I have to confess that my interest in both watching and reviewing Jacques Deray’s crime thriller Borsalino was entirely selfish.
 
On occasion, I’ve mentioned some of my other interests on SciFiHistory.Net.  As a longtime student of film, I obviously gravitate toward Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror – along with anything noir and neo-noir – but my fascinations don’t stop there.  As one who has done more than a fair share of reading on crime – in particular, just about anything emerging as a serious study of American Prohibition and the early days of gangsterism draws my attention – I’d heard of Borsalino but never had the good fortune of seeing it.  Given the fact that it takes place in the 1930’s and delivers a tale based on the real-life exploits of mobsters Francois Capella and Roch Siffredi, I just couldn’t pass up this opportunity when it came to me via a distributor relationship.
 
So … no.  Absolutely no.  It has nothing to do with Science Fiction or Fantasy or Horror.  And – being frank – it has no noir sensibilities combined in visual crafting of it for the screen, much like Martin Scorsese or Brian De Palma might incorporate in their various projects.  For the most part, Barsalino is a reasonably conventional crime/drama … but it does boast two of the coolest leading man performances in that unique sub-genre, making it arguably a theatrical feature worth a reflection by yours truly.
 
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
 
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“In 1930 Marseilles, two small-time crooks join forces when they meet brawling over a woman.  Starting with fixed horse races and fights, they start to find themselves doing jobs for the local gangster bosses.  When they decide to go into the business for themselves, their easy-going approach to crime starts to change.”
 
As I highlighted above, crime stories have long been a leisure-time pursuit for me; and – having read about many of them over the years – Borsalino has often dropped onto my radar.  In fact, it’s the kind of performance that is almost always mentioned in the same breath as George Roy Hill’s seminal Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid (1969) – a flick I don’t like nearly as much as all of mankind, it would seem – because of the many tonal and aesthetic similarities.  You have two charismatic leads.  You have both humorous and dark reflections on acts of crime.  And there’s a growing sense of unease along the way that eventually both pairs are going to either run out of luck or bullets at the worst possible time.  While the conclusions are similar, Borsalino only goes halfway (snicker snicker) to achieving what Cassidy and Sundance do in their swan song, paving the way for what I’ve been told is an inferior sequel – Borsalino And Co. (1974) – that lacked so much of the charm that made the original pairing a success with audiences.
​

For those who don’t know, actors Jean-Paul Belmondo (as Capella) and Alain Delon (as Siffredi) were already established impressive box office names of the day when writer/director Jacques Deray went about the business of crafting an intellectual property worthy of their shared attention.  Though the two talents had shared the screen in small and negligible ways before, they, too, were hungry for the opportunity to collaborate.  Alas, I’ve also read that – once the filming was done – Delon became more than a bit obsessed with his producer’s responsibilities, allegedly trying to bolster his own screen presence while suppressing some of the chemistry that made him and his partner movie magic.
 
And – yes, for what it’s worth – the two have a magnetism that elevates the film and clearly helped it gain popularity with audiences who’ve discovered it around the world.  (Wikipedia.org reports that Borsalino never achieved the attention producers hoped in America, a shame given the fact that Paramount Pictures apparently financed a great degree of the effort.)  Much like Cassidy and Sundance, it’s damn near impossible to conceive of two other actors in these central roles; Belmondo and Delon achieve nothing short of shared brilliance in every scene.  Delightfully, there’s an effortlessness to the chemistry, and a film fan like me can’t imagine a day these two men couldn’t make nice and get along.  Their work exudes the coolness required of mobster portrait, and I think it should be required viewing for anyone even considering like-minded fare.
 
Setting aside my praise, I’d have to point out that I wasn’t a fan of the score.  Much of this is backed by a tinny mechanical piano – tunes played out with a sense of mirth if not childlike fascination – and that seems all wrong.  While some of their criminal acts early on have a tongue-in-cheek feel, the picture grows increasingly dark, and the central idea about change really need to be punctuated with something perhaps more symphonic and less wry.  That kind of thing worked just fine for the other Redford/Newman pair-up The Sting (1973) mostly because such a great deal of it was comic.  Perhaps Deray should’ve hired someone other than Claude Bolling for this or, minimally, had pushed the composer for something a bit more perceptive.
 
Yet – as mentioned – change remains the undercurrent that propels so very much of this particular story.  The criminals start out as essentially harmless charlatans engaging in acts at the behest of some true gangland heavies; as the story grows, so does Capella and Siffredi’s desire for a piece of the action (as they say), and this necessitates they up their game to the point of using sharp points and blazing lead in lieu of harmless kidnapping and harsh words.  Once the society they move within begins to follow suit, it becomes clear that they’ve found themselves on a path few escape with their lives.  Though a dark fate befalls only one of our beloved pair, it’s clear that survival will always be a game played at great risk.
 
Borsalino (1970) was produced by Adel Productions, Marianne Productions, and Mars Film.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Arrow Films.  As for the technical specifications?  Though I’m no trained video expert, I thought that the sights-and-sounds to this presentation were all very good; I’ve searched online and can’t find any indication of this being a re-mastering, so apologies if it was and I’m not mentioning it.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  The disc boasts an audio commentary by Josh Nelson (very dry so I didn’t finish it), some featurettes exploring costumes and music, the theatrical trailer, and an image gallery.  It’s a good assortment but nothing all that grand.
 
Recommended.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray copy of Borsalino (1970) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review.  Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

​-- EZ

Good morning, gentle readers ... and welcome to Friday!  Whoop!  Whoop!  Whoop!  We've made it through another week yet again!

One of you wonderful smilers reached out and asked if I had stopped doing these daily promotion tweets.  In case you missed it, there hadn't been one for a few days.  The truth is that, no, I haven't, but I don't do them every single day.  Granted, it's a laudable goal to have one up on each and every day -- if for no other reason than to do some rather obvious self-promotion -- but I'm not entirely certain that's necessary.  Take a gander at the average day, and you'll likely see (as I have) that some of them may not have any person, place, movie, show, or other that's requiring a bit extra in written fashion from yours truly.  I like keeping these announcements with a bit of greater purpose, and -- as a consequence -- some days just don't quite move me yet.

​Yesterday, I did manage to get up a review regarding the latest Horror release, Spoonful Of Sugar.  (Link)  It's quite an entertaining flick, especially as it deals with some solid performances by all of the principle players.  I'd encourage folks to give it a look -- both the film and my review.  As Horrors go, I think it's safe to suggest that it may not be for everyone: it's more of a psychological thriller than anything else -- its traditional Horror elements are a bit light.  But the execution is very good, and I think those who like twist endings might be tickled with how it all turns out.
​

Yes, yes, and yes: I couldn't let the day slip past so quickly without giving my full-throated endorsement to this wonderful feature.  Quatermass And The Pit (aka Five Million Years To Earth) is a fabulous film, and it means a bit more to me than most because it's one of the earliest Science Fiction flicks I can remember discovering on television when I was a wee one.  It was one of these 10:30 pm airings, and I had the good fortune of running across it and staying up late to watch the dark magic unfold.  Because I was so young, it may not have made perfect sense to me (the story is a bit layered at times, and I recall some confusion over a few how's and why's); and yet it was the kind of storytelling that resonated with my young soul.

In fact, I wrote a bit about the feature (link) last year after I picked it up on home video.  It's the kind of thing I'll likely revisit again and again in my lifetime, maybe even taking a bit more space here at SciFiHistory.Net to sing its praise at every opportunity.  I realize that it may not be for everyone, and still I'll always recommend it to folks who haven't given it the chance to inspire.  Lastly, Quatermass is an institution amongst the British folks: this brainy scientist gets revisited from time-to-time, making him a charater worth a deep dive.

If you haven't seen it, then wait no longer.  Watch it today.
​

That's all I have for now, folks.  I might have a review up later today -- I watched an older crime thriller yesterday, and I'm mulling it over as I type this -- so keep your eyes peeled.

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

​-- EZ

All the way back to the days of Oedipus Rex himself, dramas have been exploring the curious relationship between the mother and the son.
 
Of course, the mere mention of Oedipus – and the corresponding psychological issues covered by the Oedipus Complex – might conjure up the sentiment that such relationships only offer negative prospects; but nothing could be further from the truth.  A good number of films, novels, and stories have shown that there is plenty of benefits to having a strong, nurturing, and supportive mother rearing her male child in ways that produced – eventually – an adult capable of interacting with society-at-large.  Still, that stereotype of mothers messing up their sons persists, especially as it applies to wives rehabilitating their new husbands to precisely how the house is going to be run.  While a good deal of this is more likely intended as playful poking and prodding, let us all never forget that there’s a grain of truth in every rumor.
 
Horror is the genre that probably gets the best mileage out of exploring the dark side of mother/son bonding as there have been a great number of entries that have used this backdrop to ratchet up the fears of men and women alike.  In this regard, 2022’s Spoonful Of Sugar amps up some of the tension by centering on the performances of two ladies – the biological mother and an emotionally-scarred nanny – as they find themselves torn between the love of a young boy and a philandering father.  Because this is Horror, there’s further spice added to this experience, but it never strays far from the central question of just what it takes to create a lasting connection between the momma bear and her growing cub … especially when all involved are already balancing the demands of other, less acceptable appetites.
 
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
 
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Millicent is taking a semester off from her studies to concentrate on her thesis about children with severe allergies, which makes her the perfect person to take care of little Johnny, a sickly, mute child who suffers from every allergy under the sun, from nickel to artificial fabric.  His overbearing mother, Rebecca, is an accomplished author who is focused on her latest book release, while his dissatisfied father, Jacob, spends sweaty, shirtless days toiling away on a carpentry project in the backyard.”
 
For those who’ve heard of her, Mary Poppins – as played by screen legend Julie Andrews and featured in the 1964 film of the same name – became society’s quintessential role model for nannies across decades.  In the famed musical, Andrews sang that all it took was a “spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down,” and – certainly – there’s more than a bit of passing irony in titling this 2022 Horror/Thriller with similar sentiments.  Whereas Poppins was – quite literally – talking about using sugar, her contemporary child-rearing counterpart Millicent (played by Morgan Saylor who is damn ravishing here as the ‘poison ivy’ character) prefers Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (aka LSD) to accomplish the same.  And, yes, to add a bit of insult to injury, young Millie is – quite literally – spiking a child’s medicine with LSD!
 
How do you like them apples, Walt Disney?
​

Naturally, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to suspect that young Johnny (Danilo Crovetti) is all too happy to come out of his self-imposed shell, even going so far as uttering his first words in a relatively short existence: in his chemically-fueled stupor, he inappropriately refers to the nanny as “mommy,” an event that sets off a rather dark emotional spiral for his biological mother Rebecca (Kat Foster in a great nuanced portrait of a supposed professional slowly unraveling) and real father Jacob (Myko Olivier).
 
But because this is Horror – and Horror can never be content with such prosaic circumstances – there’s far more to uncork in this smart potboiler from director Mercedes Bryce Morgan and screenwriter Leah Saint Marie.  Millicent, it would seem, is the product of the flawed foster care system; and she’s harboring more than just her secret penchant for hallucinogens.  In fact, the rather bookish young woman has a small trail of bodies in her past – failed foster pairings have given her no choice but to murder those who’ve made her like only increasingly difficult.  More than a bit unbalanced, she’ll stop at nothing to fill that void in her cosmic soul by ‘adopting’ Johnny as her very own as well as seducing Jacob into giving her the sexual attention she so desperately craves.
 
Oh … if it all stopped there …
 
As I said, this is Horror, so audiences can rest assured nothing so conventional would ever suffice.  At this point, Morgan and Marie truly crack open the nuthouse into one ghastly reveal after another.  Millicent’s flexible moral code and the desire to complete herself only encourages the broken young woman to take more desperate measures, even going so far as to encourage the child to turn violent on his mother.  Those watching closely might suspect that this isn’t the boy’s first rodeo – so to speak – as the signs are present with increasing alarm.  And since the apple never falls far from the tree, Millie should’ve given this young couple a closer examination, and even she might’ve seen the signs reminding her that there’s always – always – a bigger mousetrap.
 
Still, Sugar works – and goes down – easily for those of us who appreciate what the genre does with such stories and their accompanying characters.  However, I’d encourage folks to keep in mind that given entirely what’s learned I suspect – in reality – such a bloody affair would’ve been caught if not suspected much earlier.  When young folks – those with plenty of friends and families – go missing, there are usually pals concerned, the kind who’ll even turn over a few stones on their own to find out what happened.  That doesn’t appear to be the case in this small(ish) town – in fact, there’s apparently zero interest anywhere – and that’s just a bit of a narrative buzzkill.
 
In the finale, there’s definitely more to think about than merely girl power gone bad, but the closing scenes certainly leave one with the suggestion that the family that slays together stays together.
 
Spoonful Of Sugar (2022) was produced by Vanishing Angle.  According to a quick Google.com search, the film is presently available for rental on a variety of streaming platforms including Roku, Spectrum TV, and Amazon’s Prime Video.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert, I thought that the film’s various sights-and-sounds were exceptional; there are a few moments of drug-affected lucidity that might require viewers to watch closely to catch them all, so be warned.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  As I viewed this via streaming, there were no extras to consider.
 
Recommended.
 
Of any genre, Horror is the one that requires the greatest suspension of disbelief for the audience, and Spoonful Of Sugar – reasonably predictably – is no different.  Once you get past the nagging reality that these events likely couldn’t unfold without police intervention, then you’re left with an otherwise effective potboiler about just how far two women will go to find both love and acceptance from the men in their respective lives.  And it’s only in the realm of Horror that the central lesson can be learned: all mommy needed to do to connect with her troubled son was to go a little homicidal.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Shudder provided me with complimentary streaming access to Spoonful Of Sugar by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review.  Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

​-- EZ

As I've opined before, one of the less fortunate tasks of monitoring All Things Genre is having to break the news of our beloved talent passing away, and such is the case this morning as word has reached the World Wide Web regarding the much celebrated actor Michael Gambon.  He wasn't someone all that commonly associated with the realms of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror, but he does leave behind some wonderful contributions worthy of mention today ... maybe even a few more than the casual reader might expect in a career built on 172 different screen credits.

In 1974, he enjoyed a small role aboard the Horror/Mystery that was The Beast Must Die from Amicus Productions.

In 1999, he earned a bit more screen time as one of the folks troubled by Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow.

In 2004, he definitely put both feet into the Fantastic with a plum role aboard the fondly-remembered Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow.

... but it was in 2005 that he took on the big part of 'Albus Dumbledore' in the Harry Potter franchise, and this likely the work for which he'll be lauded by fans of a certain generation.  In this property, he served up some excellent acting in Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire (2005), Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix (2007), Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince (2009), Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010), and Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011).

Of course, there were a few others -- quite a few, in fact -- but I'm perhaps fondest of what the man could do on screen with his appearance as 'Kazran Sardick,' the Eboneezer Scrooge of Doctor Who's delightful "A Christmas Carol," arguably one of that franchise's very, very, very best holiday specials.

Prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Mr. Gambon.  May he forever rest in peace.

​-- EZ

I grew up in a small town in the middle of absolutely nowhere.
 
Whenever I’ve mentioned that, some readers have said the same, and – every now and then – a few of them have even swapped stories about their small-town life.  Some of these experiences are quaint and/or humble while others might elicit some laughter and/or head-scratching as to how any of us ever got out alive.  What’s usually missing from their tales, however, is any sense of violence or thuggery that was sadly common in my little corner of youth.  A former mecca of industry, the place had bred some hard individuals, the type of which didn’t go quietly into the night when big companies pulled out of the Midwest for other, more accessible locations.  Their frustration turned to some pronounced anger, at times, and the stark reality of their circumstances produced a good number of bullies – men and women who tended to raise only more bullies – so it wasn’t exactly Mayberry to me, if you understand the reference.
 
Growing up being surrounded by bullies – when you’re a bit of a creative soul like I was – is no easy thing.  You find ways to ‘get along’ as you can, but – more often than not – you end up simply trying to avoid the people with established track records of making life difficult.  This wasn’t always easy to do, so I did what I could to learn the lessons available to me in hopes that I’d eventually put it all to good use once I was out and about in the wide, wide world beyond those four corners.
 
This upbringing is not all that dissimilar from the experiences of the married couple Antoine and Olga aboard Rodrigo Sorogoyen’s Neo-noir/Drama The Beasts (2022) from Arcadia Motion Pictures.  This loving and not-necessarily-progressive pair find their dream home is far from idyllic in the rural village of Galicia.  Their rustic, backwoods existence gets interrupted – first by investors looking for property ripe for development of wind farms and then by neighbors angered when the pair refuse to sell – and their commitment to one another and their land sets off a chain of events that proves small town life is very, very, very far from perfect.
 
It can be downright deadly.
 
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
 
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“In this edge-of-your-seat thriller, an expatriate French couple operate an organic farm in the Spanish countryside but clash with villagers.”
 
There is far more to this story than that synopsis explains.
 
Well over two hours in run-time, The Beasts definitely takes great strides to both define its small cast of characters as well as the collective circumstances that unfold over the course of some time.  Simply put, this is not your typical motion picture exploring the complexities of small-town existence or the simplicity of ‘living off the land.’  These are folks who have been both moved and shaped by the harshness of their environment and its isolation as well as they have by rightness or wrongness of their own choices.  There are no cookie-cutter solutions here, despite one man’s insistence that he could’ve found prosperity off the meager fortune a quick decision could’ve netted.  Raised in an almost unforgiving backwater teaches one to do what’s necessary to not only survive but get ahead, and these are the politics making this Peyton Place about as dangerous as a New York City slum alley after midnight.
​

Thematically, The Beasts feels similar to some of the grittier works of the Coen Brothers, Martin Scorsese, or even Quentin Tarantino.  While there may not be nearly as much bloodshed in it as those American directors have used, the flick both clearly establishes the viability of such dark deeds early on and keeps the pot boiling potently through its finale.  In fact, the significant difference between this Spanish production and many a Western equivalent might be the fact that – minimally – there is a sense of righteous justice in the last reel.  What can I say?  Americans aren’t always looking for silver linings.  Upon finishing my screening, I was immediately reminded of the Kevin Costner film – Let Him Go (2020) – wherein the aging lawman and his dutiful wife brush up against a brutish matriarch and her violent children crazy enough to do things that might make Horror’s Texas family with chainsaws blush.
 
Suffice it to say, The Beasts is not a film to be taken lightly.
 
To a degree, you’re dealing with a Hatfields & McCoys’ level of dastardliness here; and the brothers Xan (played by Luis Zahera) and Lorenzo (Diego Anido) mean business when they give you a piece of neighborly advice.  What starts out as shenanigans rather quickly evolves into some lethal skullduggery, leaving our leads with no effective legal recourse nor local police with the resources to do anything effective.  They are, in fact, the very beasts of the film’s title, proving without a doubt that animals left to roam free and do as they please – without the normal restraints of society and conscience – will eventually escalate into areas saner minds simply don’t contemplate much less consider.  Theirs is an existence that knows no true happiness, choosing instead to fill it with whatever whim serves their appetites best in the heat of the moment.
 
Thankfully, the film is strengthened by Marina Foïs incredible performance as Olga.  Even in the face of the direst circumstances, she remains the dutiful wife – well after the loss of her husband – who refuses to cower to bullies and ne’er-do-wells.  When the wheels are justice won’t spin as they should, she continues in the face of adversity to push her own mission forward.  It’s only through her staunch commitment to the man she loved that the audience receives a glimmer of hope that maybe the world can be a different – but not ‘better’ – place.
 
Lastly, I’d be remiss in my responsibilities if I failed to mention that The Beasts was the recipient of an astonishing wealth of positive praise across a vast spectrum of the entertainment industrial complex.  As of today’s date (per IMDB.com), the film has garnered an incredible fifty-seven wins – with another 32 nominations – and that is impressive, indeed.  Festival audiences and industry organizations have loved what they’ve seen, and that fact alone might serve enough notice for interested parties to check this one out.  It’s a tad slow burning – taking great pains to establish its characters and circumstances – and it’s very disturbing at times … but it’s a powerful picture exposing the darkness that hides in some men’s souls.
 
The Beasts (2022) was produced by Arcadia Motion Pictures, Caballo Films, Cronos Entertainment, Le Pacte, Latido Films, and several other participants.  (A full accounting of all partners is available on IMDB.com for readers who like that kind of minutiae.)  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the fine folks at Kino Lorber.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert, I thought that the sights and sounds to this whole production were incredible; no expense was spared in captured the various moods in this sometimes-picturesque settings.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  Alas, there was nothing extra to consider … a big disappointment.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Kino Lorber provided me with a complimentary DVD of The Beasts (2022) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review.  Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

​-- EZ

“These are the times that try men’s souls …” – Thomas Paine
 
Folks, I’ll likely go to my grave – blue in the face – from exhaustion at having to explain over and over and over again that it’s not the job of any television or movie critic to make an audience like or dislike any individual property.  While I think that this might be a reality lost on the average reader, it’s still about as fundamental a truth as is ‘the sky is blue,’ ‘the night is dark,’ and ‘oxygen is required to start any fire.’  Rather, critics exist for the sole purpose of examining a work of art and then commenting on its efficacy.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.
 
Heck, I’ve even been met with forks and pitchforks by some who insist that ‘making the audience like the show’ is the responsibility of the showrunner, its cast and crew, and the founding storyteller.  Again – and I’m really very sorry if this is news to any of you – that just isn’t the case.  Storytellers exist to tell a story.  Showrunners exist to see the work brought to life.  Actors and actresses are paid performers who embody characters that happen to populate said story.  Despite what no one has ever told you, none of this talent is ever tasked with making you like anything.  At the end of the day, it’s a job for them.  It’s how they put food on the table.  It’s how they make rent.  Liking or disliking any single component of it never enters into the equation.
 
So – sure – it’s sad that maybe Ahsoka just might go down in history as one of the Disney+ Star Wars programs that split fandom into the respective haves and have-nots.  Yes, I couldn’t agree more it’s unfortunate that all of us just can’t get along – can’t even be friends – and hum the Imperial March in unison as opposed to singing Kumbaya.  This is why I’ve always said – in this space – that my job has been, still is, and will always remain telling you – in no uncertain terms – exactly what I thought of a show and not to cater to any side of a growing argument.  My opinion?  It’s my own.  You’re free to your own.  Such is life.
 
Now that I’ve gotten that unfortunate business out of the way, it’s time that I address the elephant in the room that is – cough cough – Ahsoka’s seventh episode, “Dreams And Madness.”
Sigh.
 
The New Republic is well out of its honeymoon phase, and yet we’re shown in the opening just how quickly upper management is apparently willing to throw one of their very own – namely Hera Syndulla – under the galactic bus.  Those of us watching closely know that she disobeyed command and rushed off into the Final Frontier to aid her friends – Ahsoka Tano and Sabine Wren – in their bid to stop conspirators Morgan Elsbeth and kinda/sorta fallen Jedi Baylan Skoll from locating the nefarious Grand Admiral Thrawn and returning him to known space for what’s sure to be the Star War to end all Star Wars.  (snicker snicker)  As a consequence of her insubordination, there are those on the council who would see her summarily court-martialed … and, yes, it’s all a bit melodramatic but apparently well-intentioned.
 
Still, am I the only one watching who’s willing to point out that (cough cough) maybe Mon Mothma isn’t exactly suited for the job she’s been given?  Clearly she can’t even sway those serving on this council with her reasoned and logical position, and if this is as effective a leader that she’s turned out to be, why, it’s no wonder that the Empire returns as the leading adversary in the Sequel Trilogy!  If C-3PO – who has apparently achieved damn near God-like status yet again (this time not by the Ewoks, however) – hadn’t shown up in the nick of time to save the day, then audiences might very well have seen the last of one of our beloved ‘rebels,’ wouldn’t we?
​

Though there’s nothing wrong with civil disagreement, it’s rather obvious at this point that the New Republic ain’t all it’s cracked up to be.  So welcome to the New Republic.  It’s the same as the Old Republic.  Looks like ‘these times aren’t a’changin’’ after all.
 
To make matters worse, it would seem that Thrawn’s previous statement – of how they’re apparently very low on resources out her in this new galaxy – won’t stop him from (A) wasting time, (B) wasting mines, (C) wasting fightercraft, (D) wasting pilots, (E) wasting allies, and (F) wasting infantry all in the sake of creating (cough cough) good TV.  After wasting all of the above, he ultimately pronounces that all was not for nought as his keen intellect and cunning strategy somehow managed to waste time of those who would stand against him, namely Ahsoka, Sabine, and Ezra Bridger … the very same and only folks standing against him before he (cough cough) wasted everything else.
 
But … hey!  He got the cargo loaded!
 
Also, if the Chimera and/or that massive space ring had the ability to both target Ahsoka and her spaceship (albeit with a little help from the Nightsisters and their much-lauded magic), then why not use it as well to simply blast their enemies down on the surface of Peridia?  After all, we’re low on R-E-S-O-U-R-C-E-S, aren’t we … so why not save us all a little time, a little effort, and a little investment by simply blowing them into atoms?  I mean … I’m no Grand Admiral … but even I know there was a much quicker way to end this whole sad conflict with a single shot.
 
If you missed it, then I’ll make it crystal clear that, yes, I’m of the contingent who can’t understand why Ahsoka’s viewing audience can’t see these relatively simple errors of logic.  It isn’t as if this show has a lot of balls in the air being juggled vigorously; frankly, it’s a reasonably simple affair that only gets complicated when the screenwriters decide they need to space things out for the sake of creating, say, more content?  We’re seven episodes in to an eight-episode season, and we’ve still so little insight into a few of the big characters’ motivations – much less the sense of why they’re doing exactly what they’re doing – and that’s a huge, huge, huge disservice to anyone with a brain still watching.  Don’t even get me started on Ahsoka’s ascendency to greatness – ‘Ahsoka the White’ is more like ‘Ahsoka the Wait’ given Rosario Dawson’s preferred method of speech delivery – and how it might all play into this increasingly sad affair because, frankly, I’ve no longer the time, energy, or inclination.
 
Let’s just chalk it up to “I’m trying to conserve R-E-S-O-U-R-C-E-S,” eh, Admiral Thrawn?
 
Still, like the other side of the audiences, the show has elements that I like.  Granted, the list might be growing thinner with each successive installment, but they’re there.  I just wish more thought was put into not only this story but also WHY TELLING THIS PARTICULAR STORY WAS IMPORTANT to begin with.  Withholding that single crumb of the narrative to be revealed in the season finale is a damn near unforgiveable act on the part of Filoni and anyone else who participated in its creation; and I don’t know how it’s all conceivably reconciled in one final chapter.
 
Yes, yes, and yes: I’ll be waiting.
 
But – like so many – I don’t know that I’ll be coming back next year.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that I’m beholden to no one to provide a review of Star Wars: Ahsoka streaming series as I’m presently a subscriber to Disney+ … which might be changing in the future as their programming has really gotten a bit stale.

​-- EZ

Yes, yes, and yes: I’m well aware that I’m sometimes guilty of frustrating my own readership.
 
Allow me to explain.
 
I’ve rarely – if ever – followed trends.  If a new film gets released and everybody is talking about it, then I’m probably not going to just jump aboard the bandwagon, experience at that time, and offer up my own praise and/or criticism at that time.  Why not?  Well, as a writer who strives to be different, it kinda/sorta defeats the purpose of jumping into the pool when it’s already at capacity, no?  Calmer minds tend to prevail in quieter moments, so I tend to take my sweet time before giving some popular project a whirl.  Also, if everyone else is already talking about it, then logically what substantially might I have to add at that time?  Adding to the fact that I’ve more often than not been disappointed with these flash-and-sizzle entries than I’ve ever found myself swooning over them, I learned long ago to wait out the buzz and then see what all of the fuss was about.
 
That’s my opening two cents over 2022’s Smile, the debut feature from writer/director Parker Finn.  I honestly lost count of the number of smilers who either recommended it to me or asked for my opinion of it whilst it was being trumpeted as one of Horror’s possible ‘next big things.’  (As I said, I’m not much for bandwagons.)  However, I noticed it also being ‘recommended’ to me by Prime Video over the weekend.  Now that I can successfully put a bit of space between me and the advertising media onslaught, I thought the time was right to dive in and get my feet wet.
 
I’m glad I did.
 
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
 
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“After witnessing a bizarre, traumatic incident involving a patient, a psychiatrist becomes increasingly convinced she is being threatened by an uncanny entity.”
 
The short skinny as to what I have to say after viewing Smile would be to agree with those who trumpeted this nifty little sleeper hit as the birth of an all-new franchise.  Like a good many intellectual properties in the genre, the inaugural film most definitely has all the right stuff to make it a lesser tentpole-style prospect – a solid hook, a kinda/sorta signature baddie, a founding formula that lends itself to modest flexibility, etc. – and if done properly it could enjoy a long and fruitful life at both the box office as well as home video platforms.  But the real kicker here is that, yes, it would have to be done right, not quick and cheap or to the point of becoming too obsessed with itself.
 
Similar in theme to A Nightmare On Elm Street entity, Smile could very well fall off the tracks in much the same way that Freddie Krueger starring vehicle did.  With each successive entry in that series, the stories turned away from the concept and grew more about how outlandish Krueger’s bloody antics could become.  Instead of sticking with what worked and perhaps having all of the players truly up their game and/or make their background stories more complex, the franchise devolved to the point wherein it was fundamentally poking more fun at itself.  Once this happens, audiences revolt – even if slowly – and the box office receipts dwindle to point wherein no one can justify keeping the films afloat.
​

Smile runs that same risk, unless …
 
Sosie Bacon plays the inevitable victim Rose Cotter, an evaluative psychiatric therapist for what looks to be an emergency ward.  As she essentially deals in diagnosing some of the more extreme mental patients for the danger they pose to themselves and society, she’s obviously schooled in recognizing dementia quickly, making her a bit of a therapeutic brainiac who can identify problems across a broad, broad spectrum of possibilities.  Naturally – when a young woman comes into a hospital and puts a sharp object to her throat – you don’t have to be a clinical expert to see the problem, but Finn’s script rather deftly introduces one victim to Cotter – the next victim – in what functions as a highly communicable curse.
 
So … the formula works perfectly, and it practically mirrors what other franchises – like the aforementioned Nightmare and even Friday The 13th, Scream, and many others have followed: the ending of one film serves to set-up the next central character we’ll follow through a sequel.  This gives the properties an obvious progression: the audience is ‘in’ on the event that haunts our next big lead, and everything that follows feels very organic.  Smile does this – the closing scene clearly puts a sequel on the planning board by showing us who is next-in-store – and it’s a pitch perfect configuration and continuation if producers choose to do so.
 
That strength aside, Smile could benefit a bit more from some world-building.

​The flick leaves exactly who is doing some of these dark deeds open to interpretation.  For example, the story suggests that Rose was most likely guilty of both killing the cat (Mustache), wrapping it in the box, and presenting it to her nephew as his rather grim birthday present; but it stops well short of showing her.  While this could’ve easily been resolved with showing a flittering of flashback scenes involving the lady’s descent, the writer chose to leave it open-ended.  Given the fact that our ethereal villain only appears to manipulate reality through hallucinations, then how did the dead feline wind up both deceased and gift-wrapped?  I contest that an explanation was warranted.
Also, Finn’s script relies on one element that’s arguably become a bit cliched in Horror, that being the film is centered on a narrator with a family history of mental illness.  (Sigh.)  As we’ve seen this more and more a tactic for obvious misdirection in lesser films (i.e. “Is she imagining all of this?  Could this really be happening?”), I felt Rose’s journey was cheapened by this rather predictable trope.  Given the woman’s field of work – as well as her demonstrated work ethic – the door was already open to the fact that she was simply mentally exhausted – a condition that could also have caused some of the resulting anguish – so the inclusion of the family history becomes unimportant.  Keeping that element in waters down an otherwise perfectly efficient yarn, and I question whether or not that was a good creative choice.
 
Still, I’d be remiss if I failed to mention that what worked first and best in all of Smile was Bacon’s incredible performance.  The actress gave one of the best turns in Horror as of late – the troubled soul who rather frantically feels the fabric of reality both twisting and shredding around her – with some wonderfully nuanced behaviors demonstrating a mind in transition.  That and the mostly smart script proven to be the combination that fueled the flick’s initial popularity; so here’s hoping that both she and the potential franchise continue to find – cough cough – long life at the box office and beyond.  She and it are stars to watch.
 
Smile (2022) was produced by Paramount Players and Temple Hill Productions.  A quick Google.com search informs me that it’s currently available for purchase or rental across a variety of digital platforms.  As for the technical specifications?  While I’m no trained video expert, I thought that the provided sights-and-sounds were nothing short of top notch; the picture looks and sounds incredible.  Lastly – as I streamed this on Amazon.com’s Prime Video via my own membership – there were no special features under consideration.
 
Highly recommended.

-- EZ

Good morning, gentle readers, and welcome to Tuesday!

Well, welll, well ... how's this new week treating you?  I hope it's grand!

There's not a whole lot to report from the main desk of SciFiHistory.Net Studios today, but that won't stop me from giving it the sailor's try.  I spent the better part of yesterday's productivity slinging words together for that small mass of film reviews (did you see them?), and I do have another flick I'm intending to watch today.  But here's just a quick recap in case you didn't see them:

Condition Of Return - Review (link)
Gangnam Zombie - Review (link)
RepliGator - Review (link)

At the request of a Twitter friend, I also shared the announcement of an incredible Kickstarter Campaign for a documentary examining the phenomenon around the the Eagle spacecraft featured prominently in Gerry Anderson's Space:1999 series.  For those of you who are, say, a bit younger and haven't had the good fortune of experiencing the show, I'd encourage you to check it out.  It was an exceedingly well made adventure.  Granted, the stories weren't all they were cracked up to be, and -- for my two cents -- I thought they came in largely better than Lost In Space but falling short of classic Star Trek (for comparison's sake).  Great cast, though.  Just an incredible cast.

The Eagle Has Landed - A SciFi Documentary (link)

Furthermore -- and this is for those of you still reading and curious about such an announcement -- yes, yes, and yes: if you're someone who'd like to have a similar post and/or promotion up on SciFiHistory.Net's MainPage, simply reach out and ask.  Over the years, I can think of only a small handful of requests I've ever turned down -- they'd really have to be something so fundamentally different from SciFi, Fantasy, and Horror for me to do so -- and I'm always happy to use this space to assist like-minded souls in spreading the word across fandom.  And no: there's absolutely no cost.  I simply ask that you keep in mind I can't put up something that's 50 pages worth of copy, and -- no -- I won't advertise you forthcoming porn flick.  (Haha!  Yes, I had one such request ages ago.  And it wasn't even a SciFi porn film, for Pete's sake, which I might've considered.)

​Specifically, this includes authors!  All you need do is have a press release about your upcoming book announcement, and I'm happy to do the old copy-and-paste on your behalf.  Of course, I might need to do some minor editing here and there, but that's nada ... and -- as I said -- it's absolutely free.  So what could hurt?

​If nothing else, then please keep my humble outlet in mind for future projects.

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

-- EZ

Argh, folks.  Just plain argh.  I hate some of the announcements I have to bring to readers on the MainPage, and today's regarding the passing of TV legend David McCallum is one of those days.

Born in 1933, McCallum certainly emerged prominently in genre circles in the role of 'Illya Kuryakin' aboard the great 1960's spy show The Man From U.N.C.L.E. (1964-1968), but that was far from his only work in the realms of the Fantastic.  He had many opportunities to show what he was capable of doing in ways big and small, and I'm happy to name some of the more memorable adventures below.

In the 1963-1964 TV season, the actor enjoyed a pair of appearances to The Outer Limits, cast in different roles aboard the episodes of "The Sixth Finger" and "The Forms Of Things Unknown."

In 1970, McCallum took on the role of Hillel Mondoro, a scientist who injects himself with the brain fluid of a terminal colleague in order to protect some defense department secrets.  As you can guess, this medical event has unintended consequences that start to work their way into the man's daily life.  The Hugo Award nominated telefilm also starred Susan Strasberg and Leslie Nielsen.

For the 1975-1976, he took on the role of another scientist, this one who experiments with a serum that gives him the power of invisibility.  The Invisible Man lasted only a single truncated season, but it's one of the fond memories of my TV youth.

Alas, I've never seen Sapphire & Steel -- a SciFi/Mystery serial that paired McCallum with actress Joanna Lumley -- but I've been assured it's quite good.  Some have even told me that the series feels in ways like a precursor to The X-Files as these interdimensional operatives would step into our world to solve mysteries only they possessed knowledge to decode.

​In 1995, he joined the cast of the virtual reality drama VR.5 playing yet one more scientist (it would seemed he played men of great intellect) working on the project to use this fledging science to do good.

As is always the case, there are more -- quite a few across the man's career spanning an incredible seven decades -- and readers are encouraged to check out his full profile on IMDB.com.  It's indeed quite an impressive and versatile roster, and our world is a smaller place with his departure.

Prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of David McCallum.  May be rest in peace.

​-- EZ

The most pertinent advice I ever received from a professional movie critic was that he liked to recommend films for a variety of reasons.
 
While I thought what he was initially trying to convey a sentiment akin to having a good observation about even a bad flick, he quickly corrected me by saying, “Bad films are made for specific audiences, but only recommended films are truly worth seeing for their recommended reasons.”  Years later, I guess it’s safe to suggest that I’m still not entirely certain he was imparting any wisdom I could understand.  Essentially, I think his perception boiled down to little more than flowery prose, and – who knows? – perhaps that’s exactly all he meant it to be in that time and place.  Did he mean that I shouldn’t waste my time with bad films?  Or did he mean that I should never strive to be a part of their specific audience?
 
Hell, I’ve no way of knowing.
 
But … about bad films being made for a specific audience?
 
There is a bit of wisdom in that observation, and I think it ties in with filmmakers who’ve gone about the business of crafting stories they and their like-minded brethren might find worthwhile.  They don’t set out to make a work of art so much as they do to assemble a production to fulfill a purpose, and more often as not that directive is to entertain.  Opinions and anuses being what they are, not everyone is going to find humor in such efforts, but that won’t stop those who would traffic in such simple affairs from putting them together, mass producing them for posterity’s sake, and loosing it upon mankind.
 
That’s exactly how I’d describe a little ‘something something’ like RepliGator: A Bret McCormick Film.  It was made entirely for an audience who knew exactly what it was getting.  It isn’t good.  It isn’t bad.  It just is.
 
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
 
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Army experimentation with transporter devices accidentally turns people into alligators.”
 
Ah, the bygones days of the corner video store!
 
Back in that era, you really didn’t know all that you were getting with the latest new release.  Oh, the packaging may’ve promised you something bigger than life – say, a government conspiracy run by scientists who were hellbent on crafting the next big weapon for consumption by the military industrial complex.  Still, once you got it home, pitched it into the VCR, and hit play, you were astounded with exactly what director Bret McCormick somehow managed to assemble in that fertile ground between film and … well?  Not-so-much film.
​

At face value, RepliGator – with its story about renegade geniuses racing against time to turn G.I. Joe into sexpot G.I. Janes for reasons that never quite amount of more than a bad joke – certainly fits the bill.  It has a premise.  It has a cast.  It was all captured on film.  And it has credits.  But beyond that?  Well, it’s basically a lower-than-dirt-budget farce that aspired to be little more than the sum of two boobs.  If anyone in here put in any serious effort at acting, then they likely wouldn’t have been in it; and that alone ought to speak volumes about what to expect should you venture into this territory of your own free will.
 
Now, this is in no way meant to imply that RepliGator is a complete failure.  In fact, it very well could be the high point of anyone’s day!  This is the kind of film that many of us who grew up in the days of home video would rent.  To a small degree, we knew what we were getting into.  It has no big name in its cast (though Gunnar Hansen – the original Leatherface from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and his fans might disagree – was a known quantity).  It has no sterling premise.  But it did have babes all scantily clad doing their best to bring a measure of sexiness to its cheap laughs.  At worst, it’s a waste of videotape.  At best, it’s a still cheap diversion.
 
And, frankly, I did get a few laughs with the running gag of Dr. Fields’ space lazer constantly tripped the laboratory’s circuit breaker at the worst time imaginable.  That alone may not have elevated this 86-minute treatise to the point of being classically worthwhile, but the addition of the lovely Brinke Stevens and TJ Myers as the best-looking brainiacs in all of science didn’t hurt matters, either.
 
Lastly, dare I even mention that McCormick and his occasionally lewd and crude sense of humor most likely wouldn’t see the light of day in today’s trigger-happy climate?  There’s an undeniable wholesomeness to such softcore screwball antics at play that modern social justice warriors would want no part of, and I think that’s a sad testament to where we are in history, folks.  In this, the display of a woman’s ample breasts was meant to invoke as much harmless laughter as it was to activate the male of our species on a call to duty.  We didn’t have to like it, but we weren’t calling to shut down the form of art over something as negligible as flesh, nipples, and a few pleasant areolae.
 
Good God, I’m old.
 
RepliGator (1998) was produced by Glen Coburn, Rob Hauschild, and Bret McCormick.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the fine folks at Visual Vengeance and Wild Eye Releasing.  As for the technical specifications?  Well … though I’m no trained video expert, it’s pretty clear that this extremely low-budget assault on the senses remains a bit grainy even with this allegedly supervised SD mastering from its original tapes.  I guess it’s best to say “you get what you get.”  (It ain’t awful.)
 
As for the special features?  Wowza.  This collection contains everything but the kitchen sink!  Fans can expect to be titillated by:

• Two different audio commentaries;
• Archival ‘making-of’ featurettes and interviews;
• Deleted scenes;
• Trailers;
• A Limited edition slipcase;
• New artwork;
• One pair of branded ‘X-Ray Specs;’
• A mini-poster; and
• One sheet VHS sticker set.

In all seriousness, it’s an incredible collection clearly intended for die-hard enthusiasts of this wacky universe, and I suspect a good time will be had by all who invest in it.
 
Barely – just barely – recommended, mostly as a curiosity more than anything else …
 
Though I may not be an enthusiast for the cinematic pleasures of Bret McCormick, I can appreciate a job well done, and – on that level – I think there’s a level of mirth sought after by the cast and crew of RepliGator.  Arguably, the flick demonstrates that just about anything can be captured on film – doesn’t mean it should be, no – and somewhere sometime someone will give it their best attempt.  There’s a harmless and zany atmosphere here meant to be a good time, and I’ll bet those who participated in this shenanigan had some laughs.  Audiences might disagree … but you should know without question that you got your 99 cents worth of entertainment when you paid at rental counter.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Visual Vengeance provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of RepliGator by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review.  Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

​-- EZ