In my own never-ending quest to make time for quality programming that tickled my fancy, I happily made time for UPN's Seven Days when it aired on the fledgling network.  You know the one?  UPN wanted to take up the other major networks, and it tried to do so by bringing an all-new Star Trek to the masses ... when arguably a much better program like Seven Days was more original, more compelling, and more interested to this viewer.

Seven Days benefitted by taking a fabulous premise -- mankind has discovered the ability to travel in time but is limited to only just a seven-day jump backward -- and pairing it with some smart and timely writing (i.e. terrorist attacks, assassination attempts, and major catastrophes -- the kind of things audiences clamor for) as well as an incredibly nimble, gifted cast, of which Norman Lloyd was a series regular for much of its run.  His 'Dr. Isaac Mentnor' was one of the program's brainy influences, the genius who originally conceived of the Backstep potential by way of his involvement in covering up that dastardly alien technology the U.S. government recovered from the infamous Roswell, New Mexico UFO crash.

As is always the case when discussing creatives, Seven Days was hardly Lloyd's singular sensation.  IMDB.com reports the talented man got his start in live theater, eventually pursuing television and acting gigs to continue perfecting his craft.  He even tried his hand at producing: genre fans 'round these parts have definitely heard of his work with Journey To The Unknown (1968-1969) and Tales Of The Unexpected  (1982-1985).  Star Trek enthusiasts might remember him best as 'Professor Galen,' one of Capt. Jean-Luc Picard's influences in the 1993 episode "The Chase" of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Alas, word reached me last night via a press announcement that Mr. Lloyd has passed on.

Which among us wouldn't hope for the wild ride of a life lasting 106 years?  I know I would.

Prayers go out from SciFiHistory.Net to Lloyd's friends and family.  He will be missed.

​-- EZ

Ay carumba.

Believe it or not, I do remember seeing Joe Dante's family-friendly Science Fiction release Explorers when it played theatrically during the summer of 1985, and I do remember being suitably unimpressed.  Well, to be perfectly honest, I think I enjoyed the first half of the flick -- it's a great cast and an interesting premise of these young'uns who make First Contact (ultimately) with a species of TV-watching aliens -- but the finale was more than a bit undercooked.  Alas ... as they say ... different strokes for different folks ...

In any event, the whole reason I'm posting this is that I did some research this morning, and I noticed that the kind folks at Shout Select are releasing a new pressing of the film on this upcoming May 25th to the consumer marketplace.  As it's SciFi and something viewers might be interested in re-discovering, I'll be happy to post the trailer below as well as the information from Shout Factory's website thereafter.
​

Synopsis

YOU DON'T NEED A DRIVER'S LICENSE TO REACH THE STARS.

The visionary dreams of three curious and adventuresome young boys become an exciting reality in Explorers, the action-fantasy from acclaimed director Joe Dante (Gremlins), who combines keen humor, warmth and fantasy with unexpected twists.
​
In their makeshift laboratory, the boys use an amazing discovery and their ingenuity to build their own spaceship and launch themselves on a fantastic interplanetary journey. A galaxy of adventure for the whole family, Explorers stars a young River Phoenix (Stand By Me, Sneakers) and Ethan Hawke (Training Day, Reality Bites).

Bonus Features

• Includes The Home Video & Theatrical Cuts Of The Film
• NEW "A Science Fiction Fairy Tale: The Story Of Explorers" – Featuring New Interviews With Director Joe Dante, Screenwriter Eric Luke, Star Ethan Hawke, And More! (65 min.)
• NEW Deleted Scenes With Optional Commentary By Joe Dante
• NEW Interviews With Cinematographer John Hora And Editor Tina Hirsch
• Theatrical Trailer

Yes, yes, and yes!  Of course, I'm well aware that true Horror isn't Science Fiction and Fantasy; but you have to admit that in many cases it's a very, very, very close second.  That's part of why I'm always ready, willing, and able to give the occasional 'shout-out' to something that's on the home release horizon.  So buckle up, buttercup, and deal with it.

Word reached me this morning via email that Breaking Glass Pictures' Amityville Poltergeist is all set to street this May 18th on home video and VOD; so I felt compelled to craft this humble little public service announcement for SciFiHistory.Net's less discriminating fans.  I'm posting the trailer below, so check it out, if you're so inclined.

Here's the plot summary as provided by our good ol' friends at IMDB.com:

"The terrifying tale of Amityville is Back. When a young man encounters a weekend of horrors after taking a house sitting job from a spooky old woman."

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

​-- EZ

Though I could be wrong on this point, I believe the first time I’d heard a business consultant define “quality” as ‘the race without a finish line’ was sometime in the late 1980’s.  I say that I could be wrong because I’m quite certain this definition has probably been around for some time and has likely survived via several variations.  In any event, I thought that it sounded good but also posed to me a very unique question: “Is there a risk in improving for too long?”

Naturally, I agreed with the sentiment – that once you rest too long on your laurels someone or something will likely surpass you in the quest to, say, build a better mousetrap.  But do we need a better mousetrap?  After all, the original has been around for decades, and it seems to work just fine.  Why are we looking at changing it when what we have already works?  Of course, it would be nice to have a more humane mousetrap, but at the end of the day aren’t we still left with a dead mouse?  Isn’t that dead mouse our sole objective?

(Yes, for the record, my professors hated having me as a student.)

This desire to push back against the conventional wisdom of always finding a better means to an end has even haunted me professionally.  I’m sure you can understand why.  Management tends to see me as a ‘boat rocker’ – someone who questions the departmental game plan – but when afforded the opportunity I’ve always stressed that my brain simply works better when I know exactly what it is you’d like me to improve.  Don’t cushion the objective with fancyspeak.  Give it to me straight!  I tend to do my best work when I’m left to with what works right the first time instead of re-arranging life as we know it around no established goal.  It just seems inefficient, not to mention disingenuous, and that’s hardly a way to encourage others to keep reaching for the finish line.

Pray tell, what could all of this have to do with a Science Fiction film?

I’m getting to that, and I think you’ll like it when I do.  In fact, this sentiment has so inspired me that I’d be happy to christen 2016’s Kill Command as one of the greatest Science Fiction films you’ve never seen and maybe never heard of.

Let’s rectify that right now.

[Note: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of thought 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 IMDB.com: “Set in the near future, technology-reliant society is creating killing machines.  Against this backdrop an elite Marine unit is helicoptered to a remote, off-the-grid training facility to test the capabilities of the latest prototypes.  They set up positions and make short work of the AI targets in the killing field.  However, overnight their sentry goes missing, and when they find the corpse the next day they find themselves in the killing field and the tables have turned.  The Marines fight to survive on an island that is overrun by an enemy intelligence far beyond their predecessors, which learns from their every move.”

To its credit, Kill Command (aka Identify) embraces all of the best SciFi and Fantasy influences which have paved the way and made this feature entirely possible.  These inspirations come from but are not limited to features like Alien (1979), The Terminator (1984), Aliens (1986), Predator (1987), and RoboCop (1987), with maybe a touch of Starship Troopers (1997) thrown in to name but a few.  As I said, the list is long and distinguished; and when you’re borrowing only what you need from the best and actually know what you’re doing with those elements you’re likely to produce a film that stays in good company.  Like those pictures, Kill Command is mostly tight and efficient, laying down a path an audience will follow even as the body count continues to rise.

Much like those films, Command is shouldered largely by actors unknown at the time of its production and release.  (Yes, Arnold Schwarzenegger might be the exception to that rule as his career built through the 1980’s, but he was hardly a household name when The Terminator went before the lens.)  Also, Command was shot in the United Kingdom, which again increases the chance that a U.S. audience – of which I am – is likely to be unfamiliar with most of its faces; this has the net benefit of requiring the viewer to have no preconceived notions about just who may or may not emerge a hero in this conflict once the shooting starts, and this serves to increase the growing tension of the flick’s second half.

Setting that framework aside, writer/director Steven Gomez crafted a contemporary SciFi/Thriller that looks, works, and sounds exceedingly top notch on what was a relative shoestring budget: from my research, I’ve read several notations which claim all of this wild ride – cast, effects, and all – was accomplished for little over $1 million for an independent feature.  That’s gobsmackingly hard to believe but – if true – this guy needs to be given the opportunity to follow this up.  While we’re not talking ILM-caliber visuals, they’re arguably a very close second place – maybe third, in a few passages – but the results are still incredibly impressive.  Simply put, it’s just that good.

What worked best for me was the narrative idea of machines programmed to constantly improve, a conceit that brings me back to those thoughts of my first few paragraphs: when we program a device to ‘get better’ at what it does, at what point does the machine ever stop?

In this regard, Kill Command creates some downright scary sequences, even occasionally spooky as these killbots keep pushing themselves to the point of mimicking what makes the effective soldier a clock that ticks.  Initially, I thought this idea was going to be limited to combat simulations; but Command’s second half ups the ante further when it’s revealed that this blood-thirsty Artificial Intelligence even orchestrated the circumstances of bringing these Marines to the island in the first place.  This society appears to have totally abdicated thinking to its impending mechanical overlords, and they’re blind to the havoc they’re created as a consequence of embracing technology a bridge too far.
​

Imagine that you’re Skynet, and your core programming requires you to wipe out the human race.  How would you continually adapt to mankind constantly changing its tactics?  In this cinematic equation, ordinary men and women are racing to survive; and, in that process, they’re willing to do downright anything.  What happens when the machines reach that level of creativity?  What happens when they’re willing to do downright anything?  That’s part and parcel of what makes the film’s closing scenes so effective: we’re all racing for life, machines included, and the last shot before the credits roll reveals just how far one AI might be willing to go.  Even if you found it a bit predictable, I suspect that you’ll agree it was handled wonderfully.

Command is also gifted with a great cast.  Thure Lindhardt plays the career officer with an understated touch; just as he’s always questioning authority, he’s hesitant to embrace the benefits this so-called machinery brings to the battlefield.  (It also serves the film that he impresses me as a young Rutger Hauer.)  David Ajala excels as the combat veteran who has just started to augment his body with selective technology he believes truly serves him in the field; and he balances that fine line between following orders and pushing officers to make better decisions as best he can.  Mike Noble is the Marine grunt – the young soldier who’s just getting his feet wet – but he still brings a youthful exuberance to the performance.  And Vanessa Kirby is a Godsend: she deftly handles her responsibilities here as the human whose existence requires internal technology implanted within.  She’s found peace with her Borgified self but refuses to sacrifice her humanity in the process, going so far as to risk her life repeatedly to save the others.

Highly recommended.  As I said, Kill Command might rank as one of the better Science Fiction flicks you’ve never seen.  It certainly zipped completely past my radar until the title popped up in an article I read recently on the role of military in SciFi films.  In that respect, the film works very well; and I think it’s worth being rediscovered at a time wherein so much of what’s rolling out seems a bit too lazy and uninspired.  This one has some guts – bloody, at times – and it’s worth a look.

​-- EZ

Like so many of SciFiHistory.Net's readers, I do an awful lot of casual reading.

You know the type I mean?  I'll surf the web, looking for general information about a past or present film or TV project, and then -- lo and behold -- I'll come across some nugget of information that either I've never heard before or just simply downright tickles my fancy.  It's the kind of trivia I love to draw attention to, and I've finally figured out a means to do it here on the Main Page.  Occasionally, I'll drop one of these 'Command Performance' posts, and I'm intending on using them to draw attention to new names, places, or events added to my citations.  I hope you'll have as much discovering these details as I have finding them.

In any event: I've been doing some reading on the SciFi classic from MGM, Forbidden Planet (1956).  It's a film that -- while I probably don't enjoy it as much as the die-hard SciFi and Fantasy enthusiasts -- I have an awful lot of respect for.  Being a fan of classic cinema, I'm certainly aware of its place in film history: I just don't find it all that rewatchable as the pacing seems to seriously lag in its later half.  Unlike other films wherein heroes and protagonists face certain doom, I find Planet mostly void of suspense.  It's visually exciting, yes ... just not all that suspenseful.  So I rarely pop it in for a rewatch.

However, in my reading this morning, I discovered something pretty fascinating that I hadn't stumbled on before (or, if I have, it just never caught traction): many of its effects crew were actually folks on loan from the Walt Disney Company!  In other words, animators who had worked on Fantasia, Pinocchio, and 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea were front and center in shaping the look of Forbidden Planet.

In one respect, that shouldn't come as any great surprise, namely because Walt Disney was the 'go-to' choice for effects animation of that era.  Still, I didn't realize that many of these contributions went uncredited by these artists -- many of them fairly young in their careers -- when that kind of industry recognition could've gone a long way toward making them well known as special effects pioneers.  I'm guessing MGM studio heads probably wanted that attention on the heads of their own workers, so it is what it is.

Two names I came across this morning were Joshua Meador and Ken Hultgren.

I'm still digesting some of the details involving Meador (there's more available on him than on his teammate), so I'll leave that stuff for another day.

But from what I've read, Hultgren was chiefly responsible for conceiving the look of the film's central antagonist -- the hideous Id Monster which features so strongly into what tension there is aboard Forbidden Planet.  While Meador's work I had known about (again, more available on the artist, so I had some familiarity with it), I was completely unaware of Hultgren's, and that's a shame.  The Id Monster -- and the totality of Forbidden Planet -- still echoes throughout major cinematic influences today ... and I guess -- coming from this whole idea as one who'd like to be given a bit of credit for the little things I've done in life -- I can't imagine how an animator who truly set the bar so high for SciFi might feel about being overlooked in history.

Though Meador is largely recognized for animating the sequence involving the Id's reveal, it looks like Hultgren is responsible for conceiving the look of the beast.  And what a beast it was!

From what IMDB.com shows, Hultgren lasted only a thin fifty-three years in this existence, but he managed to squeeze in a strong career with work in Sleeping Beauty, 1001 Arabian Nights, the 1960 run of Popeye The Sailor, 1967's animated Journey To The Center Of The Earth program, and 1967's The Superman/Aquaman Hour Of Adventure.

So there you have it: Ken Hultgren is SciFiHistory.Net's very first Command Performance.  I think he earned it.

​-- EZ

For better or for worse, Nathan Jung was known as Star Trek's "other Khan" when the third season of the beloved Gene Roddenberry program brought history's 'Ghengis Khan' to (kinda/sorta) life in 1969's "The Savage Curtain."  It probably isn't anyone's favorite episode, but it definitely tried to stick to the morality play formula the show made so popular.

Word reached me this morning via a mailing list that Mr. Jung has left us, and I wanted to get a notice up for readers.

Perusing his profile at IMDB.com, the man was no stranger to genre projects.  Though his resume includes only fifty-seven citations (if any of us could be so lucky), he definitely enjoyed a bit of screen time in Science Fiction and Fantasy.  His work is on display for posterity's sake in such entities as Monster Squad, The Amazing Spider-Man, Manimal, Big Trouble In Little China (1986), Darkman (1990), The Shadow (1994), and Lois & Clark: The New Adventures Of Superman.  Those are some quality appearances, if I do say so myself.

Prayers and salutations go out to Jung's family and friends.

​-- EZ

When you were a kid, did you ever run your own backyard carnival?

You know what I mean?  Did you go out into yard, set up games, charge admission, give away small prizes, and maybe – just maybe – make a buck?  Generally speaking, no one was harmed in this homegrown form of capitalism; and – generally speaking – a good time was had by all.

But was there this one kid who just couldn’t settle for winning the same prize everyone else did?  You know the type I mean: he raised a stink, said his prize should’ve been bigger, raised holy Hell with you while everyone else was having a grand ol’ time, and generally just acted like a nuisance?

Sadly, this is what the motion picture world has become.  Whether films are big studio productions of small independent features, these modern era artisans have decided you need to listen to them; and they’re gonna keep telling you how bad the world is where businesses need to make a profit in order to survive, thrive, and grow.  Yes, someone typically gets wealthy in the process – even in the case of your carnival you pocketed a few extra quarters if you did it the right way – and that demonstrates just how evil you were, even as a little kid.

This message – that business is bad – continues to resonate today, especially amongst those who make their living talking about films.  These “critics” will heap inordinate praise on practically anything that deconstructs even the smallest element of how the American economy works; and that’s what you have with a motion picture like Lapsis (2020).  It’s an art-house feature that – through satire – tries to rip to shreds the ponzi scheme artisans purport capitalism to be.

Like most art-house features, the masses-at-large will never hear of this picture.

But that’s OK … because it was likely never intended for the average Joe at all.

Nope.

This one was made by the aristocracy for the aristocracy, logic be damned.

They’re the only ones who’ll get a charge out of this.
​

(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:
“New York, an alternate present: the quantum computing revolution has begun and investors are lining their pockets in the trading market.  Building the network, though, requires miles of cables to be laid across rough terrain by unprotected gig workers.  Queens delivery man Ray Tincelli is skeptical of new technology, and the buy-in to start ‘cabling’ is steep.  So when he scores a shady permit, he believes his fortunes have finally changed.  What he doesn’t expect is to be pulled into a conspiracy involving hostile cablers, corporate greed, and the mysterious ‘Lapsis’ who may have previously owned his medallion.”

Word to the wise: if your storytelling takes an inordinate amount of set-up along with an unusually high number of expository scenes to build your world, then perhaps the narrative to a bit too complex for the average viewer.  That’s almost the entirety of Lapsis, the debut SciFi/Drama feature from Noah Hutton, a documentarian who’s turned his eye toward fiction.  I don’t offer that advice as a complaint because, like so many, I found the film as smart and timely as did the others: I just strongly disagree that it carries a message that resonates beyond these 108 minutes.  In fact, this one will likely be forgotten once the next art-house flash-in-the-pan comes along … which, knowing the festival film circuit, is likely to be any day now.

This failure to echo beyond is probably owed to the fact that Lapsis is surprisingly void of two key pieces required for any effective satire (which this most definitely is).  First, there’s no conflict.  Second, there’s no resolution.  For didactic storytelling to live beyond the scope of its time and place, it has to register with an audience made up of more than our cultural overlords; and despite the blue-collar focus of its key players this Lapsis lapses to connect in any meaningful way.

Now, it could have, precisely because Hutton’s script focuses on the plight of the working class: the Tincelli brothers are a perfect pair of real-world, back-breaking laborers who have found themselves on hard times.  Actor Dean Imperial (as the eldest half-brother Ray) brings a kind of understated machismo to work here: driven to help Jamie who sufferers from a CFS-like condition, Ray strives to balance ‘doing the right thing’ with ‘making an exceptionally honest buck (and then some)’ exactly the way most working-class folks do.  He doesn’t see taking the job of laying cable as a pathway to privately realized wealth: instead, it’s an avenue that presents a solution to a problem plaguing the family.  He seeks to do the right thing, and that focus stays front-and-center throughout Lapsis’ occasionally muddled affair.

Where the feature fell short for me was in establishing this parallel Earth, a place wherein the – ahem – already existing infrastructure for WiFi, cable television, and telephones (all of which exist) apparently wasn’t enough for this all-new, high-tech, newfangled quantum computing that all the kids are talking about.  In this satire, Hutton would have audiences believe that all-new cables which just happen to look everything like same-old-same-old cables need to be laid virtually by hand above ground simply cast unspooled across the grass-covered ground from unit to unit across the forests of New York.  Again – just for clarification’s sake – this cable is left lying on the ground, out in the open, where anyone who wanted could come along and cut it, splice it, animals could chew on it, etc.  In an arena like SciFi which often requires a suspension of disbelief, I found this a pill too big to swallow as presented.
​

Had there been some other subplot involving tree-hugging activists who were hell bent on seeing nature preserved without the presence of open technology, then perhaps I might’ve had less difficulty with it.  But, literally, these cablers at times are walking over dozens of other, already existing and laid out cables, making me suspect the reason for more wiring … and I found the questions piling up almost as much of the cables.  Were this meant to be entirely satirical, then certainly it could’ve been explained away in any one of the other explanatory passages (there’s plenty of chitchat in Lapsis, much of it required to develop the film’s many ideas); as it is here, I had trouble accepting the premise.

And perhaps therein lies the rub: did Lapsis bite off far more than any single viewer could chew?

As I said, this is clearly art-house entertainment, and that means something to those of us who like considering any feature’s ideas.  To its credit, Lapsis raises plenty of them – corporate greed, the preponderance of increasingly visible technology, service drones, untraceable ailments like Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, unionization, traditional medicine versus fringe sciences, etc. – and, as a consequence, many of them are covered all too briefly for any inherent message to reverberate the way they should.  And Imperial’s performance – while I found it one of the film’s highlights – never quite took enough of a stand to be truly meaningful: he never delivers a legitimate ‘Norma Rae’ moment though he inevitably finds his way into Hutton’s labor movement more as a consequence of who his is rather than of anything he truly believes.

Sure, we take it as a given that there’s some sort of conspiracy, but it isn’t a conspiracy the audience sees coming organically: it’s one entirely fabricated by the screenwriter.  Why?  Well, perhaps Hutton felt one was needed for the satire to work.  Just what is this grand conspiracy?  Well, it’s never laid out perfectly enough for it to make much sense.  There are these questions raised about a previous cabler who’s given the somewhat laughable name of ‘Lapsis Beeftech,’ and apparently the man figured out a code-based workaround that would give the workers the upper hand over the world’s increasing automation.  Why is that important?  Well, because machine-economy bad and worker-economy good (or some such nonsense).  Instead of feeling this intrigue was part of the story, it ends up feeling like one more idea in an already idea-heavy script … and no one likes a puzzle just for the sake of being a puzzle.

Even in satire, viewers want to believe in a character; and Imperial’s work here has the right background for them to admire.  But the tale that drifts too heavily in academics and too sparingly in emotion will likely never strike the right balance with those same blue-collar watchers for it to establish common ground.  Lapsis is a miss, but I’ll give you that – as a SciFi junkie – I found most of it still a glorious miss.  Better than having tried and nearly scored a bullseye than never having tried at all.
​

Lapsis (2020) is produced by Couple 3 Films.  DVD for this release is being coordinated by Film Movement.  As for the technical specifications?  Yes, this is definitely an independent feature, but it looks and sounds about as good as even a small(ish) studio release.  As for the special features?  The disc boasts a making-of documentary, a commentary track, and a few other items for those interested in those sorts of things … and I do intend to spend some time later this week with the commentary.  When I do, I’ll try to get up another brief think-piece about it as I’m interested in hearing more about the behind-the-scenes efforts here.

Alas, as usual, satire works mostly for scholars and high-brow film critics out there.  Lapsis – though exceedingly well-made for an independent feature – just fails to hit any mark consistently to be strongly recommended.  It’s worth a view (for those who are patient), but just don’t expect for any messaging (other than its blatantly obvious anti-capitalism) to be consistent enough to mean much … and definitely don’t look for it to reach any kind of effective resolution.  This one was made by the aristocracy to poke fun at those who’ve learned how to make an economy run, forgetting that they need an economy to not only get their pictures made but also to get them to the same masses they condemn for going along with all of it.

In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Film Movement provided me with a DVD of Lapsis 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

Ahem.  For those unaware, SciFiHistory.Net wasn't exactly "just born yesterday."  I've been around on the web for a number of years now -- only seven, I think it is, in this current venue -- and, wow, I've received an awful lot of what I'd call "hate mail."

To be perfectly accurate, it isn't so much "hate mail" as it is "hateful mail."  There's a lot of negativity on the Information Superhighway, and I think that's largely because far too many folks find it vastly simpler and easier to be destructive as opposed to be honestly constructive.  Alas, I think that's human in many respects; it's certainly the province of the laziest amongst us as it takes somewhat serious thought and effort into being truly constructive and not just pointing out spelling errors, factual inaccuracies, and maybe the occasional dyslexia that we all may suffer as a consequence of pounding keys all day long.

It started very, very early in the days of SciFiHistory.Net.  For the few several months, I put up with one insufferable ass who'd email me every damn day about what he thought about my particular daily citations, proclaiming 'this one isn't Science Fiction' and 'that one fails to mention he was also in this other show' (which -- more often than not -- had nothing to do with Science Fiction).  I tolerated it for some time -- after all, sometimes the only true benefit of such feedback is knowing that you're not alone in cyberspace.  However, I realized after some time that this particular knucklehead was really only interested in tearing the site down at every opportunity, so I ended up blocking him from it with a newly-launched app.  It didn't take long for him to reach out and demand an explanation for such a move on my part, to which I replied, "Sh#t happens."

Of course, it didn't end there.  Eventually, another fellow showed up with criticisms, and they turned quite vicious right away.  As best I can recall, the sum of his correspondence was that I and anyone else affiliated with my site "didn't know a damn about Science Fiction," nor would we ever, as we chose to list items like The Twilight Zone, Star Trek, and Superman, all of which he declared were Fantasy and definitely not SciFi.  For a time, I did try to engage with the rabble rouser, politely explaining that the whole point of my space was to highlight Science Fiction and Fantasy (though, yes, the original heading had always been "On This Day In Science Fiction History").  I also argued that the jury is still out on what truly constitutes SciFi as even many in academia and intelligentsia contend that SciFi is simply one over-arching construct combining several sub-genres, blah, blah, blah, but you could tell he wasn't standing for it.  So, again, I blocked him.

I share some of this today not to ask readers to avoid sharing when they find mistakes, as that clearly isn't the issue.  Naturally, I've always tried to make this space the most inclusive listing of SciFi and Fantasy trivia DAILY, so it would only stand to reason that I'd want it to be as accurate as humanly possible.  So, yes, when you see something that needs a bit of attention or research or correction please feel free to reach out and let me know.  As I said above, that's chiefly the only means I have of knowing folks are actively reading what I pen in this space.  I'm perfectly OK with criticisms.  I welcome them.  I want to be right, so having the eyes, ears, and brainpower of a vast empire of readers only benefits me.

I do ask, though, that everyone remain civil.  It's a simple request.

Also, if you see something that can be added, then I'm game.  Let me know.  Again, I just ask that you be civil about it.  Don't do as others have done and send me a note demanding that I "correct my stupidity and add my husband/author to your deficient site."  While I'm apt to add your husband/author, I'm also apt to read and review whatever he's written ... and if it ain't up to snuff I'm even liable to say so.  Such is life.  And such is the power of editing.

Otherwise ... Happy Monday!

​-- EZ

I do hate to harp on filmmakers, folks.

It isn’t as if I get any enjoyment out of criticizing bad storytelling.  I take no delight in deconstructing filmdom’s messaging – especially that of the laziest and most obvious – but, as they say, somebody’s gotta do it.  All too often these days good ideas get lost amongst a screenwriter’s, director’s, and producer’s desire to garner attention of their peers, and what we end up with is an entirely self-serving release like Spontaneous (2020) from Awesomeness Films and Jurassic Party Productions.

From IMDB.com’s plot summary:
“When students in their high school begin inexplicably exploding (literally...), seniors Mara (Katherine Langford) and Dylan (Charlie Plummer) struggle to survive in a world where each moment may be their last. As an unexpected romance blossoms between them, Mara and Dylan discover that when tomorrow is no longer promised, they can finally start living for today.”

Without belaboring the point all that much, let me clarify a few positive items right up front: youngsters Langford and Plummer are dynamite with what they’re provided.  While the script from Brian Duffield doesn’t exactly take full advantage of his talents’ full range, Spontaneous is chocked with enough character ‘beats’ to show that these young’uns should have a bright future in film.  They stumbled in and out of the ordinary and the extraordinary with some nuanced grace, well beyond what I was expecting given the fact that – since I stick largely to SciFi and Fantasy releases – I was unfamiliar with their work.  That made for some nice surprise moments as I do appreciate what actors can bring to their game … especially the more bizarre this game called life can get.

Furthermore, Spontaneous functions from start-to-finish with great efficiency.  The script never invests much in the science of its science fiction, instead choosing to use its construct – these unpredictable exploding seniors – more as the framework for these various scenes of high drama, youthful regret, and manic intensity.  Editing is precise, too, and Duffield keeps all of it moving at probably the right pace since there’s rarely a dull moment or wasted sequence.

Now for the rest of the story …

Sadly, Spontaneous descends into the typical Hollywood programming that more effective filmmakers (especially those of the past) avoid: too often Duffield resorts to getting up on his soapbox and preaching to his Tinseltown audience, almost as if he was awaiting the usual accolades.  (Hint: when critics rave about a film while audiences tend to reject it, you know whom the target demo was very quickly.)

Spontaneous is bereft of a single responsible adult.

Now, some of this is owed to the manner in which the story is constructed.  Langford’s Mara is not only gifted with the old soul cynicism only Hollywood creations can provide (I call it the Juno Syndrome in reference to 2007’s Juno wherein screenwriter Diablo Cody gave her lead the wisdom of a town elder in the package of an otherwise inept adolescent) but also given “the cool parents” who allow their pride-and-joy to engage in recreational drug use and irresponsible drinking ad nauseum for the sake of being “the cool parents.”  The very talented Rob Huebel is utterly wasted as the dad who’s reduced to concerned glances at his emotionally-charged daughter, and the extent of his caring advice in these times of need is little more than a good hug.  And you want to talk even more wasted?  Piper Perabo emotes about as well as a stumbling homeless person who shows up to give a few lines while otherwise phoning in her work: it’s a damn tragedy.

The FBI, the CDC, and even the adult grocery store staff wherein Mara steals her liquor are given the same treatment: none of them seem to truly give a damn about the bizarre situation these high school seniors find themselves in … but why should they?  When much of it is played for laughs anyway, were they really supposed to do more than hit their marks and look stunned?  No one takes a serious adult interest in the entire affair, and the CDC even shows up with an animated Powerpoint that belittles these teens’ intelligence.

Ugh.

It’s funny how the “it takes a village crowd” is seemingly only interested in idolizing the adventures of anti-establishment types, of which Spontaneous revels in.  How does that work exactly?  Where do these anti-establishment types end up in reality?  What role, if any, do they play in the idealized village, except to show up at every protest raising hell, looting Targets, and burning police stations?  Standing against the “machine” that is civilization does score points for individuality – and, sure, it’s far more interesting to explore what makes us unique than what makes us, say, collective – but when this rugged eccentricity reaches the end of its days that gathered wisdom is typically lost when it could’ve better served mankind by passing it down to the next generation instead of smoking pot with your toes stuck in the sand at the beach.
​
Mildly Recommended … but only for folks who truly want to try something a bit different for the sake of trying something a bit different.  Though occasionally damn funny, Spontaneous is exactly the kind of irresponsible programming right-minded people have come to expect from Progressives: in the midst of an unexplainable pandemic, they craft and release a comedy film about an unexplainable pandemic targeted at the most influential and perhaps most uninformed demographic possible – the youth – and then exploit their politically-driven drivel in fourth gear.  Insult America.  Insult Republicans.  Show plenty of shots of kids giving audiences the finger.  And all of it is done in the name of art.  Still, performances are solid, and I did have some fun with it … up until the point wherein I realized I was the film’s target.

​-- EZ

(For clarification: I have not seen this publicly stated by any media outlet.  I am penning this brief piece solely on information shared by actor Gil Gerard.  He had reported earlier today that Felix was placed in hospice, and he followed up a short time ago today stating that the actor has passed.)

Ach.  Some deaths are more personal than others.  Such is the nature of existence.  Yes, I think each of us should take a moment to reflect over the loss of any man, but those reflections tend to run more deeply with the talented folk we follow through life.  In a moment, life changes; and we're left with trying to find a bit of comfort by collectively remembering where we've been before speeding on into tomorrow.

Word reached me via social media that the great Felix Silla passed this morning, bringing an end to a battle with pancreatic cancer.

Though the lion's share of the actor's fans were likely fans of his work on the late 1970's early 1980's SciFi/Fantasy series Buck Rogers In The 25th Century, a quick glance of his IMDB.com profile shows that there are other properties worth a second look if you're interested in celebrating a life in film.  In fact, Felix's earlier gig was as the kinda/sorta lovable (but harry) Cousin Itt aboard 1960's The Addams Family ... and that property definitely still endures in fandom today.

He also found employment aboard 1968's seminal Science Fiction classic Planet Of The Apes, appearing in makeup as an ape child.  Then, there was work in one of the -- ahem -- kinda/sorta bizarre programs of my youth, H.R. Pufnstuf.  In the guise of 'Lucifer,' Silla did uncredited work for Glen Larson's Battlestar Galactica.  He even got the chance to play in that galaxy far, far away when George Lucas cast him as an Ewok for Star Wars: Episode VI - Return Of The Jedi.

A few years back, I remember an episode of the program Toy Hunter in which Silla contracted Jordan Hembrough to track down an elusive action figure of Twiki the Robot (from Buck Rogers) so that he could add it to his own personal collection.  It was a brief appearance, but it underscored just how much these roles meant to the man ... and I'm glad he was able late in life to put another toy on his shelf at home.

May he rest in peace.  Prayers to any and all who knew him.

​-- EZ