I’ve always been a fan of anthology shows.
 
In short, I just find them more creative than other serialized programming.  Typically, they employ more writers behind-the-scenes as they have a wealth of script ideas that have to be prepared for shooting in a single season.  Whereas a routine drama or comedy has one team of writers committed to character arcs and season-long events, these scribes get to essentially craft a bottle story: something entirely independent from other tales and has to stand or fall on its own merits.  Granted, a stinker or two might slip through the creation process, but I’ve found that the dedication all players bring to this single event helps to get the best out of most people.  In the long run, it’s a win-win for viewers.
 
Sadly, there aren’t many anthologies that focus on Science Fiction, and I suspect that’s likely because the cost-prohibitive nature of special effects pushes investors and producers to the more serialized efforts.  Shows like Star Trek, Stargate, and Babylon 5 may incorporate some long-form elements to the stories they bring to life; but the huge cost-saving plus for most of them is that they get to re-use short effects sequences that may have been costly to create, thereby keeping an achievable budget within reach.  There are exemptions to this rule, but generally speaking this is one trick that’s worked to genre’s benefit.
 
Still, thank goodness that anthologies haven’t gone out of style.
 
Amazon.com has produced one or two that I’m aware of.  The BBC and Netflix have also given the format new life for their paying customers.  Recently, I learned that Shudder – a streaming outlet focusing on Horror and Fantasy (with a darker edge) – has brought Creepshow to life in a similar fashion; and I’m thrilled that they’ve provided me with a Blu-ray disc of their second season.  I’ve just begun watching these episodes – which thus far I’ve found quite good – and I think I’ll be penning individual reviews as time permits across the course of this visual journey.
 
Though I’ll get up a review regarding the entire season at a later date, you can watch this space on the SciFiHistory.Net MainPage blog for some episode reflections starting shortly.  I hope you enjoy what I have to say as much as I’m enjoying these quirky tales!
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at RLJE Films and Shudder provided me with a Blu-ray disc of Creepshow: Season 2 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

Good morning and Happy Tuesday to all of you regular SciFiHistory.Net readers ... or should I say 'Happy New Release Tuesday?'  Yes, it's once again that fateful day when DVD shelves and warehouse inventories are stocked with all of the latest and greatest releases -- new and old -- for hungry consumers to scarf up as soon as they get the chance.  And with the holidays just around the corner, is there not a better time to pick something up for that person on your list?  That special someone who just can't get enough visual entertainment ever?

Whatever your persuasion, here are a few of the genre titles hitting the stores today.

I had the good fortune of scoring a complimentary copy of Phantom Of The Mall: Eric's Revenge (1989) from Arrow Video.  I wouldn't say it's a fabulous film, but -- as a B-Movie -- it has its merits.  Clearly it was made by folks who had some fun doing it; as a viewer, I just wish they had honed in on really what they wanted to say with the project.  Were we supposed to take it seriously?  I got the vibe that we weren't, and -- if that's the case -- I think they should've amped up the comedy a bit more.  Still, interested folks can check out my review right here; and if you're interested in picking up a copy, then surf on over to Amazon.com right here.

2001's Evolution was one of those flicks that I really, really, really wanted to like ... and I ended up being disappointed.  The SciFi/Comedy had a great cast (David Duchovny, Orlando Jones, Seann William Scott, and Julianne Moore) in a story about an alien organism 'evolving' to attempt a takeover of our world; but it just didn't quite work the way I had hoped.  Sure, it had some good laughs, and I guess some folks probably enjoyed it much better than I did.  In any event, I see that it's received a new pressing on Blu-ray that streets today.  I believe I have reached out to the studio for a complimentary disc; alas, none was forthcoming, so I can't speak to whether or not it's worth the investment.  Still, if you're interested, you can purchase a copy from Amazon.com right here.

Last -- but not least -- I am seeing that Shout Factory has something streeting today which is curious.  It's a little something something I've never heard of called The Show.  Largely, the title caught my eye because I see in the publicity materials that it comes from the mind of Alan Moore.  Ahem.  Moore -- for what this is worth -- is an acquired taste.  (I've yet to find anything of his that I've been 100% satisfied with.)  An award-winning scribe known from the world of comic books, his stories have always been revered as cutting edge and controversial ... but he's famously unhappy with any visual adaptation of his work (so far as I've read).  It looks like The Show flirts with the world of the magical and fantastical, so I'd encourage folks who want to know more to do some digging before making a plunge ... but it could be worth something.  It's up on Amazon.com right here.

As is always the case: "buyer beware."  I share this information for promotional reasons only -- consider it your genre-related public service announcement.  If you're looking for the full rundown of today's titles, check it out on Blu-ray.com right here.

Thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

​-- EZ

The name of Art LaFleur certainly wasn't all that big in genre circles, but I think the guy definitely benefitted from one of the more recognizable faces in Hollywood.

The actor built a resume impressive with a total of 169 different screen credits, and he was known for stealing scenes with his sometimes likable charm.  IMDB.com reports that the entertainment industry didn't call out to him until he turned 31 with aspirations of being a screenwriter.  A friend persuaded him to give acting a try first, and some modest successes followed reasonably quickly.

As for his roles in the realm of genre entertainment?

Fans might recognize him from work aboard TV's incarnation of The Incredible Hulk, The Invisible Woman (1983), Wizards And Warriors, Trancers (1984), Zone Troopers (1985), The Blob (1988), Field Of Dreams (1989), Trancers II (1991), Tales From The Crypt, Space Rangers, Strange Luck, A.J.'s Time Travelers, Angel, Night Stalker, and Speed Racer (2008).  Though some of his roles may've been small, it certainly took the heart and soul of a big man to fill them.

SciFiHistory.Net wishes prayers to LaFleur's family and friends in these difficult times.  May he rest in peace.

​-- EZ

As I've mentioned previously in this space, I do receive emails from readers who have questions regarding the site and general information.  Should I notice a trend, I'll then take to the MainPage and try to pony up an answer to what I feel might be a 'Burning Question Of The Day.'

Today's doozie:

"I read what you wrote about Dune: Part 1 (2021), and I'm confused as to whether or not if I'll like the film.  How can I know?"

When I began first writing and talking about film in the mid-1980’s, I came to a mildly startling revelation: most folks I hung around with either hadn’t seen the flicks I was most impressed by or they simply didn’t enjoy them as much as I did.
 
Now, I honestly didn’t find that very earth-shattering, though some of my friends did.  Many of us shared common interests in Science Fiction and Fantasy; liking many of the same things can have the effect of making others believe we have more in common than we actually do.  In fact, some friends were surprised when they found out that I didn’t enjoy David Lynch’s Dune (1984) as much as they did.  “How can you not love it?” they’d ask.  Sure, I could provide them my reasons, but they weren’t persuaded.  The truth is I wasn’t trying to convince them otherwise; the film just didn’t mean to me what it meant to them, and ‘that’s them apples,’ as they say.
 
My position has always been that each of us has our own personal preferences, and how we might ‘scale’ particular films, books, and TV shows relates to themes, morals, and ideas we each hold sacred.  For example, I’ve found that folks who love Horror features are inclined to give even the least interesting entry in that genre a pass for even the most egregious errors these films make.  This isn’t meant as an insult; rather, it’s just meant to convey that I realize fans like what they like, so even a middling feature that tickles their particular fancy is better than none.  If you’re a fan of, say, The Exorcist and I’m not, who am I to suggest that it’s an inferior film?  I may not enjoy it the same way you do, but I guarantee that you likely don’t share my love of Jeepers Creepers … and there’s nothing wrong with that!
 
For any number of reasons, one film – be it Drama, Comedy, or SciFi – may resonate with you.  It could be nostalgic, something that you saw in your youth, so viewing it might trigger all kinds of warm fuzzies.  (1980’s Flash Gordon does that for me.)  You could be drawn to a particular actor or some strong element of a script, and those connections make you appreciate the finished product more than others do.  Perhaps you experienced one motion picture at a low point in your days, and it lightened your emotional load: consequently, you hold it near and dear to your heart.  This is what film – as art, I might add – does to each of us; so what kind of critic would I be if I even politely implied your choices were insufficient?  Off-kilter?  Inadequate?
 
Simply put: Citizen Kane means to you what Citizen Kane means to you.  Don’t expect me to agree.  (FYI: “Don’t expect me to agree” has long been my personal motto for reasons too vast for me to write down.)
 
Now, this isn’t to suggest that the business of film criticism is a failed enterprise or a fool’s errand.  I wouldn’t do much of what I do with this website and my blog were that the case.  While I may know a bit more about film than the next writer, I don’t make it my business to dismiss arguments made on any project.  (I will debate the way a review is framed if I don’t see it as authentic, but that’s small potatoes.)  Though I may know less about features than one of the mainstream press outlet scribes, that doesn’t make my observations any less valid.  It is art, and each of us can have an eye for greatness on any given day in the universe.  Truer words will never be written.
 
This is why I rarely – extremely rarely – give anything other than a mild ‘thumbs up’ or ‘thumbs down’ to friends when asked about something at the box office.  Sure, I might talk about what I enjoyed or disliked; but I’m quick to add the caveat that, “You’d probably have to see it yourself to make up your own mind about it.”  Yes, I might even say that the flick just wasn’t for me, but in the end I always try to position a film as an endeavor that’s worthy of your own opinion.  After all, who am I?
 
Procedurally, I don’t approach writing a film review with any sense of doom or hyperbole.  When I talk about a particular release as I often do on SciFiHistory.Net’s blog, I try to intelligently discuss what the story, direction, and performances did for me.  Even the most cheaply produced piece of cinematic garbage can have a good moment; so why shouldn’t I try to find it, share it, and reward it with a good blurb?  Likewise, even the most expensive Hollywood vanity project might suffer from creative bloat, so why should that escape my criticism?  I always try to be honest with an assessment, and I do make a legitimate attempt to find something worthwhile from a single viewing.
 
So … no … there’s no possible way I or any reviewer can tell you whether or not you should or will like a film.  The best I can do is to discuss what the work meant to me.  Anything more I see as superfluous.  Yes, I do try to give films a recommendation; and I do this based entirely based upon whether I found the flick a worthy investment of our most perishable resource … time.  If it was worth my time, then I believe there may be something in it deserving of your notice as well.
 
Of course, I understand the sentiments most folks share, that they follow a certain reviewer because they’re found some similarity of tastes between them.  And, yes, that’s marvelous!  In fact, that’s fabulous!  If you and X share life experiences to the point that you appreciate the same stories in life, then I’m happy for you … only so long as that relationship doesn’t keep you from seeking out and exploring other events that might make you grow as a person in ways you never thought possible.  This is why I don’t try to find a reviewer I agree with: I’m afraid that coupling might shelter me in ways too harmful to imagine.
 
And no: I don’t expect you to agree with me.
 
-- EZ

​As a practice, I don’t typically get into films like 1989’s Phantom Of The Mall: Eric’s Revenge on SciFiHistory.Net.
 
This isn’t because I don’t like them because that’s far from the truth.  Rather, Phantom is the kind of feature that really only kinda/sorta flirts with SciFi and Fantasy elements in such a soft way, so I don’t see them as real contenders to genre greatness.  Honestly, Phantom is more slasher than anything else.  Thematically, it only circumstantially touches a chord – drawing up some grand comparison to Gaston Leroux’s Phantom Of The Opera (1909) – whereas other films play a symphony of notes.  But because it’s close enough, I decided to give this one a watch and review.  I’m glad I did.
 
Mind you: this is no big budget production.  It’s a small(ish) film, so its investment in developing a metaphor back to the original Phantom is very, very weak.  It isn’t a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it size, but it is trivial by comparison to other features that have put more sizzle to the steak.  At best, it’s pleasant – though occasionally gruesome – if not a bit theatrical.
 
So I’ll dispense with the usual preamble because it really isn’t all that relevant.  Instead, let’s get right to the main feature, shall we?
​

​(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 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 product packaging:
“A year after her boyfriend Eric burns to death in a mysterious fire, Melody vows to put her traumatic past behind her.  But the past isn’t ready to let go.  When Melody and her friends get jobs at the new mall, haunting reminders and inexplicable events begin to occur.  With the help of a newspaper photographer, she learns the truth about Eric and the trail of grisly murders at the mall.”
 
What makes the original Phantom Of The Opera (the book, not the musical) so memorable is the fact that it’s one of those tragic love stories: boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, but – alas – they’re not destined to be.  In comparison, Phantom Of The Mall does pick up on that central premise – Eric (played by Derek Rydall) meets Melody (Kari Whitman aka Playboy Playmate Kari Kennell), they fall in love, etc. – but the circumstances of their parting gets a contemporary, anti-capitalist makeover.  As fate (or a good screenplay) would have it, Eric’s house stood in the wall of the local establishment erecting a state-of-the-art indoor shopping mall; so the boy, his parents, and their home went up with what looked to be the small community’s most fortunate case of arson ever.
 
But like a good neighbor, Eric faked his death so that he could come back a year later and serve as the bloodthirsty thorn in the side to those developers.  He sacrificed his love, his family, and his future … all for the sake of revenge.  And rest assured that the man will stop at nothing to see that Sam Goody, Waldenbooks, and Radio Shack get exactly what’s coming to them!
 
Setting a traditional Horror picture in a mall remains a curious choice.
 
Malls – by design – are not dark and moody places, so director Richard Friedman had his screenwriters working hard at figuring out ways to amp up some of that needed darkness literally and thematically.  The mall’s secreted hallways and air ducts do get a bit of needed exposure; and the writing team ended up giving Eric his own subterranean lair (every Phantom needs one, after all) complete with cable access, a good couch, and a workout space.  (???)  I guess it’s a charming way to convey some of the doom and gloom needed to make all of this work, and I think it’s safe to say that those are the only sequences that truly gelled perfectly in this otherwise lukewarm reimagining.
​

Every tragic hero needs a dastardly antagonist, and this Phantom had a few.  The commercial establishment’s developer, Harv Posner (Jonathan Goldsmith), is the foul-mouthed main baddie hell bent on making a buck, and his crew is rounded out by his equally villainous shoplifter-of-a-son, a trio of crooked cops, and small-town mayor Karen Wilton (Morgan Fairchild).  The downside to their collective spirit is that they spend the bulk of the picture reacting to what Eric is doing – no one really has what I’d call an active role in evildom – and it becomes clear with the increasing body count that none of them are a physical, emotional, or mental match for the disfigured athlete.  Such can be the nature of B-Movies.
 
And when it comes to B-Movies, just how does Phantom match up?
 
Well …
 
Therein lies the problem I had with it.
 
Because this is a smaller picture, I suspect only folks truly committed to Horror have ever heard of it.  The film’s ‘big draw’ was Morgan Fairchild, and her career at the box office was never that expansive to begin with.  In fact, I’d argue that she was far more well known for her work in television, so banking on her participation to put butts in the seats was a risky proposition.  But as Horror releases are already considered “niche,” this Phantom probably needed a bigger script with bigger risks if it was ever going to break out.
 
Alas, even as a Horror feature, it’s fairly tame.  Eric’s victims are mostly deserving of the fate they suffer (one could argue otherwise in a few places), so the emphasis on ‘revenge’ may’ve elevated it above the more mundane competition.  His kills aren’t all that bloody – certainly not by comparison to what, say, Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger accomplished – and I think a case could be made that the film suffered by not properly reveling in the butchery the way other franchises do.  And when one of your villains is as beautiful as – gasp – Morgan Fairchild?  I hope you get the point.  (FYI: she does.)
 
This Phantom played it too safe.  He should’ve come out from behind that mask a bit more often, and he should’ve embraced the theatricality that goes hand-in-hand with being a celebrity killer.  He may not have had a longer reign at the box office, but I guarantee more people would’ve remembered his name.
​

Phantom Of The Mall: Eric’s Revenge (1989) is produced by Fries Entertainment.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by Arrow Video.  As for the technical specifications?  This restoration looks and sounds surprisingly good especially given the fact that there are a handful of sequences shot in extreme darkness; the new balance looks very crisp (in most places), and I suspect this will probably be the ‘go-to’ version for cinema purists for some time.
 
As for the technical specifications?  Again: kudos to Arrow Video for ponying up an incredible package.  While I’m no fan of this specific title, I spent a few hours yesterday with these extras, and even I was impressed at the depth of material.  The disc boasts three different commentary tracks.  (FYI: I’ve only listened to two at this point.)  The first features director Friedman (with a moderator); while it’s good, I felt that the host spent a bit more time discussing subjects just beyond the scope of the film, only bringing things into sharper focus around key moments.  The second features disc producer Ewan Cant and historian Amanda Reyes; it’s a track I wanted to like more than I did – mostly because the two are affable and definitely know their stuff – but, again, far too much time was spent in topics only tangentially related to Phantom.  They honestly allowed whole swaths of the picture to go by without a mention about what was happening, production discussions, etc.  Nice but disappointing.  As is common with Arrow’s limited-edition sets, this is packed with shorts, mini-documentaries, trailers, and the like.  There’s more than enough to explore.  Fabulous.
 
Recommended only for fans of B-Movies or slash films as that’s really all this one has to offer.  Sometimes it’s hard to find something positive to say about a flick, and I had that struggle with Phantom Of The Mall: Eric’s Revenge.  In short, it just struggled to find what it wanted to be.  At times, it appeared to be poking fun at the tropes of Horror and revenge movies, stopping just short of embracing comic sensibilities because none of it was all that funny.  I think the director and screenwriters had an interesting idea worth exploring, but what they ended up collaborating on played it way too safe for a feature about retribution.  A missed opportunity.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Video provided me with a Blu-ray disc of Phantom Of The Mall: Eric’s Revenge (1989) 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

So far as this reviewer is concerned, zombie pictures can be notoriously hit-or-miss.
 
Honestly, I don’t have any qualms with watching or review them.  My preference, however, is to spend time with a ‘walking dead’ picture where the properly zombified suffer their fate with some explanation: I hate there being zombies just for the sake of there being zombies.  I want to know the why and how that our victims have been transformed into this curious state truly between life and death.  What can I say?  I simply find their origins important.  Personally.  Textually.  It increases my enjoyment of the motion picture, and I tend to rate those pictures that dabble in some ‘Horror Science’ more highly than if it’s snubbed.
 
Ahem …
 
That said, 1989’s The Dead Pit kinda/sorta flirts with a reason.  (It may not be a good one, but it’s there.)  From the best I can tell, there’s a mad doctor.  Like some mad doctors do, he’s attempting research into what I believe gets curiously termed “the organic causes of death,” and – as you can guess whether you’ve seen the flick or not – it all goes wrong.  Horribly wrong, even.  ('End Of The World' type crap.)  But there’s also some kinda/sorta mystical aspect to the reanimation that involves the usual sensational trickery (fog, prosthetics, green lighting, and even more fog) thrown in more because audiences have come to expect it from these films than any other reasons.
 
So the straight skinny is that the picture ventures halfway into what I like as a foundation, which probably puts it far enough for me to enjoy it more than I truly should.
 
Color me suitably impressed!
​

(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 product packaging:
“Dr. Ramzi, a deviant who enjoys torturing his patients, is killed by a fellow doctor and buried in the basement of a mental health facility.  Twenty years later, the hospital is up and running again and a ‘Jane Doe’ arrives at the institute with amnesia.  Upon her arrival, a major earthquake rocks the building and unearths the now undead Dr. Ramzi and his legion of zombie patients so he can continue his work.”
 
As imperfect as The Dead Pit is, there’s no denying its irascible charm.
 
So very little of the motion picture makes literal sense – well, except for whatever it postulates as the core for this world existing in the first place and its variable zombie mechanics anyway – but each and every one of its characters embraces the sheer lunacy with the kind of gusto known only to the best B-Movies.  Our Jane Doe – eventually revealed as ‘Sarah’ (played by the lovely Cheryl Lawson) – finds herself trapped in a facility that ends up having a very, very, VERY personal connection; yes, it’s the kind of link that only happens in movies, but that’s what we’re watching anyway, am I right?  The hospital somehow has a basement that mysteriously looks more like a castle dungeon … but it all looks better that way when stuffed with the undead, see?  And why would our master of evil, the late Dr. Ramzi (Danny Gochnauer), truly need to dress his last planned victim – our Jane/Sarah – in a nurse’s uniform (complete with shoes and – ahem – white stockings) for her time spent on his sacrificial altar?
​

​It’s often been said that the best way to enjoy a true zombie picture is to not think too deeply about it, and I suspect that’s a sentiment not lost on writer/director Brett Leonard.
 
The Dead Pit served as the genre director’s cinematic debut – he went on to such projects as The Lawnmower Man (1992), Virtuosity (1995), and Highlander: The Source (2007) – and his potential as an auteur is all over this one, having a small role in it as well as co-writing it (with producer Gimel Everett).  Clearly the picture incorporates enough of the tropes of the zombie genre far and wide that this Pit can be seen as an homage to what’s come before, and the director says as much in the disc’s commentary track.  In fact, Leonard admits to influences from Horror, Dramas, and more in the lively discussion; and I encourage folks who enjoy the flick to spend time with the special feature for even more rewards.  It’s as revealing as it is entertaining.
 
Essentially, this Pit works because all involved make it work, a sentiment embraced by those before and behind the camera.

​Lawson – her first leading role – is an attractive lead; while she may not possess the emotional stuffing required to garner an Academy Award, her work here is admirably ‘blue collar’ – especially for Horror – and she makes the most of it.  The location – Leonard’s commentary discloses it was shot on an actual psychiatric institute – becomes a character in and of itself, adding to the palpable menace required for audiences to buy into the premise.  And the effects crew?  Regular readers of SciFiHistory.Net know of my fondness for practical special and make-up effects; while I could quibble with a handful of individual scenes, the overall effort here is more than enough to ‘sell the sizzle’ that is the zombie aesthetic.  Hats off to the stewards who raised the dead once more!
​

The Dead Pit (1989) is produced by Cornerstone Production Company.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated via Code Red.  As for the technical specifications?  This B-Movie of the late 80’s looks and sounds very good; the packaging indicates this is a new 2K scan from the original negative (with some extensive scene-by-scene correction), and though I’m no visual or video expert I thought it looked solid with only occasionally grain.
 
As for the special features?  I’d have to say this is probably one of the liveliest audio commentaries I’ve had the good fortune to listen to in my lifetime!  Director Leonard, producer Gimel Everett, and star Jeremy Slate clearly had as much fun shooting the flick as they did re-assembling for this commentary.  (The packaging bills it as ‘new,’ but as Everett and Slate have both passed away some time ago I’m figuring this is only ‘new’ to the U.S. marketplace.)  Even better, the disc boasts a handful of interviews (Leonard, Slate, Everett, and star Lawson) which contain much of the same information, though it’s admittedly a bit easier to follow as no ones speaking over one another the way it happens in commentary tracks.  It’s a great collection for fans who enjoy this sort of thing, me included.
 
Recommended.  The thing I love about discovering an older release which somehow has eluded my research is that I get to experience that particular era of filmmaking all over again, almost like it’s brand new.  The Dead Pit – while flawed – has the kind of charm many who grew up in the 80’s expected from our lesser Horror, SciFi, and Fantasy films: it doesn’t have to make much sense because that wasn’t what a film of its type was all about.  Instead, you get to revel in the moment of sometimes clever and sometimes shlocky storytelling.  Also, I rarely stump for commentaries all that much, but this one was a winner: the trio has some fond memories of bringing this to life, and listening to them recount their time together feels like you’re all sitting in a living room reliving it with them.  Very nicely done … though I found it a bit weird that actor Slate actually took a quick phone call during their taping session.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Code Red provided me with a Blu-ray disc of The Dead Pit (1989) 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

When is a murder mystery more than a murder mystery?
 
If we’re speaking in cinematic terms, then the answer would lie with the skill of the craftsman (or craftswoman) behind the camera.  While names like John Ford or Sergio Leone conjure up notions about epic Westerns that helped both define as well as shape the genre, the greatest purveyors of the film mystery is a bit harder to cite; and this is quite possibly owed to the fact that many who dabbled in the solving of a puzzle crossed over into realms of Drama, Comedy, and Horror.  These storytellers typically mashed up different thematic categories in hopes of getting the best of both worlds to combine in ways others simply couldn’t (or didn't) achieve, and audiences rewarded their efforts over and over again at the box office.
 
Examples?
 
Well, Alfred Hitchcock definitely comes to mind.  The England-born writer and director rather famously took his everyman characters and put them through some treacherous paces on the silver screen, so much so that his mysteries look less and less like puzzles and more like cinema thrill rides.  Certainly, the Coen brothers – who’ve crafted such films as Blood Simple (1984), Miller’s Crossing (1990), and Fargo (1996) – have achieved great results with quixotic characters being thrust into dire straits, often times with an ample infusion of blood, menace, and comedy.  Though it would appear that Brian De Palma steered his career away from the more traditional crime stories of his early career – films like Blow Out (1981) and The Untouchables (1987) – no one can deny the director’s signature ‘creeping camera’ style helped move the story along in ways other auteurs only dream about.
 
Where am I going with this, and what – pray tell – does this have to do with Science Fiction and/or Fantasy?
 
As I said, some directors defied the conventions of their generation and their industry, instead choosing to bring whatever elements they chose to a good story.  One such master was Dario Argento.  Instead of compartmentalizing films into particular niches, Argento tended to flavor whatever tapestry he spun with elements of darkness.  He explored the natural and the supernatural.  Sometimes bloody and sometimes macabre, his best and most personal films flirted with ideas not all that different from what the Brothers Grimm or even Edgar Allen Poe explored, stories about people thrust into a chilling nightmare they may or may not emerge from whole.
 
Definitely, Argento left his main character Marcus Daly (as played by David Hemmings) immersed in a pool of blood and perhaps questioning his own sanity in the process in the grand finish to Deep Red (1975) which I’ve recently had the good fortune of screening.
​

​(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 product packaging:
“One night, Marcus Daly, looking up from the street below, witnesses the brutal axe murder of a woman in her apartment.  Racing to the scene, Marcus just manages to miss the perpetrator … or does he?  As he takes on the role of amateur sleuth, Marcus finds himself ensnared in a bizarre web of murder and mystery where nothing is what it seems …”
 
The difficulty in reviewing a landmark presentation like Deep Red (aka The Hatchet Murders) – a singular flick often cited as one of filmdom’s best examples of pure giallo style – is that there’s an awful lot to unpack.

​Visually, the film is dynamic as Argento peppers it with clever theatrics that provide commentary both about motion pictures in general as well as the expectations of those of us who watch them.  Though some sequences feel longer than necessary (a popular criticism applied to Argento as well as the aforementioned Hitchcock and De Palma), I suspect every shot here was exactly what the auteur required in order to convey the magnitude of text and subtext.  Even the music score at times seems to be coming at the material from yet another angle, offering up contrasting styles of jazz, technopop, and metal.
 
See what I mean?

​As I teased in my article’s opening, there’s so much more to this than just a murder and its dastardly culprit, and I’ll have trouble squeezing even the most benign observations into the mix.
 
Because folks in these parts of the Information Superhighway do come expecting my discussion of Science Fiction and Fantasy, I’m going to focus on that particular element of Deep Red for the review.  It may end up seeming inconsequential if not a bit trivial to some, but because Argento continued to make films flirting with the ideas of High Strangeness I think it’s entirely relevant.  This focus, however, will allow me to dispense (at this time) with other subjects that might be a bit esoteric or academic, though as editor I do reserve the right to revisit the work at some later date if I feel so inclined.
​

Chiefly, Deep Red underscores the director’s belief in psychic phenomena, namely one’s ability to read another’s mind.
 
In one of the film’s earliest segments, the audience is introduced to psychic Helga Ulmann (Macha Meril).  The featured speaker at a conference involving the supernatural, Ulmann finds herself psychically assaulted by the film’s villain, presumably a participant in attendance.  Even after the other presenters on stage come to her assistance, the woman is so overwhelmed by bloody impulses that she can no longer continue.  Though the conference ends early, it becomes clear that the murderer will strike again … and it’s only natural that Ulmann become the next victim.

​Why?  She knows a crime has been committed.  She's seen it, albeit in her mind's eye.
 
Wherein other dirctors treat such subject matter with kid gloves, Argento isn’t afraid to bring its possibility front-and-center.  Ulmann’s unique psychic gifts are what define her as a character in this universe, and that makes her as a central target.  If she survives after having read these murderous impulses, then the killer remains at risk.  This telepathy serves as the catalyst to unlock a door  once closed, and the audience is treated to even greater authenticity when it’s shown her continued journaling of these dark thoughts back in her hotel room before she meets her grim demise.
 
Though the wider discussion of telepathy essentially disappears from Deep Red at this point, I wondered if in some small way it continued to percolate in Argento’s mind as the rest of the story continued.

An otherwise uninvolved protagonist, Daly remains fixed on some deep-rooted need to uncover the murderer – yes, it’s clear that he’s at risk because of early involvement, but wouldn’t a normal person simply run away?  Isn’t it a more natural human impulse to flee from impending danger … and yet Daly persists on growing more deeply involved at every turn?  Could his fixation be something greater than a personal moral code … maybe even something supernatural?  Is he in some way ‘linked’ to the evildoer beyond the obvious?
 
Again, I’m not suggesting this was the case as I’ve no way to know.

I’m simply pointing out that Argento’s catalogue of films suggest there’s something more to existence than what we see at face value, and I thought this worthy of pointing audiences in another direction to consider.  Centrally, it's about the possibility that there's more to life than this.  I find it refreshing when storytellers embrace some of what stretches beyond the conventional and works those ideas into their films because -- it's been my experience -- that's how those of us out in Blue Collar Existence see the world-at-large: it's a place sometimes too complicated to understand ... much like Argento's villain.
​

Deep Red (1975) is produced by Rizzoli Film and Seda Spettacoli.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being handled by the superb Arrow Video.  As for the technical specifications?  Wow.  This widescreen presentation looks and sounds absolutely brilliant from start-to-finish.  There was one sequence that, I think, my player ‘chopped’ the audio out completely on first viewing (for a few seconds); I restarted the chapter and it played fine on the second session.  (I’ve noticed that sometimes discs loaded with special features can have some playback issues, but this isn’t all that common, nor do I think it a defect of the presentation; it’s just what sometimes happens with a lot of data.)
 
As for the special features?  Again: wow.  Arrow Video has quickly become the ‘go-to’ source for many of these older/vintage re-releases, especially those deserving of either greater study or widespread appreciation.  The disc boasts a handful of video interviews with various stars (as well as director Argento) and production personnel that are surprisingly lengthy (longer than the all-too-typical five minutes bits).  The chat with Argento and production manager Angelo Iacono were particular good; though the other interviews featured here are nice, I just didn’t see the reflections adding as much depth as did the director and manager’s.  Also, there are a handful of galleries one can spend a fair amount of time with; again, they’re a great addition, but they’re not the kind of thing I’d ever go through another occasion.  Lastly, there are two great commentaries, the better of which (in my opinion) is from Danish screenwriting Thomas Rostock.  His presentation is filled with facts and figures – though occasionally he spends a bit too much time breaking down individual sequence compositions – but it’s all delivered with patience and poise.  The other commentary – this one by author Troy Howarth and producer/cinematographer Nathaniel Thompson – I found occasionally frustrating if not downright puzzling; as the two men clearly know their stuff about film in general (as well as this one in particular), they’re often times speaking so fast to get out their respective thoughts that I found it hard to hear what they were actually saying.  (!!!)  I’ve experienced this before on audio commentaries – usually the ones by film historians can be overblown with content – and someone really needs to work with these behind-the-camera folks to temper either their nerves or their presentation style.  Speaking inaudibly does no one any favors; as much as I enjoyed their dialogue, I could only put up with it for about 70 minutes or a 120+ minute endeavor.  They were just that exhausting.
 
Highly recommended.

​Deep Red is the kind of film I’d imagine film students are watching and writing papers on.  Indeed, I would have – back in my day, that is – though I grew up largely unaware of it.  Our local video store in my hometown really only had the bloodiest entries in the Argento library, and I don’t recall it being on the shelves at the time.  Still, I’m thrilled to have discovered it today as I think it definitely demonstrates that great storytelling isn’t confined to any single country much less any singular storyteller.  Yes, Argento is a master, and this film in particular is worthy of your attention.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Video provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray disc of Deep Red (1975) 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

Like so many Science Fiction and Fantasy fanatics, I grew up fascinated by many related topics, such as UFOs, alien abduction, spontaneous human combustion, the occult, conspiracies, and practically anything else that escaped a conventional explanation.

Back in the days of my distant youth, it was hard to come by quality media that explored such topics.  Most programs gave high strangeness a sugar-coating as TV outlets and production companies of the times still feared a mom-and-pop culture that might rise up against them at any given opportunity and take their business elsewhere if the children were frightened.  As a consequence, I found many shows unnecessarily 'dumbed down' of the facts and instead glossed up so as to avoid confronting a potentially dark reality.  Were ghosts real?  Well, John Q. Television Executive didn't know, but in creating a show to explore the subject he'd inject the scripts with plenty of doubt and humor.  That would distract audiences of the day, and I found much of it a very unsophisticated way of breaching a sophisticated topic.

In fact, I didn't think that it was Fox TV invested so heavily in Chris Carter's The X-Files that Science Fiction and Fantasy embraced the prospect of going mainstream in pursuit of the truth that was out there.  The program's shows never shied away from controversies near and far; and while it occasionally stopped short of proclaiming aliens had visited us both in the near and distant past, the writing staff clearly left the door open to those possibilities and much, much more.  Thankfully, a lot of the programming that followed in X's wake also embraced the wild and weird -- high TV ratings and awards recognition has a way of bursting dams and shattering glass ceilings -- and we've culturally been the beneficiaries of smart and dynamic alternatives ever since.

Which brings me to today's topic ...

This morning, I received a notice regarding 2021's Broadcast Signal Intrusion, a kinda/sorta paranormal-themed drama hatched by Queensbury Pictures and due for distribution via the reliable Dark Sky Films.  (I've had some quality relations with them in the past, so maybe I'll receive a screener to review.  Watch this space, peeps.)  Directed by Jacob Gentry, the film was scripted by Phil Drinkwater and Tim Woodall ... and -- if I'm reading this properly -- its narrative was inspired by real events.  Gentry is no stranger to genre projects: I see from IMDB.com he was responsible (in part) for The Signal (2007) and Synchronicity (2015) -- a time travel yarn with a side of romance.  It does appear that this is Drinkwater and Woodall's first full-length feature, and one never knows what to make of that until the final product is seen.

Also, I'd be remiss if I failed to point out that the flick stars Glee alum Harry Shum Jr.  He's dabbled in genre, as well, with some work aboard the Fantasy-themed Shadowhunters during its three-season run on the Boob Tube.

Details below are provided by the distributor.  As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!
​

My favorite screen detective?
 
That would be Humphrey Bogart in the 1941 screen adaptation of The Maltese Falcon.  It’s a perfect film – certainly a near-perfect adaptation of the source novel – and deserves the top spot on my list.  My second best?  Hmm.  Well, I guess I’d have to give props to Ralph Meeker’s work as Mike Hammer in 1955’s underrated Kiss Me Deadly.  If you pressed me to name a third, then I’d tell you that Dick Powell does a great Philip Marlowe in 1944’s Murder, My Sweet: though the picture varies somewhat from the Raymond Chandler novel, it’s still an interesting interpretation that delivers some wry humor in just the right package.
 
I guess the point I’m trying to make here is that I’ve always considered myself a connoisseur of detective fiction and films.  While I’d never try to pass myself off as any expert on the subject (or any subject, for that matter), I do know a bit more than the average Joe.  I’d hope my knowledge could be put to the challenge of deciphering what makes a good crime noir tick when it should’ve tocked.  You can’t watch these films as often and as many times as I have and learn nothing … or, at least, that’s what my film teachers told me.
 
In any event, there’s a subset of Science Fiction films that dabbles with the private eye, and even a master like Isaac Asimov saw the creative potential as far back as 1953 when he paired up a detective with a robot in The Caves Of Steel.  Purists will tell you that the novel is considered part of the author’s Robot Series; and, in 2004, the book was nominated for a retroactive Hugo Award For Best Novel (1954).  So if Asimov’s in your court regarding the crime procedural, then you know you’re in good company!
 
2021’s Reminiscence tries very hard to capitalize on these possibilities.  It takes the tired-but-true ‘knight in shining armor’ of the past, covers him in the requisite emotional baggage, and transports him into a world of tomorrow that doesn’t function all that different from the 1940’s or 1950’s … well, except for some of the usual set trappings that go hand-in-hand with what Hollywood thinks looks like good Science Fiction … or, at least, good enough to pass it off as SciFi on an unsuspecting audience.
 
Instead of taking us forward, it reminisced a bit too much about today, sending us backward … a bit of a miss, if you ask this guy.
​

(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 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 product packaging: “Nick Bannister, a private investigator of the mind, navigates the past by helping his clients access lost memories.  His life is forever changed when he takes on a new client, Mae.  As Bannister fights to find the truth about her disappearance, he uncovers a violent conspiracy and must answer the question: How far would you go to hold on to the ones you love?”
 
There’s an inherent risk to telling stories about fractured reality: once the science behind how the past gets explored has been clearly established, viewers watching closely start to peel back the layers of the narrative.  Most likely, they’ll start challenging the story as presented, and this has the film falling like a house of cards.
 
In some ways, flashbacks are very much akin to playing a film within a film: eventually, what’s real and what’s imagined lose the substance that makes them separate and identifiable.  Reminiscence – as good as it is when it’s good – avoids the trappings of its Science Fiction idea, instead bringing into focus Bannister (played by Hugh Jackman), his rocky partnership with Mae (Thandiwe Newton), and his real-world investigation into Mae (Rebecca Ferguson) and her illicit past.  Though the construct of trafficking in memories is interesting and occasionally handled well in writer/director Lisa Joy’s film, it just never rose beyond the level of visual trickery to be more than just … well … nifty.
 
Alas, Joy herself has burned through much shoe leather in the realm of manufacturing ‘gotcha’ fiction: I’m somewhat notorious in these parts for separating HBO’s Westworld (for which she serves as producer and writer) from its bloated reputation for “great” storytelling.  What others have found “incisive” and “revelatory” I’ve called “predictable” and even “incoherent.”  This isn’t to discount any of the series’ ideas because I do so very much love tales that focus on the challenges of not only developing Artificial Intelligence but also living with it; rather it’s just to suggest that the award-winning program isn’t nearly as competent nor interesting as AMC’s Humans, a program that accomplished vastly more (with much less) than Westworld likely ever will.  Why?  Because it’s about people and robots not so much in contest with one another but surviving the fact that they will have to share the same space.
 
Westworld is about the fight for dominance; Humans is about acceptance.

​Big narrative difference.
​

​Joy does much with Reminiscence that she’s already shown capable of in Westworld, namely taking several SciFi ideas, mashing them together, casting some pretty faces, and then spinning some yarn.  She’s even brought aboard a handful of Westworld’s regulars to populate this tale; though they play different characters here, it’s almost as if she’s suggesting that these worlds could co-exist in some wider cinematic universe.  Truth be told, the HBO series has rather heavily already tinkered extensively with memory in ways not all that different from this film; and I’m a bit surprised that perhaps no one counseled the woman against too similar subject matter? Others might see this as a strength, but I see it as a weakness.  Separate products should be able to stand on their own; if they can’t, then are they really worth it?
 
Setting those complaints aside, Reminiscence is good though a bit wet at times.  Jackman delivers a disarmingly good world-weary detective, and Newton clearly understands the responsibilities of serving as his partner in Joy’s story.  They’re two halves of one whole – she’s the ‘Watts’ (aka Watson) to his Sherlock – and her skepticism is a perfect foil to his professional sarcasm.  Ferguson is good as the damsel with a secret, but I didn’t buy her character’s somewhat nefarious past: it just wasn’t written nor delivered with much conviction, at least not to the level required for me to suspend my disbelief.  The script is peppered with enough hard-boiled sentiment to make dime novel author Mickey Spillane proud, though he probably would’ve liked a few more fisticuffs thrown in here and there for good measure.  Cliff Curtis turns in a mixed performance as a crooked cop, and Daniel Wu is utterly wasted in a role so stereotypical it’s quite possibly a hate crime.
 
As for the world as depicted?  Meh.  Joy again represses anything original and instead resorts to popular convention, showing a U.S. coastline succumbing to Global Climate Something-Or-Other, a development that turns Miami into the kinder, gentler version of Kevin Costner’s Waterworld.  Bannister walks everywhere with his nice, leather shoes parading in ankle-deep water (are they ignorant in the future about the damage to good shoes or did Jackman himself nix the galoshes?).  Taxis are handily replaced by boats.  Honestly, I was watching closely for gill people to turn up somewhere along the way, but thankfully there was some restraint in pilfering what had been done before.
 
You’ve heard of Chinatown?  This was a bit … Tunatown.  Good, but undeniably fishy.
 
Plus, can you imagine the deafening outcry from Feminists if a man had written a script wherein the female/victim of the story has to go to the male/hero of the story to ask for help finding her keys?  Why, womens’ groups would’ve picketed this film into the Stone Age!  Oh, the misogyny!
 
And that’s a crying shame because in its core Reminiscence has a few good ideas, most of them limited to single lines here and there.  (FYI: the best detective novels are written much the same.)  Memories fade, and perhaps they fade for a reason, the audience is told.  If they didn’t, then we’d spend our days living inside our minds where are best moments have already taken place, leaving us ignorant to seeking out and exploring even better ones.  That’s the sentiment that propels the film when it’s working with material worthy of being explored.  Somewhere submerged under all that water are some moments not so waterlogged; I just wish Joy and her cast and crew spent more time bringing those to the surface and letting them dry in the sun.
​

Reminiscence (2021) is produced by FilmNation Entertainment, Kilter Films, and Michael De Luca Productions.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being handled via Warner Bros.  As for the technical specifications?  Wow.  So much of the film looks and sounds very, very good; lines are sharp, scenes are vivid, and the audio tracks are key in bringing this particular ‘science’ to life.  Very well done.  As for the special features?  Argh.  As tends to happen all-too-often these days, these produced shorts fell far more ‘promotional’ than ‘educational’ in nature, and that’s the case here.  There is a modest amount of dialogue about the challenges of the production; it’s nice but being the kind of ‘insider’ I am I wish there were more.
 
Recommended.

​Love a good Science Fiction story?  Great.  Love a good detective story?  Even better.  Reminiscence is a serviceable blend of the two unique genres, but in all honesty it really only flirts with the conventions of both.  The science depicted here could’ve easily been removed and replaced with traditional detective work, and the same results could’ve been achieved.  Though Jackman fills the shoes respectfully of, say, a contemporary Humphrey Bogart, a few of his discoveries were a bit too contrived to be authentically ‘gumshoe.’  (How does he find one single, solitary earring in the veritable sea outside his office building?)  It’s best to think of this film as the clone of better ones – you lose a bit of quality with each subsequent copy – in order to quell any major disappointment.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Warner Bros. provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray disc of Reminiscence (2021) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it. 

​-- EZ

​Have I ever told you of my love for Escape From New York (1981)?
 
I know, I know, I know.  You think I’m gonna wax on about legendary Horror director John Carpenter, but I’m not … well, suffice it to say that – contrary to the opinions of so many others – I’ve always argued that this nifty little SciFi/Thriller is the director’s best film.  (Sorry, folks, just being honest, and I’ve always said I’ll be honest to a fault.)  It’s the perfect bottle-story set-up – a captured criminal is promised his freedom in exchange for rescuing a U.S. President whose plane has crashed deep inside America’s only remaining maximum security prison – and it’s executed flawlessly from start-to-finish.  Snake Plissken (played by Kurt Russell) is the quintessential anti-hero who’ll stop at nothing to save his skin but will never sacrifice his soul in the risky proposition.
 
Escape’s audience has always shuffled between mainstream and cult – probably owed to both Carpenter and Russell’s appeal – and Hollywood has several times attempted to remake the feature.  (Thankfully, all legitimate efforts have failed to this point in cinematic history.)  Me?  Well, I prefer that they’d all leave well enough alone – a classic remains a classic – but every now-and-then someone comes along, picks up the central premise, and gives it a whirl.  You know what most folks groan about Tinseltown?  Originality is dead.
 
Well, Prisoners Of The Ghostland seems to have given it another whack.  Though I can’t say for sure anyone involved with the production truly intended to channel the Carpenter film, the similarities are undeniably there.  One-time critical darling Nicolas Cage fills the shoes of the role once played by Russell (a good choice), and the viewers are given the lovely Bernice (Sofia Boutella) in lieu of the President.  Whereas Plissken’s body was injected with explosives set to detonate in twenty-two hours, Cage’s Hero had five days to complete his mission (inflation?), but I trust you get the point.
 
Was it all worth the effort?
 
That’s not so simple an answer.
​

(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 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 product packaging: “In the treacherous frontier city of Samurai Town, a ruthless bank robber is sprung from jail by a wealthy warlord, The Governor, whose adopted granddaughter, Bernice, has run away.  Strapped into a leather suit that will self-destruct within five days if he doesn’t find the missing girl, the bandit sets off on a journey to find the young woman – and his own path to redemption.”
 
To be fair, I’m not sure any advertising executive worth his weight in gold could pen a better plot synopsis for a feature like Ghostland.  Though its premise is straightforward, how the Sion Sono-directed motion picture gets from Point A to B is more than a bit chaotic and probably defies convention.
 
For example, the first thought I had upon finishing my screening of it was: “Does Ghostland actually exist?”
 
Clearly within the constructs of the narrative here, it does, but there’s an obvious nebulousness to just where and how one gets to it, almost as if to say only the truly fractured can enter its boundaries.  (It’ll make more sense if you’ve seen it … I hope.)  Because of the ethereal quality of it all, I couldn’t help but wonder precisely how much I am to make of this shared journey.  Did it happen, or is life but a dream?  Storytellers have been known to tweak their various presentations of reality, and I suspect that’s the case here: look no further than the title, am I right?  Ghost-land?
 
Still, positioning Ghostland as a kind of hyper-reality fairy tale doesn’t help it make any more sense.  Yes, yes, yes, I get its vibe – perhaps were all trapped within a dream – but at some point even the deepest sleeper wakes up and tries to make sense of the visions, and that’s where I think the film just went overboard only for the sake of going overboard.  I want my equations to add up to the sum of their parts; instead, I thought Ghostland left us with ghosts.  Alas, there’s nothing real as its central message.
 
Oh, there are plenty of interesting images and clever ditties to distract along the way.  Samurai Town – its residents and its neon-lit corners – is a Vegas-like attraction, standing as a stark, commercial alternative to the bleak and desolate Ghostland, so it’s entirely understandably why we, culturally, are more drawn to it.  Life takes many shapes and sizes on the outside, but inside?  Why, Ghostland’s carnival attraction of women is little more than female victims adorned with the pieces remaining of supposedly prettier mannequins.  Sono’s clever bit of symbolism poses many questions, perhaps the biggest of which is “Why do we bury true beauty under an exterior of falseness?”
​

​Honestly, I’d ask him the same question, as far too much of his film is shackled with endless symbolism without any understandable context.
 
The people of Ghostland spend the bulk of their days fighting back the ticking of a massive clock in the town square.  Why?  Is that supposed to represent how we live our days pushing back against an inevitable ending?  Should we, instead, embrace time, treat it not as an enemy but as a friend, and while away our days living in the moment?  It’s a reasonable supposition … but is that the film’s message?  I’ve no way to know, but were that the case then what am I to make of Hero?  He’s tortured by the memory of a bank heist gone horribly wrong – not by his actions – and it eventually inspires him to make different choices as a character.  He’s not living in the moment … so why should I?
 
I’ve written this before, and now I’ll write it again: symbolism without context is visual gibberish.
 
If there’s no clear anchor to the images, then I’m free to make of it what I will.  While some might find such freedom honorable, I’ve always been confused by it.  Hero’s story isn’t my story, and without the proper barometer supplied so that I can measure his experiences I have no choice but to substitute what I deduce instead of that which was intended by either the director or screenwriter.  I’d rather walk away from a film knowing what I was to make of it as designed by those telling the story.  Director Tim Burton does a mostly masterful job of matching up his imagery with his messages, and Sono could use a tutorial.  In the end, I’ve no idea of what to make of it all … but it sure was pretty to look at!
 
Ghostland contains a fabulous sequence in its big finale.  Hero and Samurai Town’s top enforcer – Yasujiro (Tak Sakaguchi) – face-off in a no-holds-barred deathmatch in the village square.  As Fate would have it, they’ve found themselves not only at odds with each other but also with members of a rival gang who have a bone to pick with the revered samurai.  Sono stages this contest with our two warriors battling one another while also assisting each other in fighting off those who would do them shared harm.  And it’s cinematic brilliance!  First, they’re enemies … then they’re allies … then they’re rivals again!
 
In retrospect, I think that’s how I felt about Sono’s film and whatever message he may’ve wanted me to take away from the effort.  At times, I felt like we were in sync, but in the end we were opponents.
 
Sad.  And here I thought we were supposed to be friends?
​

Prisoners Of The Ghostland (2021) is produced by Patriot Pictures, Eleven Arts, Baked Studios, and a few others.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being handled via RLJE Films.  As for the technical specifications?  It all looks and sounds solid from start-to-finish, and the flick is loaded with striking visuals and an effective soundtrack.  As for the special features?  Meh.  The making-of short is far too short and offers (honestly) a bare bones approach to documentary polish, feeling a bit too much like a bloated commercial than it did an honest behind-the-scenes.  With something this interesting, I would’ve liked a bit more … but that’s how my momma raised me, I guess.  Disappointed.
 
Recommended but I’m gonna be honest: you have to appreciate something truly bizarre in order to embrace all of Prisoners Of The Ghostland’s lunacy.  It has only a mild character arc for star Cage, and I could argue even what there is makes very little sense.  Too much of the story and characters are bizarre simply for the sake of being bizarre.  The viewer has no choice but to make of it what he will, and that’s a dangerous precipice to rest this gonzo celebration of the truly weird upon if you ask me.  I prefer my insanity make more sense.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at RLJE Films provided me with a Blu-ray disc of Prisoners Of The Ghostland (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