthlings land on Mars and are greeted by a team of friendly Martians.  Fearing they have depleted the key mineral used to power their life-support systems, these Martians are determined to get off the red planet by any means necessary – including stealing the Earthlings’ ship and invading Earth!  Can this group of Earthling space travelers outsmart these diabolical Martians?”
 
As stories go, you really can’t get more basic than boy-meets-girl; and that’s mostly what Flight To Mars is at its core … a two-fer boy-meets-girl – one Earthling and one Martian – with astronaut Cameron Mitchell falling for brainy ‘Earther’ Virginia Huston just as U.S. scientist Arthur Franz is falling for Martian lovely Marguerite Chapman.  (My two cents?  Both ladies are definitely keepers!)  On the face of it, Flight is little more than a space-age road trip with a pair of romances thrown in to keep viewers invested, and there’s nothing wrong with that.  While other Science Fiction and Fantasy films of this era were trying to up-the-ante on the seriousness of boldly going where no one had gone before, this Flight pretty much coasts on screenwriter Arthur Strawn’s color-by-numbers approach, something Monogram Pictures’ releases were known for.
 
Alas, what truly grounds so very much of the film is the fact that it lacks any central conflict: though the trip to Mars gets depicted with some treachery, far too much of the journey is a stoic affair.  There’s more talk about risk than there is any true risk depicted, and it isn’t until the film’s second half when the dastardly Martians’ plot to steal the rocket and invade our planet that the pace quickens (just a tick).  Even then, director Lesley Selander does so little with building the tension that one wonders if anyone involved with the picture seriously wanted it to be seen outside the studio.  All too much of it remains formulaic: no new ground is broken, no marquee performances are heightened, and our heroes predictably win the day come the flick’s closing scenes … just as you thought they would.
 
Still, I’m a SciFi purist, and I’d argue that films like Flight To Mars – while a mostly benign and mediocre experience – still offer entertainment in the form of escapism.  The Martian city is visually exciting, and its clear that production designer Ted Haworth saw more than a thing or two about 1936’s tempting Things To Come that he liked and incorporated into his Martian landscape.  (If you’re gonna steal, then steal from the best.)  While not particularly exciting, there’s no performance that comes off as painful or downright out-of-sorts.  The completed feature clocks in at an unalarming seventy-two minutes, so it’s over almost before you know it.
 
Plus, there’s the added benefit of truly watching where we were as storytellers at a time when the genre was just blossoming into something greater.  As I said, there are moments when Flight reaches for the stars; it just misses connecting with any singular issue the way so many earlier trips to the heavens did.
 
Flight To Mars (1951) was produced by Monogram Pictures.  DVD distribution for this particular release is being handled by The Film Detective.  As for the technical specifications?  This 4K restoration is reportedly sourced from the original 35mm Cinecolor separation negatives, and it all looks and sounds very good.  As for special features?  The disc contains a colorful and informative commentary from film historian Justin Humphreys (one of the better hosts for this type of track); a pair of mini-documentaries (they relate more to the studio and the production personnel than they do this specific film); and a collector’s booklet that features a solid essay regarding Hollywood’s continuing fascination with Mars.  All-in-all, it’s a solid package.
 
Mildly Recommended.  There’s absolutely nothing wrong in admitting to a passing guilty pleasure in exploring a forgotten feature like Flight To Mars, but I’ll admit that there’s very little to make the trip memorable (aside from some pretty spiffy production details on the Red Planet itself).  It boasts no big performances, no cutting commentary, and no winning performances.  It only toys with big ideas – and even does so fleetingly – and builds to a pretty big ‘thud’ of an ending, all-too-rushed, all-too-convenient.  Still, it’s probably worth a single view if for no other reason than it was produced when Science Fiction was starting to change, creeping onto society’s radar toward respectability, and the film might just represent a format that Hollywood was slowing leaving behind in search of greater meaning and deeper consequence.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at The Film Detective provided me with a Blu-ray of Flight To Mars (1951) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

​-- EZ

I have a vague recollection of one time reading an article that claimed 1986’s Highlander – starring Christopher Lambert and Sean Connery – was not only one of the most overrated Fantasy flicks of all time but also was one of the most released on home video.  Now, I’ve no means of knowing whether or not both of those conclusions are accurate so far as all of mankind is concerned, but I’ve always thought the film was a quaint li’l thriller.  It definitely boasts one of Lambert’s best performances ever (I also loved him in Greystoke: The Legend Of Tarzan, Lord Of The Apes, an oft-forgotten genre flick to come out of the mid-1980’s), and – for what it’s worth – I think it’s the film that put Clancy Brown on track to being the stand-out performer he’s become.  I recently rewatched Highlander, and the ending is a bit zanier than I remembered from seeing it in theaters all of those moons ago.
 
Well, proving ‘there can be only one’ is never an easy thing, but if you’re looking for a 35th anniversary release of the seminal motion picture then you’re in the right place: according to Bluray.com, Lionsgate is reportedly prepped an all-new 4K transfer scheduled to hit the shelves on September 14, 2021.
 
I’ve just done a quick search over at Amazon.com, and I’m not seeing it posted to their website yet.  I also did a quick search over on the Lionsgate website, and I’m not seeing any additional details there.  So at this point I think it’s best we consider this one simply a general announcement.  I’ll keep my eyes peeled for the details; if they’re released and are of consequence, then I’ll do another post.  If not, then it’s on each of you to seek out and explore a disc for yourselves.
 
As always, thanks for reading … and live long and prosper!

​-- EZ

I hate being misled.  We all do.  It’s what we call “universal.”
 
I think misleading others – not necessarily being lied to – is the fool’s way of making a point he perhaps knows isn’t valid, but he requires the cloak of subterfuge to be heard.  Rather than put some additional thought into presenting a more cogent argument, the charlatan couches his rhetoric in a distraction he trusts will best conceal his true intentions so as to be heard by the widest, least informed audience possible.  His premise is still riddled with flaws, but the best carnival barkers long ago learned the easiest way to separate a fool from his money is to master the classic bait-and-switch.
 
Alas, storytellers do this all the time.  In fact, some of them are downright magical at it.  And the movie industry?  They practically require it for participation.  From the top – the Harvey Weinsteins who are secretly committed to furthering their sexual fantasies on the young and unsuspecting – to the bottom – the accountants who must make a losing proposition resemble a California goldmine – are all schooled in the art of trickery, promising you one thing while delivering another.  This is why I’ve always cautioned readers to resist that pull on their heartstrings most coming attractions make because promoters are in the business of putting your butt in a seat, and I’ve learned that they’ll say anything to do it.  Why?  Because it’s their job.
 
So I approached Lucky like I do any picture: with modest trepidation.  It’s adverts and even its box art promised “a thrilling time-loop mystery.”  And, yes, it’s coming attraction promised the kind of curious, layered, ‘what if’ scenario many of us love to uncover.  Could it be that we have another Rod Serling or M. Night Shyamalan in-the-making?  Are we on the cusp of an all-new thinking man’s mystery box that’ll revolutionize once more how cinematic yarns are crafted?  Will we sit there and be waiting on bated breath until the very last scene, only then knowing for certain that we’ve found the one true Ark of the Covenant?
 
No.
 
Honestly, you’ll be Lucky if you make it through this politically driven drivel without demanding your money back.
 
(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 my final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
 
From the product packaging: “Like takes a sudden turn for May, a popular self-help book author, when she finds herself the target of a mysterious man with murderous intentions.  Every night without fail, he comes after her, and every day the people around her barely seem to notice.  With no one to turn to, May is pushed to her limits and must take matters into her own hands to survive and to regain control of her life.”
 
Following the Golden Rule, I make it a rule to find something positive to say about a film; and Lucky has a few good scenes – all of them involving May’s ‘assaults.’  It’s clear to me that both director Natasha Kermani and screenwriter/actress Brea Grant were trying to tap into some serious horror tropes in their creepy thriller.  In fact, those sequences that work best here, presenting the audience with a real world and relatable challenge for the script’s sometimes over- sometimes under-achiever May to prove she has ‘the right stuff’ to survive.  That’s the appeal of slasher flicks to begin with – will she or won’t she – and great pains were taken (pun intended) to put those chills on the silver screen.
 
Alas, what is the average viewer to make of it when it’s all reduced to some aggressive ‘we must hate all men’ screed?
 
May has surrounded herself with, essentially, useless men.  (Women, too, but do those matter here?  It would seem not.)  Every one of them appears to be casting doubts on her and her abilities to achieve success (in whatever goal she’s seeking); and while she’s been professionally committed to ‘Go It Alone’ – the title of her maybe, maybe-not popular self-help book – she fails (apparently) to put those lessons to good use in her private life.  She’s at her best when she’s telling others what to think, and that would appear to be the case with director Kermani and scripter Grant.
 
It’s become the norm to blame everyone else for your problems.  May has many of them – she never quite appears committed to her book (people aren’t buying it as they used to so she’s less interested in selling it), her husband (she’s been unfaithful), her marriage (husband Ted comes and goes as he pleases), her home (there are broken things found everywhere – hint, hint) – and rather than pick herself up by her own bootstraps she looks to everyone else to properly diagnose and manage her shortcomings.  Yes, hers is the tactic of the psychologically weak, but what’s a woman (living in a man’s world) supposed to do?
 
Much like those involved with Lucky have had to do – namely advertise this dud as something it’s not – May isn’t content in putting in the hard work required to be a personal success.  It’s easier to dupe others and apologize after the fact … except, apparently, women don’t apologize.
 
While it might be a hard truth to swallow, I’ve always tried to live by the adage “bad people make bad decisions.”  Now, this doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t be helped because I think anyone needing help should get it.  And it also doesn’t mean that a good person will only make a good decision: rather, I like to think that a good person needs to forever be on the lookout for those who mislead him from a true and proper course for fear of starting down a less-than-fruitful path.  Help others when you can, but if you cannot strive toward positivity – a frame of mind which actually takes effort – then be prepared for life’s shortcomings.  They’ll find you.  They’ll hurt you.  Such is the way of nature.
 
May’s creators would have you believe that a woman faces only a constant uphill battle.  Is that true?  I can’t say because I’m a man and such a conclusion wouldn’t be prudent.  What I can say is that May appears to have surrounded herself with takers and not givers.  This is why she’s always defending herself not only from her attacker but also those tasked with aiding her after the attack.  The fact that these are, mostly, men shouldn’t go unnoticed by the audience; I suspect that’s what everyone involved here intended.  We’ve grown up in an era when ‘men are bad’ has become the feminist mantra … and yet the women telling this story are content to pull the bait-and-switch probably because they feel (as women) it’s been pulled on them since childbirth.  What’s good for the goose – as they say – is good for the gander.
 
Well, none of us can help how we were born.  Whether that’s male or female – whether that’s straight or gay – whether that’s big or small – we’re all brought into this world with the same guarantee, namely that it’s up to you to make of it what you will.  If you’re on the look-out, I’ve no doubt that you’ll find some cheaters and swindlers; those types are also doing what they can with whatever talents they’ve groomed.  But if you are looking out?  Why not seek out those with a desire to help you be better than you already are?  Granted, those folks may be a bit harder to spot – nobody ever said life would be easy – but if you can find them then hold on to them for dear life.
 
Besides, the one man in May’s life who appears honestly interested in her and is visibly trying to help her – her manager or publicist (it’s unclear, much like a lot in here) – she repeatedly IGNORES.  Perhaps she should’ve spent a bit more time examining everyone around her instead of just those trying to hurt her, and maybe May would’ve known just how lucky it is to have, at least, one friend … instead of an awful lot of bottled-up hate.
 
As much as it is an adjective, ‘Lucky’ is still a word.  Here, it’s a metaphor, a sarcastic and satirical one … but I suspect May has no idea how lucky the gift of life truly is.  Her story is the kind of film critics love and regular folks – like me – find unrelatable.  It’s demonstrative of the divide in our great nation.  So long as the elites think this way?  Nothing will change.
 
After all, it was their class who created, coddled, and cajoled Harvey Weinstein … not mine.
 
Lucky (2021) is produced by Epic Pictures Group.  DVD distribution for this release is being handled by the same.  As for the technical specifications?  All is good.  The audio dipped a bit here and there, but the film is populated by a lot of silence (such is the nature of building tension in some sequences), and I’d chalk it up to that.  As for the special features?  The disc boasts a filmmakers commentary track and a behind-the-scenes photo gallery.
 
It’s hard to honestly give Lucky a recommendation.  First, it’s pacing is atrocious: viewers accept a slow set-up in perhaps every picture they view, but this one – after presenting a solid hook – does absolutely nothing with it.  Second, the writer and director conceal a simplistic social commentary (“men bad, women good”) in the vein of a M. Night Shyamalan thriller yet without offering any narrative payoff (again, just “men bad, women good”).  Lastly, even as an indie feature – which I normally love – the performances are tired and predictable – much like the film’s hyped ‘time loop’ – with no one bringing anything new to the game.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Shudder and Epic Pictures Group provided me with a DVD of Lucky (2021) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

-- EZ

Erm … I’m not going to do my typical full review of Zack Snyder’s Army Of The Dead (2021).  I finally sat down and watched this one over the weekend, and while I feel it an experience relevant enough to reflect upon I’ve no problem opening up with saying it’s a vast disappointment right out of the gate.  Simply put, it’s the kind of film I believe doesn’t deserve a full review … just a few honest observations.
 
I had high expectations for this one.  For those of you unaware, Snyder helmed 2004’s Day Of The Dead for Strike Entertainment (and others).  Day was a remake of George A. Romero’s 1978 film of the same name; and while it was scripted by Guardians Of The Galaxy’s helmer James Gunn it clearly had the director’s imprint for sharp visuals, snappy quick characterizations, and an overall pace that allowed for equal parts tension and reflection.  When Army was announced, there was a lot of hullaballoo over how this was Snyder’s return to the zombie genre, one largely reinvigorated in Hollywood with Day’s box office performance; so I think anyone who feels a kinship with this type of flick would understandably welcome this development with open arms.
 
But … yowza.  Army Of The Dead is surprisingly dull.
 
Now, let me clarify that: it has some action set pieces, the kind of which walking dead pictures require.  There are three – a great set-up detailing Las Vegas’s fall and then two more once our would-be vault robbers get inside the city that never sleeps.  (Some could argue there are more, but I’m sticking with these three sequences as the others just don’t have the length traditional thrill rides do.)  So those coming in wanting to see our heroes fighting the living dead will be rewarded.  For sure.
 
However, what gives a narrative any of its emotional punch is caring about the characters, and this Army is damn near anonymous from start-to-finish.
 
By comparison, 2004’s Day Of The Dead got it right.

​That script gave each of the players a moment or two which helped define who they were for the purposes of not only their collective journey but an individual character arc: you knew (if you were watching closely) who was going to double-cross whom, and all you had to do was wait for the right moment, which remained mostly unpredictable.  Army is populated with a similar mix of somebodies – the brave, uncompromising lead along with his loyal sidekicks and even a family member to spare (not) are joined by a top-notch safecracker, a ‘people trafficker’ with a heart of gold, and the usual corporate suck-up – but their moments are too slim to grant them the kind of exposure required for the audience’s attachment.  In fact, I’d argue only the corporate suck-up is given any true moment – and it’s a good one – but its effect is fleeting: he’s given a second one later in the film (when others have been granted nothing?), but it comes with no foreshadowing whatsoever and might end up only confusing viewers instead of deepening the relationship.
 
Furthermore, anyone watching closely might wonder how in the Sam Hill our lead (played by a mumbling and seemingly disinterested Dave Bautista) had the smarts and the contacts needed to put together such a crack team?  All we’re told about him is that he’s former military, and he survived the original Vegas collapse: oh, yeah, that and he’s a great cook!  (?!?!?!)  As Scott Ward, he demonstrates no real leadership skills whatsoever and makes so many ill-informed decisions along the way one wonders who’d follow him into combat except for the fact that he resembles your typical asskicker.  Yet, he puts together this team to pull a casino heist within a matter of hours?
 
I’m gonna leave it there.  There’s more – far more – involving bad science, how did this virus jump the species barrier in only a matter of days, what’s the time frame for Vegas’ fall and the film’s ‘present,’ and why did the U.S. government wait so long to nuke an already destroyed city (and I could go on) – but I’m not sure it’s worth the time.  As I said, it’s a disappointment – a damn big one, too – and the fact that it’s getting a sequel/prequel is confusing to me.  No one portrayed in this lackluster actioner is worth another look.  ‘Nuff said.
 
Only MILDLY RECOMMENDED with an explanation: I suppose the best I could say about Army Of The Dead is that it’s worth a single viewing only if you love Fantasy-themed Apocalypse movies as much as I do.  Otherwise, it’s a wasteland (pun intended) populated with uninteresting characters and plotholes galore.  I expected more – much more, in fact – from director Snyder, but I’m kinda/sorta unsurprised this one was dumped on streaming the way it is: had it been recut and reworked perhaps as a limited series event, some material could’ve been plugged in to make it palatable.  As it is?  Well, let’s call it a corpse.

​-- EZ

I know that amongst Science Fiction and Fantasy fandom I’m amongst the minority who actually likes the smaller, quieter films.  While I can appreciate huge scales and epic world-building that goes hand-in-hand with most big budget enterprises, I’m old enough and mature enough to know that spectacle isn’t the way of the world; and oft times real truth is found in the pursuit, depiction, and understanding of little moments.  How we put these together into stories may not be the stuff of cinema legend, but occasionally a filmmaker comes along who accomplishes something rich enough and interesting enough that it deserves to be seen.
 
You want some examples?  Then take note: these will likely be films you’ve never seen, perhaps never even heard of.  They may not even include marquee names.  Such is the nature of the true SciFi/Fantasy independent scene, that place where those smaller, quieter films go to make less noise but charm those who find them nonetheless.
 
About those examples …
 
I’ve read enough and corresponded with enough fans to know that most dismiss writer/director Gareth Edwards Monsters (2010) as a ‘scifi afterthought’ largely because it’s an alien invasion flick with barely any look at the aliens themselves.  Well, that would be because the narrative crux of the story isn’t so much about exploring a life with these said aliens arriving on Earth so much as it is the consequences dealt with by two people thrown together in an environment where these visitors pose a great threat.  The monsters of the title?  They’re us.  If you miss that point, then you miss the whole central premise of the movie … that sometimes the aliens are those who just don’t fit in … in more ways than one.
 
You want another?
 
In 2018, storytellers Christopher Caldwell and Zeek Earl brought a little something something to filmdom called Prospect.  Again the backdrop of the picture sounds big – on an alien moon, a young girl and a dangerous fugitive are unlikely allies who band together for survival – and this one actually brings a few household names to its mix (The Mandalorian’s Pedro Pascal and critical favorite Jay Duplass).  Still, it’s a smaller story focusing on not so much the physical aspects of surviving as it is the emotional requirements and how two entirely differing mindsets can overcome their differences, work together, and maybe – maybe – even make the other a better person.  What’s being prospected here?  Humanity.
 
Alas, if the silver screen isn’t showing phasers blasting, starships warping, or aliens hungry for human flesh then many in the SciFi and Fantasy community dismiss it.  That’s a sad state of affairs not only for our fandom so much as it is our civilization.
 
OK … done with the rant …
 
This morning, I stumbled across a trailer for a little something something called Settlers (2021).  If my research is right, it looks like this one actually releases today; and because it appears by all counts to be one of those quieter films I tend to enjoy I’m suspecting no one will see it.  Heck, even I didn’t see the trailer for this one until today – and I’m usually scouring the web for content – so I’m figuring this will avoid most folks’ radar.  It looks like a somewhat conventional thriller – a small family on a distant world gets torn apart by a dangerous human intruder – but its set in an unconventional locale; and I’m aware those ardent enthusiasts I spoke of above don’t think of these as SciFi.
 
Meh.  It is what it is.
 
Trailer is below.  Check it out if you’re interested.

Important links

IMDB.com page regarding Settlers
Metacritic.com page regarding Settlers

As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

-- EZ

“There be whales here!”
 
It was Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott who delivered one of the best lines from Leonard Nimoy’s Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986), perhaps the most delightful and uplifting cinematic adventure in all of Trek’s trips to the silver screen.  Honestly, the film is rife with great lines and fun performances in a surprisingly feel-good style that Science Fiction and Fantasy doesn’t often entertain; and director Nimoy intended it as such, saying in an interview at the time that they’d dealt with life and rebirth in the previous two films so why not do something completely different and end the trilogy with a few laughs.
 
Indeed, Trek enthusiasts consistently rank The Voyage Home as one of the franchise’s best films.
 
To celebrate the feature’s thirty-fifth anniversary, Fathom Events is bringing it back to the silver screen – where all great films deserve to be seen – in a special two-night presentation this August 19th and 22nd in select theatres.  Fans interested in finding the participating locations closest to them can check Fathom’s website right here: simply put in your zip code, and the search engine will direct you accordingly.  It looks like you can even already purchase tickets for the affair.  It would appear – at least, this seems to be the case on the theatres closest me – that each day has two showtimes as well, perhaps making it easier for everyone to secure a seat in what works best for them.
 
I’ve been to several of these Fathom Events.  The films are often introduced (onscreen) by a guest speaker – usually an actor or someone learned on the film – and they even produce short featurettes that highlight what’s special about it.  It appears that they’ve done the same with The Voyage Home as the website lists there’s an extra titled ‘Three Picture Saga’ which promises that the cast and crew will be discussing their experiences in putting this wonderful little adventure together.  So consider that some new content to look forward to!
 
Highest recommendation!  Get your tickets today, fans!

-- EZ

Kolchak: The Night Stalker (1974-1975) is a fondly remember mid-1970’s television series starring the fabulous Darren McGavin, whom most folks around the world only known as ‘Old Man Parker’ from the 1983 holiday classic A Christmas Story.  But before this middleclass man was wrapping presents for cinema’s most adorable child he was searching the streets as an intrepid city reporter in search of ghosts, demons, ghouls, and the like.  That’s quite a transition, if you ask me.
 
What most fans know is that Kolchak – a property that even creator Chris Carter acknowledges influenced his mind in creating Fox TV’s stellar The X-Files (1993-2018) – was a single season program, lasting a thrill-packed twenty episodes.  What most fans don’t know is that the character actually first emerged with a pair of made-for-television features: The Night Stalker (1972) and The Night Strangler (1973) preceded it, and the ratings were solid enough for the network to greenlight the resulting serial.
 
I’ve seen a few episodes of the series.  While I’ll agree it’s quite entertaining, I think it’s safe to say that it’s obviously very dated, with McGavin rushing around the streets in perfect 1970’s fashion and stories being a bit light on science while heavy on Fantasy concoctions.  There’s nothing wrong with that – it’s all ends up a bit unintentionally light-hearted for a weekly investigation into things that go bump in the night – but I’m glad that The X-Files put a more adult, dramatic spin on subject matter that many of us take seriously.
 
Word reached me yesterday via the reliable Blu-ray.com that Kino Lorber has acquired the rights to complete a Blu-ray restoration of the series.  (Take note: the company had previously released updated versions of the telefilms in late 2018, and both are showing available for purchase on Amazon.com for interested parties.)  Of even greater interest – so far as this reviewer is concerned – is that the forthcoming release will also feature an assortment of newly-assembled extras, including episode commentaries from some of fandom’s biggest Kolchak fans and scholars.  I’ll copy and paste the details below … and I suspect diehard enthusiasts will be as hungry for this set as I will be.

From Blu-ray.com:

Description: After several high-profile newspapers fire him for his difficult attitude, investigative journalist Carl Kolchak (Darren McGavin) finds a job following the police beat for a small Las Vegas publication. When Carl discovers a series of dead showgirls drained of blood with bite marks on their necks, the police hesitate to take the case any further, and his boss (Simon Oakland) wants nothing to do with the story, leading Carl to believe there may be a real vampire prowling the city streets.

Special Features and Technical Specs:

• NEW 2K MASTERS FOR ALL 20 EPISODES
• NEW Interview with David Chase, the Creator of The Sopranos and Co-Writer of Eight Kolchak: The Night Stalker Episodes
• NEW Interview with Dana Gould, the Creator of Stan Against Evil
• NEW Booklet Essay by Mark Dawidziak, the Author of The Night Stalker Companion and Kolchak Novel, Grave Secrets
• NEW Audio Commentary for THE RIPPER by Mark Dawidziak, the Author of The Night Stalker Companion and Kolchak Novel, Grave Secrets
• NEW Audio Commentary for THE ZOMBIE by Author/Historian David J. Schow
• NEW Audio Commentary for THEY HAVE BEEN, THEY ARE, THEY WILL BE… by Novelist/Critic Kim Newman and Writer/Journalist Barry Forshaw
• NEW Audio Commentary for THE VAMPIRE by Film Historian Tim Lucas
• NEW Audio Commentary for THE WEREWOLF by Filmmaker/Historian Constantine Nasr
• NEW Audio Commentary for FIREFALL by Author/Historian David J. Schow
• NEW Audio Commentary for THE DEVIL'S PLATFORM by Filmmaker/Historian Constantine Nasr and Screenwriter/Producer Rodney Barnes
• NEW Audio Commentary for BAD MEDICINE by Film Historian/Screenwriter Gary Gerani
• NEW Audio Commentary for THE SPANISH MOSS MURDERS by Film Historian/Screenwriter Steve Haberman
• NEW Audio Commentary for THE SPANISH MOSS MURDERS by Filmmaker/Historian Steve Mitchell and Screenwriter/Producer Cyrus Voris
• NEW Audio Commentary for THE ENERGY EATER by Mike White and Chris Stachiw of The Kolchak Tapes Podcast
• NEW Audio Commentary for HORROR IN THE HEIGHTS by Film Historian/Screenwriter Gary Gerani
• NEW Audio Commentary for MR. R.I.N.G. by Filmmaker/Historian Steve Mitchell and Screenwriter/Producer Cyrus Voris
• NEW Audio Commentary for PRIMAL SCREAM by Filmmaker/Historian Steve Mitchell and Screenwriter/Producer Cyrus Voris
• NEW Audio Commentary for THE TREVI COLLECTION by Film Historian/Author Amanda Reyes
• NEW Audio Commentary for CHOPPER by Novelist/Critic Kim Newman and Writer/Journalist Barry Forshaw
• NEW Audio Commentary for DEMON IN LACE by Novelist/Critic Kim Newman and Writer/Journalist Barry Forshaw
• NEW Audio Commentary for LEGACY OF TERROR by Film Historian/Author Amanda Reyes
• NEW Audio Commentary for THE KNIGHTLY MURDERS by Filmmaker/Historian Michael Schlesinger
• NEW Audio Commentary for THE YOUTH KILLER by Novelist/Critic Kim Newman and Writer/Journalist Barry Forshaw
• NEW Audio Commentary for THE SENTRY by Film Historian/Screenwriter Gary Gerani
• THE DEVIL'S PLATFORM – TV Spot (New 2K Master)
• BAD MEDICINE – TV Spot (New 2K Master)
• THE SPANISH MOSS MURDERS – TV Spot (New 2K Master)
• THE ENERGY EATER – TV Spot (New 2K Master)
• HORROR IN THE HEIGHTS – TV Spot (New 2K Master)
• MR. R.I.N.G. – TV Spot (New 2K Master)
• PRIMAL SCREAM – TV Spot (New 2K Master)
• THE TREVI COLLECTION – TV Spot (New 2K Master)
• CHOPPER – TV Spot (New 2K Master)
• DEMON IN LACE – TV Spot (New 2K Master)
• LEGACY OF TERROR – TV Spot (New 2K Master)
• THE KNIGHTLY MURDERS – TV Spot (New 2K Master)
• THE YOUTH KILLER – TV Spot (New 2K Master)
• THE SENTRY – TV Spot (New 2K Master)
• Newly Commissioned Art by Mark Maddox
• Optional English Subtitles

As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

-- EZ

​I will never – never ever – understand Hollywood.
 
How is it you can through millions upon millions of dollars into a project and then see it so improperly marketed?  Such corporate shortsightedness practically killed genre projects like 1990’s Tremors and 2012’s John Carter – two fabulous cinema properties that, thankfully, have gone on to find massive life and huge audiences in secondary markets like home video and streaming – and unless I’m way off on the mark it looks like 2021’s Dune might suffer the same fate.  Granted, Frank Herbert’s dry read of politics and spice might seem like nothing contemporary in scope to the uninformed; but this Fantasy saga bares more in common thematically with the best themes William Shakespeare explored and deserved to be explored.
 
Sadly, only now – just months before its release – are audiences getting teased with anything that looks remotely relatable as its second official trailer just dropped on the Information Superhighway today.  Finally, the uninformed are being given something that might tweak their interest.  Finally, the story is being framed not only as some highbrow political shenanigans but as a tale of one kid trying to do right by dear ol’ dad and answer a call to action.
 
Dammit, Hollywood: why do you make things so hard?
 
You should have been doing this all along – ratcheting up interest in not an obscure piece of American literature in a way that both young and old could connect with.  Filling the screen with big ideas might work for Academy Awards contenders – of which Dune might be – but summer and Fall audiences are genuinely looking for greater escapism in their entertainment diet.  From my experience, October releases tend to be a bit of a mishmash – films thought to be a bit too cerebral for summer’s tentpole-heavy roster but a bit too light on the kind of performances usually crying out for coveted trophies – so I understand why any studio might ‘dump’ something like Dune in that window; but at least you could make some effort to appeal to the masses who still like going to the theaters in the age of COVID.
 
I know, I know, I know.  I’m ranting.  (It’s my lot in life.)  I’ve no personal attachment to Dune, honestly.  I don’t sink or swim on its merits.  In fact, I never much cared for David Lynch’s somewhat popular 1984 version; but I’m an ardent fan of the 2000 miniseries (which hardcore fans seem to loath for reasons I’ve never understood).  Herbert’s book never touched me the way it has others – it’s a tome I’ve started reading thrice only to put down not all that long into it out of mild boredom – but I can understand and appreciate the desire of those who worship it to see the story done right.
 
That may be the problem here.  For any number of reasons, books rarely translate well from the intellectual endeavor they are to the screen.  Ideas can’t be easily reformatted into cinemascope and pixels, and Dune’s epic worldbuilding will likely always work best on the page instead of at so many frames per second.  Director Denis Villeneuve is a visionary, and his work on 2016’s Arrival and 2017’s Blade Runner 2049 suggest the film was placed in good hands … but adapting and directing something as massive as one of Science Fiction’s biggest franchises could be the straw that broke anyone’s back, even when that back is as thick as Arnold Schwarzenegger’s.
 
I’m holding out hope.  This trailer finally gives regular folks something they can sink their teeth into (no film will be a success by courting only SciFi fans, peeps, that’s just simple math), and maybe the studio can pony up a bit more of this in the weeks that remain between now and when the opening credits roll.
 
In any event, the trailer is below …
​

As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

​-- EZ

Like so many, I was totally absorbed by much of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine’s storytelling.  Although long-time Trek producer Rick Berman had cautioned about going back to the well too often, I thought DS9’s take of a Starfleet presence kinda/sorta at the edge of the galaxy was a great twist: it showed that (for a few seasons) this morality-enforcing entity could exist anywhere, even in places where Starfleet technology itself was in short supply.  Granted, this focus changed as the program’s series-long arch broke ground on the Dominion War (necessitating the introduction of the USS Reliant, a truly spectacular gunboat that expanded their narrative options), but so very much of this incarnation of Trek focused more on the interpersonal aspect of ‘spatial relations’ – we’re Starfleet, we’re here, so let’s get to it.
 
Naturally, showrunner Ira Steven Beyr and his stable of writers crafted a handful of these ‘spatial relationships’ right out of the gate which would set the tone for what would, could, and should follow.  After all, when the day-to-day environment of doing business in the Final Frontier wasn’t going to be all the ‘cake and ice cream’ of the original Star Trek and its immediate predecessor The Next Generation, these storytellers required a handful of tenuous if not treacherous avenues to develop: in this distant outpost, Starfleet was still more an idea than it was a reality … and as Councilor Chang once rather famously opined in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, “If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.”  DS9’s inhabitants weren’t always at war, but as these early days proved, they weren’t always at peace, either.
 
The Bajorans?  They didn’t trust the Cardassians.  And those Cardassians?  Why, they wouldn’t put an ounce of faith behind anything those Bajorans suggested.  What’s this we hear about some omniscient aliens taking up residence in the nearby wormhole?  Well, that can’t be good for business!  Further ingredients added to this volatile concoction were mix were a scheming Ferengi barkeep and a station’s head of security who just happened to be from an unknown species – one that would prove pivotal in the show’s still emerging mythology.  With occasional stopovers for the Romulans, the Klingons, and duplicitous freedom fighters of the Maquis, DS9 was forever a space-based powder keg in search of a fuse.
 
Still, Beyr and company weren’t content to stop there: before audiences knew it, these producers went where no one had gone before, crossing that bridge critics and scholars always caution to avoid … and they introduced religion.
 
Oh, dear God!
 
As fate would have it, these Bajorans were a highly spiritual people, and what courted greater controversy in the history of man (and aliens, it would seem) than ideas of faith?  DS9 had already thrown politics into the mix, so what could hurt more than a little religion?
 
In her 2012 interview with StarTrek.com, actress Louise Fletcher said of her role as the Bajoran Kai (spiritual leader or priest) Winn Adami: “She wanted power and she was ambitious.  She was sort of a Margaret Thatcher in space, or, as I used to say, I was the Pope in space … from old days when Popes were ruthless and powerful and exerted their powers and fought wars and did all kinds of naughty things.”
 
Naughty, indeed!  Though technically Kai Winn appeared in only fourteen episodes of DS9’s incredible run of 173 hours, no visit was ever wasted on trivial moments.  In her time as the high priestess of Bajor, this master manipulator butted heads with Starfleet and its officer – Benjamin Sisko – both as the Federation’s ‘regional manager’ as well as his newly-discovered role as ‘Emissary of the Prophets,’ an appointment he inherited from those wormhole aliens who confronted him not long after his arrival.  Winn secretly backed a political uprising which sought to topple Bajor’s Provisional Government and oust the Federation from their sector of space; albeit unsuccessful, her actions showed she was no one to be trifled with.  And ultimately in the build-up to the show’s war arcs, Winn succumbed to matters of the flesh, pairing up with the Cardassian Gul Dukat – now possessed by the spirit of a Pah-wraith (think Bajoran ‘spiritual deceiver’ or ‘demon’) – for some one-on-one that would eventually result in her own fiery death.
 
To bring Winn Adami to life, producers contracted Fletcher, an actress whose screen reputation showed she could play the ultimate tough cookie while maintaining a guise of institutional purity: in 1976, Fletcher won the Academy Award for ‘Best Actress’ with her work in One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest.  Her ‘Nurse Ratched’ is perhaps considered one of the silver screen’s most articulate, most cunning, and most patient evils, always appearing in crisp hospital whites with hair coiffed in perfect horn-like curls, speaking with an almost machine-like precision void of any true emotion yet filled with robotic compassion.  She’s Alexa well before there ever was an Amazon, yet certainly lacking any medical or psychological schooling.
 
Though there are almost two decades of screen mileage separating the creation of these two powerful female characters, clearly Fletcher’s enduring cultural influence as psych ward matron serves DS9 almost as well as it does the 1975 film.  The actress owns the small screen in her every scene, politely eschewing the Federation’s ethical position with one favoring her personal interpretation of Bajoran scriptures.  She incessantly hammered Sisko with a civility bordering on cruelty, never once raising her voice (except to be heard) nor allowing a hair to fall out of place.  As for those horns of hair?  Well, they were cleverly hidden for Star Trek under any number of papal mitres the costuming department could devise!  Winn was DS9’s ultimate cool customer.
 
Thankfully, Trek hasn’t been Fletcher’s only foray into Science Fiction and Fantasy.  All one must do is peruse her IMDB.com profile to learn she’s been involved in several projects near and dear to our beloved genres.  In 1983, she played a government employee secretly keeping tabs on some plotting aliens in Orion Pictures’ Strange Invaders.  A scant three years later, Fletcher brought to life a body-snatched small-town teacher in Cannon Pictures’ 1986 remake of the 1953 SciFi/Classic Invaders From Mars.  Roles aboard TV’s short-lived VR.5 and 1995’s Virtuosity may’ve given the actress a bit of room to flex into something different, but I suspect filmdom’s signature health provider and her singular nefariousness is never far behind where the actress travels.
 
But … was Winn a villain?
 
One man’s villain is another man’s freedom fighter; and regardless of outcomes both Ratched and Winn are presented as zealots to a fault.  Perhaps neither intended any harm to befall their respective worlds, but there’s a fine line between selflessness and narcissism that Fletcher straddles with an uncommon grace.  On screens big and small, she’s a wonder to behold … even if that consideration comes at your own peril!

​-- EZ

Confession time: no, I have never seen 1987's The Time Guardian, though I've been aware of it for some time.  It's occasionally popped up in my Science Fiction and Fantasy film history reading -- not as a subject of renown -- chiefly because its cast includes the original space princess herself, Carrie Fisher.  Rounding out the primary players is Tom Burlinson (I know him from 1982's The Man From Snowy River, one of my personal all-time favorite Westerns) and Dean Stockwell (of both Quantum Leap and Syfy's Battlestar Galactica fame).  Those are some heavy hitters, but the word on the street regarding this film has never been all that good.

As for the plot?  Well, it sounds like a fairly traditional time travel yarn, one where the folks in a dying tomorrow head back to the past to change how history unfolded so as to sve themselves from extinction, but that's all I know of it.

This is another release wherein I've a relationship with the distributor, and I believe I've been promised a complimentary copy for coverage on SciFiHistory.Net.  But sometimes those things fall through the cracks, and -- as I've said before -- some outlets don't mail out those copies until all of the retail surge has been handled (gotta make a buck first, I understand that), so I'd encourage regular readers to watch this space: if one does show up, I'll be happy to give this one some added promotion as it's right up my alley.

Folks interested in making a purchase can head over to Amazon.com.  It looks like they're in short supply at present.

As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

-- EZ