- Published on
site update
So many movies ... so little time ...
On this day in 2015 (in France), audiences felt the mighty shock of Impact Earth! Directed by Rex Piano from a story by E.M. McCoy, Jonathan Stathakis, and Caitlin Carver, the SciFi/Thriller starred Bernard Curry, Brooke Langton, Lew Temple, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"After astronomer Tim Harrison's predictions about an asteroid colliding with Earth fails, he is dismissed from his job. However, eight years later, his assistant approaches him with a similar problem."
-- EZ
On this day in 2015 (in France), audiences felt the mighty shock of Impact Earth! Directed by Rex Piano from a story by E.M. McCoy, Jonathan Stathakis, and Caitlin Carver, the SciFi/Thriller starred Bernard Curry, Brooke Langton, Lew Temple, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"After astronomer Tim Harrison's predictions about an asteroid colliding with Earth fails, he is dismissed from his job. However, eight years later, his assistant approaches him with a similar problem."
-- EZ
- Published on
site update
So many movies ... so little time ...
On this day in 1983 (in Canada and the U.S.), The Hunger hungered theatrically at its spot for greatness. Directed by Tony Scott from a story by James Costigan, Michael Thomas, and Whitley Strieber, the Horror starred Catherine Deneuve, David Bowie, Beth Ehlers, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"The Egyptian vampire lady Miriam (Catherine Deneuve) subsists upon the blood of her lovers. In return, the guys or girls don't age until Miriam has had enough of them. Unfortunately that's currently the case with John (David Bowie), so his life expectancy is less than 24 hours. Desperately he seeks help from, the famous, Dr. Sarah Roberts (Susan Sarandon). She doesn't really believe his story, but becomes curious and contacts Miriam . . . and gets caught in her spell, too."
For the record:
At the 1984 Saturn Awards, The Hunger received nominations in the categories of 'Best Make-Up' and 'Best Costumes.'
-- EZ
On this day in 1983 (in Canada and the U.S.), The Hunger hungered theatrically at its spot for greatness. Directed by Tony Scott from a story by James Costigan, Michael Thomas, and Whitley Strieber, the Horror starred Catherine Deneuve, David Bowie, Beth Ehlers, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"The Egyptian vampire lady Miriam (Catherine Deneuve) subsists upon the blood of her lovers. In return, the guys or girls don't age until Miriam has had enough of them. Unfortunately that's currently the case with John (David Bowie), so his life expectancy is less than 24 hours. Desperately he seeks help from, the famous, Dr. Sarah Roberts (Susan Sarandon). She doesn't really believe his story, but becomes curious and contacts Miriam . . . and gets caught in her spell, too."
For the record:
At the 1984 Saturn Awards, The Hunger received nominations in the categories of 'Best Make-Up' and 'Best Costumes.'
-- EZ
- Published on
site update
So many movies ... so little time ...
On this day in 2001 (in the U.S.), audiences came back for a second round of Fantasy/Adventure for the big screen theatrical premiere of The Mummy Returns. Written and directed by Stephen Sommers, the film starred Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, John Hannah, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"Many years ago, in Ancient Egypt, the Scorpion King led a menacing army, but when he sold his soul to Anubis, he was erased from history. Now he is only a myth...or is he? Rick and Evelyn O'Connell are still discovering new artifacts, along with their 8 year old son Alex. They discover the Bracelet of Anubis. But someone else is after the bracelet. High Priest Imhotep has been brought back from the dead once again and wants the bracelet, to control the Scorpion King's army. That's not the only problem. Imhotep now has Alex and with the bracelet attached to him, doesn't have long to live."
For the record:
-- EZ
On this day in 2001 (in the U.S.), audiences came back for a second round of Fantasy/Adventure for the big screen theatrical premiere of The Mummy Returns. Written and directed by Stephen Sommers, the film starred Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, John Hannah, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"Many years ago, in Ancient Egypt, the Scorpion King led a menacing army, but when he sold his soul to Anubis, he was erased from history. Now he is only a myth...or is he? Rick and Evelyn O'Connell are still discovering new artifacts, along with their 8 year old son Alex. They discover the Bracelet of Anubis. But someone else is after the bracelet. High Priest Imhotep has been brought back from the dead once again and wants the bracelet, to control the Scorpion King's army. That's not the only problem. Imhotep now has Alex and with the bracelet attached to him, doesn't have long to live."
For the record:
- At the 2002 Saturn Awards, The Mummy Returns received nominations in the categories of 'Best Special Effects,' 'Best Make-Up,' 'Best Performance By A Younger Actor,' and 'Best Fantasy Film.'
- At the 2002 Fangoria Chainsaw Awards, the film received nominations in the categories of 'Best Supporting Actress' and 'Worst Film.'
-- EZ
- Published on
Even though I’m one of genre’s biggest supporters, I’ve still taken an incredible amount of grief over the years regarding my personal opinion of a handful of what are considered Science Fiction classics.
You see, I’ve never based my opinion on any particular work on what the best and brightest tell me I should think of a film. I’ve always thought for myself; and – as a consequence – I learned long ago that I must also be comfortable with being both right and wrong on a particular project. While that would seem like a fairly benign foundation around which to operate, I can’t begin to tell you the amount of insults I’ve earned from casual readers, like-minded souls, and even folks within the entertainment industry who’ve stumbled upon some of my reflections. Of course, I do care (to a small degree) when and if they can lodge a reasoned argument; and, yet, I’ve rarely been persuaded to see things as they see them for the sake of ‘going along to get along.’ Each of us is entitled to our respective opinions about what makes for a great film, and I can only hope that – in the end – the movie gods are forgiven deities. If not, then I know where I’m bound; and so be it.
Now, this isn’t to say that I’ve any major reservations about 1971’s The Andromeda Strain. Based on a novel by Michael Crichton that was adapted for the screen by Nelson Gidding, Strain was directed by the great Robert Wise, a man who’s name is legendary around these parts for such contributions to film history as The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951) and Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979). In it, Wise cast such talent as James Olson, Arthur Hill, David Wayne, Kate Reid, Paula Kelly, and others. Together, cast and crew explored about as dire a set of circumstances that was probably imaginable at the time; and it’s a cautionary tale that probably resonates a bit differently today just after the ‘age of COVID’ reshaped how mankind reacts with one another in the public square.
I can attest that I don’t like it nearly as much as do many other Science Fiction fans, and that’s part of the controversy I’ve alluded to above. It has elements I like, and I can still see what slim story there is weighted down by those elements I not so much detest but identify as inferior techniques that hijack the narrative when they shouldn’t. Nonetheless, I want to clarify up front that Strain is one of the very few pictures I encourage fans of serious genre entertainment to watch even though I caution they may not be entirely happy with it. Sometimes, the sum of the pieces is greater than the individual parts, and that’s definitely the case here as Wise and company deliver a thought-provoking and chilling account that could’ve spelled certain doom for all of mankind.
(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:
“Top scientists work feverishly in a secret, state-of-the-art laboratory to discover what killed the citizens of a small town and how the deadly contagion can be stopped.”
You see, I’ve never based my opinion on any particular work on what the best and brightest tell me I should think of a film. I’ve always thought for myself; and – as a consequence – I learned long ago that I must also be comfortable with being both right and wrong on a particular project. While that would seem like a fairly benign foundation around which to operate, I can’t begin to tell you the amount of insults I’ve earned from casual readers, like-minded souls, and even folks within the entertainment industry who’ve stumbled upon some of my reflections. Of course, I do care (to a small degree) when and if they can lodge a reasoned argument; and, yet, I’ve rarely been persuaded to see things as they see them for the sake of ‘going along to get along.’ Each of us is entitled to our respective opinions about what makes for a great film, and I can only hope that – in the end – the movie gods are forgiven deities. If not, then I know where I’m bound; and so be it.
Now, this isn’t to say that I’ve any major reservations about 1971’s The Andromeda Strain. Based on a novel by Michael Crichton that was adapted for the screen by Nelson Gidding, Strain was directed by the great Robert Wise, a man who’s name is legendary around these parts for such contributions to film history as The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951) and Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979). In it, Wise cast such talent as James Olson, Arthur Hill, David Wayne, Kate Reid, Paula Kelly, and others. Together, cast and crew explored about as dire a set of circumstances that was probably imaginable at the time; and it’s a cautionary tale that probably resonates a bit differently today just after the ‘age of COVID’ reshaped how mankind reacts with one another in the public square.
I can attest that I don’t like it nearly as much as do many other Science Fiction fans, and that’s part of the controversy I’ve alluded to above. It has elements I like, and I can still see what slim story there is weighted down by those elements I not so much detest but identify as inferior techniques that hijack the narrative when they shouldn’t. Nonetheless, I want to clarify up front that Strain is one of the very few pictures I encourage fans of serious genre entertainment to watch even though I caution they may not be entirely happy with it. Sometimes, the sum of the pieces is greater than the individual parts, and that’s definitely the case here as Wise and company deliver a thought-provoking and chilling account that could’ve spelled certain doom for all of mankind.
(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:
“Top scientists work feverishly in a secret, state-of-the-art laboratory to discover what killed the citizens of a small town and how the deadly contagion can be stopped.”
In order to captivate an audience, a storyteller has a great number of tricks in his (or her) bag that can be put to good use. This doesn’t mean that he should use all of them; rather, a good teller of tales knows when to pull out a certain gadget only when necessary in order to work his magic and then pull it back out of risk of spoiling the charade. This is always a delicate balance; and only the finest narrators ‘get it right’ each and every time its tried. In fact, I suspect more miss the target they’re aiming for more consistently than they strike; but bless the professional souls who keep trying for even some of their failures still give us something to think about.
It's in this fertile ground wherein I’ve always struggled with The Andromeda Strain. Wise’s film doesn’t always ‘enthrall’ when it should, and – more often than not – this is because of the tricks used to spin this web. A great deal of this stumbling is owed to the fact that the director chose to impart as much information as he felt was entirely necessary to both educate and entertain his audience; and my position is that a good deal of entertainment was sacrificed in the process.
Rather than inundate a reader with dozens of examples, I’ll highlight those I find most destructive.
First, Gidding’s script – based on Crichton’s novel – details a great number of facts, some of which were authentic while others were ‘manufactured’ in order to have a story that made sense. I’ve read others describe this as ‘the science facts’ associated with a newly discovered virus, and that’s a mostly accurate take. Because there’s an almost endless stream of information – info about viruses, info about how they grow and mutate, info about how they’re contained as much as how buildings and structures and technology are erected to do that and deal with them – the viewer is besieged with constant exposition. These central scientists are always laying a brick in the foundation before they can get to their human reactions to it; and this constant push-and-pull gave the film an all-too-sluggish pace. I’ve heard some suggest that Strain is far too long, and I’ve always insisted that it isn’t: it just feels too long because of the abundance of information required to make this palatable. Even with it, it never quite finds the proper balance.
Second, because the script has this operational preponderance of sheer data, the characters – as an ensemble – just never quite cohered beyond their stated scientific purposes for being there. They were never made human enough for me to grow interested in them – as a group – and, consequently, I found it difficult to moved by their collective plight. Some small attempts were made to give them traits that would bring me closer to caring about them as individuals (i.e. Dr. Mark Hall – as played by James Olson – definitely represented the humanity one wants in a practicing physician; Dr. Ruth Leavitt – played by Kate Reid – was easily the most relatable most because she was imbued with a level of human cynicism that had its own charm). However … as a team? Well, they were mainly destined to ‘save the day’ mostly because that’s how it was scripted as opposed to any Avengers-style group dynamic, so viewers just had to roll with the punches.
It's in this fertile ground wherein I’ve always struggled with The Andromeda Strain. Wise’s film doesn’t always ‘enthrall’ when it should, and – more often than not – this is because of the tricks used to spin this web. A great deal of this stumbling is owed to the fact that the director chose to impart as much information as he felt was entirely necessary to both educate and entertain his audience; and my position is that a good deal of entertainment was sacrificed in the process.
Rather than inundate a reader with dozens of examples, I’ll highlight those I find most destructive.
First, Gidding’s script – based on Crichton’s novel – details a great number of facts, some of which were authentic while others were ‘manufactured’ in order to have a story that made sense. I’ve read others describe this as ‘the science facts’ associated with a newly discovered virus, and that’s a mostly accurate take. Because there’s an almost endless stream of information – info about viruses, info about how they grow and mutate, info about how they’re contained as much as how buildings and structures and technology are erected to do that and deal with them – the viewer is besieged with constant exposition. These central scientists are always laying a brick in the foundation before they can get to their human reactions to it; and this constant push-and-pull gave the film an all-too-sluggish pace. I’ve heard some suggest that Strain is far too long, and I’ve always insisted that it isn’t: it just feels too long because of the abundance of information required to make this palatable. Even with it, it never quite finds the proper balance.
Second, because the script has this operational preponderance of sheer data, the characters – as an ensemble – just never quite cohered beyond their stated scientific purposes for being there. They were never made human enough for me to grow interested in them – as a group – and, consequently, I found it difficult to moved by their collective plight. Some small attempts were made to give them traits that would bring me closer to caring about them as individuals (i.e. Dr. Mark Hall – as played by James Olson – definitely represented the humanity one wants in a practicing physician; Dr. Ruth Leavitt – played by Kate Reid – was easily the most relatable most because she was imbued with a level of human cynicism that had its own charm). However … as a team? Well, they were mainly destined to ‘save the day’ mostly because that’s how it was scripted as opposed to any Avengers-style group dynamic, so viewers just had to roll with the punches.
Third, Wise made use of some various split-screen techniques far more often than I believed was absolutely necessary. (For those unawares, split screening involves showing multiple non-overlapping perspectives in the frame for any number of narrative purposes.) When Hall and Dr. Jeremy Stone (Arthur Hill) are making their way in hazmat suits through the decimated city of Piedmont, New Mexico, they’re shown in one tracking shot peering through windows: instead of showing the audience directly what they’re seeing in a cut sequence, Wise instead chose to insert another view into the frame of the victims. This continues across several quick discoveries. Chiefly, what I don’t like about split screening is that it pulls the viewer out of the experience – it’s a way that kills my emergence entirely in the film because it reminds me that “it’s only a film.” When the same effect could’ve been achieved with traditional jump cut from the doctors to these town interiors, the splits are entirely problematic (as I see them) and kill the impact in favor of something obviously artistic and not supportive of good storytelling.
These failings aside, Strain is one of those atypical experiences for me because – fundamentally – it really helped establish a kinda/sorta new sub-genre within the wider Science Fiction community of the science-based Thriller.
Before Wise and Crichton teamed up to work their movie charm, outbreaks were a bit tiredly derivative of one another: victims are exposed to X, victims mutate into something new, and the bulk of the remaining action was dedicated to a band of heroes working to stay safe from these mutants as well as figure out how to deal with the original catalyst. All that really happened from one picture to the next was that the cause changed – as did how the sufferers either dealt with or succumbed to it – and the flicks grew incessantly predictable for sticking to the same formula. With Strain, however, the picture went in an all-new direction, dedicating serious screen time to the mechanics of both how authentic science would and should be applied in the process of resolving the crisis. (Granted, I’ve always stated above that perhaps they didn’t handle this with the highest level of efficiency, but sins are sometimes forgivable when you’re the first to commit them.) At the film’s onset, its plague was already here, and this script focused directly on how to prevent it from metastasizing into the ultimate nightmare. That hadn’t quite happened before – at least, not in ways that I’m aware of – and I think the film deserves to be screened despite what I see as some flaws in design.
In other words, other entries in the realm of the Fantastic like 1995’s 12 Monkeys, 2002’s 28 Days Later, 2011’s Contagion, or even 2013’s World War Z may not have found the success they did had The Andromeda Strain not gone where it did first. Crichton’s masterful novel really paved the way for how the science-based story could exist and be both incorporated to visuals and still relatable to audiences who weren’t all brainiacs. (Let’s face it: not everyone who attends the cineplexes works for the Centers For Disease Control!) While I might nit and pick here and there with what I see are some less-then-effective choices in that adaptation, I’ll always insist Wise owes the respect for being there at the front of the line when others thought the material out-of-reach.
These failings aside, Strain is one of those atypical experiences for me because – fundamentally – it really helped establish a kinda/sorta new sub-genre within the wider Science Fiction community of the science-based Thriller.
Before Wise and Crichton teamed up to work their movie charm, outbreaks were a bit tiredly derivative of one another: victims are exposed to X, victims mutate into something new, and the bulk of the remaining action was dedicated to a band of heroes working to stay safe from these mutants as well as figure out how to deal with the original catalyst. All that really happened from one picture to the next was that the cause changed – as did how the sufferers either dealt with or succumbed to it – and the flicks grew incessantly predictable for sticking to the same formula. With Strain, however, the picture went in an all-new direction, dedicating serious screen time to the mechanics of both how authentic science would and should be applied in the process of resolving the crisis. (Granted, I’ve always stated above that perhaps they didn’t handle this with the highest level of efficiency, but sins are sometimes forgivable when you’re the first to commit them.) At the film’s onset, its plague was already here, and this script focused directly on how to prevent it from metastasizing into the ultimate nightmare. That hadn’t quite happened before – at least, not in ways that I’m aware of – and I think the film deserves to be screened despite what I see as some flaws in design.
In other words, other entries in the realm of the Fantastic like 1995’s 12 Monkeys, 2002’s 28 Days Later, 2011’s Contagion, or even 2013’s World War Z may not have found the success they did had The Andromeda Strain not gone where it did first. Crichton’s masterful novel really paved the way for how the science-based story could exist and be both incorporated to visuals and still relatable to audiences who weren’t all brainiacs. (Let’s face it: not everyone who attends the cineplexes works for the Centers For Disease Control!) While I might nit and pick here and there with what I see are some less-then-effective choices in that adaptation, I’ll always insist Wise owes the respect for being there at the front of the line when others thought the material out-of-reach.
The Andromeda Strain (1971) was produced by Robert Wise Productions. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Arrow Films. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I can still assure you that the completed product restored in 4K from the original camera negative just looks incredible: of course, there’s a bit of grain, but enthusiasts likely wouldn’t have it any other way. My only bugaboo is that there were a few scenes that came off looking a bit dark; and I can only assume this is owed to the source material. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? I generally don’t get all that animated by audio commentaries – frankly, I’ve listened to far too many that come off a bit routine – but the one here from critic Bryan Reesman is top dollar: he deftly balances a wealth of minutiae involving the cast and crew and still keeps it moving in such a way that I have to give it a strong thumbs up. It’s one of the best I’ve heard in quite some time. I’ve just begun digging into the others, but there’s plenty so those of you who enjoy this stuff can buckle up.
Highly recommended.
My opinion is nothing if not controversial – especially when it comes to vintage Science Fiction crafts – but it is what it is: The Andromeda Strain might not be a particular effective or emotionally involving story, and yet I’ll always argue that it’s the kind of picture that deserves to be seen most deservedly by fans of genre entertainment. Yes: its characters are a bit flat. Yes: its pacing leaves a lot to be desired. Yes: director Wise employs a bit of post-production trickery that pulls viewers out of the experience on a few occasions. However, none of that reduces the fact that it’s arguably a groundbreaking event-style film – perhaps the first of its kind – and should be ‘required viewing’ for anyone who wants to talk the straight dope about SciFi filmmaking.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary check disc copy of The Andromeda Strain (1971) 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
Highly recommended.
My opinion is nothing if not controversial – especially when it comes to vintage Science Fiction crafts – but it is what it is: The Andromeda Strain might not be a particular effective or emotionally involving story, and yet I’ll always argue that it’s the kind of picture that deserves to be seen most deservedly by fans of genre entertainment. Yes: its characters are a bit flat. Yes: its pacing leaves a lot to be desired. Yes: director Wise employs a bit of post-production trickery that pulls viewers out of the experience on a few occasions. However, none of that reduces the fact that it’s arguably a groundbreaking event-style film – perhaps the first of its kind – and should be ‘required viewing’ for anyone who wants to talk the straight dope about SciFi filmmaking.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary check disc copy of The Andromeda Strain (1971) 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
- Published on
site update
So many movies ... so little time ...
On this day in 1983 (in the U.S.), a glorious theatrical adaptation of a beloved classic sprang to life with the release of Something Wicked This Way Comes. Directed by Jack Clayton and based on the novel by Ray Bradbury, the film starred Mary Grace Canfield, Ellen Greer, Jason Robards, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"In Green Town, Illinois, the twelve year-old boys Will Halloway and Jim Nightshade are neighbors and best friends. Will's father Charles Halloway is an old man and the local librarian while Jim and his mother wait for the return of the return of their father and husband that will never occur. The boys know everyone in town, including their school teacher Miss Foley that misses her beauty and youth; the lonely barber Mr. Crosetti that has no girlfriend or wife; the greedy owner of a cigar store Mr. Tetley that is obsessed with money; and the bartender Ed that has severed arm and leg and dreams on being a football hero. One day, Jim buys a lightning rod from the salesman Tom Fury that tells that a storm is coming. During the night, the boys overhear a mysterious train and they run through the woods to see the arrival but they do not see a living soul. However, they find the Mr. Dark's Pandemonium Carnival ready to be enjoyed and they snoop around. Soon they realize that frustrated and greedy people are vanishing in town and the evil Mr. Dark and the Dust Witch make their dreams come true. In return, Mr. Dark seizes their souls. Now Mr. Dark is seeking them out but Charles Halloway has a journal from his father about the autumn carnival that might be their last chance to defeat the evil."
For the record:
-- EZ
On this day in 1983 (in the U.S.), a glorious theatrical adaptation of a beloved classic sprang to life with the release of Something Wicked This Way Comes. Directed by Jack Clayton and based on the novel by Ray Bradbury, the film starred Mary Grace Canfield, Ellen Greer, Jason Robards, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"In Green Town, Illinois, the twelve year-old boys Will Halloway and Jim Nightshade are neighbors and best friends. Will's father Charles Halloway is an old man and the local librarian while Jim and his mother wait for the return of the return of their father and husband that will never occur. The boys know everyone in town, including their school teacher Miss Foley that misses her beauty and youth; the lonely barber Mr. Crosetti that has no girlfriend or wife; the greedy owner of a cigar store Mr. Tetley that is obsessed with money; and the bartender Ed that has severed arm and leg and dreams on being a football hero. One day, Jim buys a lightning rod from the salesman Tom Fury that tells that a storm is coming. During the night, the boys overhear a mysterious train and they run through the woods to see the arrival but they do not see a living soul. However, they find the Mr. Dark's Pandemonium Carnival ready to be enjoyed and they snoop around. Soon they realize that frustrated and greedy people are vanishing in town and the evil Mr. Dark and the Dust Witch make their dreams come true. In return, Mr. Dark seizes their souls. Now Mr. Dark is seeking them out but Charles Halloway has a journal from his father about the autumn carnival that might be their last chance to defeat the evil."
For the record:
- At the 1984 Saturn Awards, the film received an incredible seven nominations in the categories of 'Best Special Effects,' 'Best Make-Up,' 'Best Costumes,' 'Best Music,' 'Best Writing,' 'Best Supporting Actor,' and 'Best Fantasy Film.' That evening, folks took home two wins: 'Best Writing' and 'Best Fantasy Film.'
- At the 1984 Hugo Awards, the film received a nomination in the category of 'Best Dramatic Presentation.'
-- EZ
- Published on
site update
So many movies ... so little time ...
On this day in 1967 (in West Germany), Creature With The Blue Hand set its sights on murder. Directed by Alfred Vohrer and Samuel M. Sherman from a story by Herbert Reinecker, Edgar Wallace, Fred Denger, Harald G. Peterssen, and Uschi Haarbrücker, the Horror/Thriller starred Harald Leipnitz, Klaus Kinski, Carl Lange, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"Scotland Yard is after a homicidal maniac called The Blue Hand, which is what he uses to kill his victims."
ExtraExtra Alert:
In 2024, I received an all-new home video release of Creature With The Blue Hand (1967) from a distributor in exchange for review coverage on SciFiHistory.Net. Interested readers can find my review right here.
-- EZ
On this day in 1967 (in West Germany), Creature With The Blue Hand set its sights on murder. Directed by Alfred Vohrer and Samuel M. Sherman from a story by Herbert Reinecker, Edgar Wallace, Fred Denger, Harald G. Peterssen, and Uschi Haarbrücker, the Horror/Thriller starred Harald Leipnitz, Klaus Kinski, Carl Lange, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"Scotland Yard is after a homicidal maniac called The Blue Hand, which is what he uses to kill his victims."
ExtraExtra Alert:
In 2024, I received an all-new home video release of Creature With The Blue Hand (1967) from a distributor in exchange for review coverage on SciFiHistory.Net. Interested readers can find my review right here.
-- EZ
- Published on
site update
So many movies ... so little time ...
On this day in 1989, magic and Fantasy made their way into the lives of a teenage girl with the release of Teen Witch. Directed by Dorian Walker from a story by Robin Menken and Vernon Zimmerman, the Fantasy/Comedy starred Robyn Lively, Dan Gauthier, Joshua John Miller, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"High school misfit Louise, at a loss for romance, discovers magical abilities, but the teenage witch finds that she cannot conjure herself true love, so what?"
-- EZ
On this day in 1989, magic and Fantasy made their way into the lives of a teenage girl with the release of Teen Witch. Directed by Dorian Walker from a story by Robin Menken and Vernon Zimmerman, the Fantasy/Comedy starred Robyn Lively, Dan Gauthier, Joshua John Miller, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"High school misfit Louise, at a loss for romance, discovers magical abilities, but the teenage witch finds that she cannot conjure herself true love, so what?"
-- EZ
- Published on
site update
So many movies ... so little time ...
On this day in 1987 (in the United Kingdom), The Lamp (aka The Outing) enjoyed its initial appearance with a release on home video. Directed by Tom Daley from a story by Warren Chaney, the Fantasy/Horror starred Deborah Winters, James Huston, Damon Merrill, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"A group of high schoolers decide to stay in a natural museum after closing hours, but a newly acquired and mysterious lamp hiding a deadly force will turn the fun into horror."
-- EZ
On this day in 1987 (in the United Kingdom), The Lamp (aka The Outing) enjoyed its initial appearance with a release on home video. Directed by Tom Daley from a story by Warren Chaney, the Fantasy/Horror starred Deborah Winters, James Huston, Damon Merrill, and others.
According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"A group of high schoolers decide to stay in a natural museum after closing hours, but a newly acquired and mysterious lamp hiding a deadly force will turn the fun into horror."
-- EZ
- Published on
guest column by george khmaladze
There's something intensely satisfying about a good rivalry. Not the straightforward good-versus-evil dynamic that populated so many earlier superhero films, but the complex, layered conflicts between characters we love for different reasons. The Marvel Cinematic Universe has thrived on these relationships, building them carefully across multiple films and letting them simmer before bringing them to a boil in spectacular fashion.
I recently conducted a poll asking MCU fans which rivalry they believe has most defined the sprawling franchise, and the results reveal just how deeply these conflicts have resonated. The MCU's success isn't just about spectacular action sequences or interconnected storytelling - it's about creating emotional stakes that pull us in different directions, forcing us to question whose side we're really on.
These rivalries have become so central to fan engagement that we're seeing the emergence of what I like to call the Marvel Rivals Boosting by Boost Factory effect - where the clash between beloved characters naturally drives conversation, debate, and community engagement far beyond what traditional marketing could achieve. When fans passionately debate Team Cap versus Team Iron Man years after Civil War's release, that's the Boost Factory in action, keeping these conflicts alive in the cultural consciousness long after the credits roll.
But which rivalry truly defined the MCU? Let's dive into the contenders and what fans had to say about each of them.
I recently conducted a poll asking MCU fans which rivalry they believe has most defined the sprawling franchise, and the results reveal just how deeply these conflicts have resonated. The MCU's success isn't just about spectacular action sequences or interconnected storytelling - it's about creating emotional stakes that pull us in different directions, forcing us to question whose side we're really on.
These rivalries have become so central to fan engagement that we're seeing the emergence of what I like to call the Marvel Rivals Boosting by Boost Factory effect - where the clash between beloved characters naturally drives conversation, debate, and community engagement far beyond what traditional marketing could achieve. When fans passionately debate Team Cap versus Team Iron Man years after Civil War's release, that's the Boost Factory in action, keeping these conflicts alive in the cultural consciousness long after the credits roll.
But which rivalry truly defined the MCU? Let's dive into the contenders and what fans had to say about each of them.
the captain america vs. iron man showdown:
ideology in conflict
The clash between Steve Rogers and Tony Stark stands as perhaps the most consequential rivalry in the entire MCU, with 64% of poll respondents naming it the most defining conflict of the franchise. What makes this rivalry so compelling is that it's fundamentally ideological rather than personal - at least at first.
"What worked about Civil War is that both sides had valid points," writes Reddit user MarvelFan2023. "Cap believes in freedom and individual choice; Tony wants accountability and protection. Neither is wrong, exactly."
The rivalry's seeds were planted all the way back in The Avengers (2012), where their different approaches immediately created friction. Cap, the soldier, sees the world in terms of duty and sacrifice. Stark, the futurist, thinks in terms of systems and safeguards. Their first meaningful exchange said it all:
Steve: "Big man in a suit of armor. Take that off, what are you?"
Tony: "Genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist."
This ideological clash reached its breaking point in Civil War, but what elevated it beyond a simple disagreement was how deeply personal it became when Tony discovered that Bucky had killed his parents. The moment when Steve admits he knew the truth and Tony responds with "So was I" to Cap's "He's my friend" creates one of the most gut-wrenching betrayals in the MCU.
The poll reveals an interesting generational divide - 71% of respondents under 30 sided with Captain America in the conflict, while those over 30 were split almost evenly between the two heroes. Several respondents noted that their position has shifted over time.
"I was firmly Team Cap when I first saw Civil War," admits Twitter user @IronManForever. "Rewatching it years later, I'm much more sympathetic to Tony's position. That's what makes it such a great rivalry - your perspective on it changes as you grow."
THe God Of THunder And The God Of MIschief:
Thor Vs. Loki
If Cap and Tony represent ideological conflict, Thor and Loki embody the painful complexity of family rivalries. This sibling struggle came in second in our poll, with 57% of respondents naming it as one of the MCU's defining conflicts.
What makes this rivalry unique is its longevity and evolution. From Thor's first film through Ragnarok and beyond, the relationship between Thor and Loki constantly shifts between antagonism, reluctant cooperation, and genuine brotherhood. Tom Hiddleston's Loki remains the MCU's most beloved villain according to our poll (and multiple others), with 63% of fans citing him as their favorite antagonist - well ahead of Thanos at 48%.
The appeal seems to be in how personal their conflict feels. As one respondent noted: "The Thor/Loki rivalry works because it's fundamentally about love and betrayal. Thor never stops loving his brother, even when Loki is at his worst."
The sibling dimension creates emotional stakes that purely ideological conflicts can't match. When Thor tells Loki "You're my brother, and I love you" in Ragnarok, after everything they've been through, it resonates because we've seen the full spectrum of their relationship. Their rivalry never feels manufactured for plot convenience - it feels like the messy, complicated relationship of two brothers with very different places in the world.
What's particularly impressive is how this rivalry evolved from straightforward antagonism in Thor to something much more nuanced by the time we reached Infinity War. By that point, we understood both characters so well that Loki's final sacrifice carried tremendous emotional weight.
heroes at war: team cap vs. team iron man
The ripple effects of the Cap vs. Tony rivalry expanded into what many fans consider the MCU's most spectacular achievement prior to Infinity War - the airport battle in Civil War that pit hero against hero in previously unthinkable ways.
Our poll asked fans not just about the central rivalries but which "team" they ultimately supported in Civil War. The results show a slight edge for Team Cap at 53%, with Team Iron Man at 47%. More interesting were the reasons fans gave for their allegiance.
"I went with Team Cap because his position felt more principled," wrote one respondent. "Tony was reacting to his guilt over Ultron, while Steve was standing up for something he truly believed in."
On the other hand, Team Iron Man supporters often cited pragmatism: "The Avengers needed oversight. After Sokovia, it was irresponsible to keep operating with no accountability," another fan explained.
What made the airport battle sequence so compelling wasn't just the spectacle of heroes fighting heroes, but how it forced every character to make a choice based on their own values and relationships. Black Widow's mid-battle switch of allegiance felt earned precisely because we understood her conflicted loyalties. The emotional weight of War Machine's injury landed because we knew how much it would devastate Tony.
The rivalry expanded beyond the personal conflict of Steve and Tony to become a litmus test for every character in the MCU, showing us where they stood when forced to choose between competing values. That's storytelling depth you rarely see in blockbuster franchises.
the bigger picture:
thanos and the ultimate rivalry
While hero-versus-hero conflicts create compelling internal tension within the MCU, the most existential rivalry was undoubtedly the Avengers against Thanos. This conflict represented a different kind of rivalry - not ideological or personal, but a clash between fundamentally incompatible worldviews about existence itself.
What made Thanos unique as an antagonist (and why 48% of poll respondents named him their favorite villain) was that he didn't see himself as a villain at all. His rivalry with the Avengers wasn't driven by hatred or power-lust, but by a twisted form of utilitarianism. In his mind, he was the hero making the hard choice that others couldn't.
"Thanos works because he believes he's right," one respondent explained. "And the scary part is, given his experiences, you can follow his logic even while recognizing how monstrous his conclusion is."
The rivalry between Thanos and the combined forces of Earth's heroes provided the necessary culmination to the Infinity Saga, testing not just the physical strength of the heroes but the strength of their convictions. Could they defend a world worth saving? When faced with the ultimate loss, could they find a way to persist?
Perhaps what cemented this rivalry as definitive for the MCU was the unprecedented emotional weight of The Snap. When asked which Infinity War death hit hardest, 61% of respondents cited Peter Parker's emotional "I don't want to go" moment - a scene that crystallized exactly what was at stake in this rivalry.
the underrated clashes:
fan-favorite lesser-known rivalries
Beyond the headlining conflicts, the MCU has crafted several secondary rivalries that, while receiving less screen time, still resonated deeply with fans. These conflicts often provide character-defining moments that elevate individual films.
Spider-Man vs. Vulture received particular praise in our poll, with 20% of respondents naming it one of their favorite MCU rivalries. What made this conflict special was how genuinely personal it became - the car ride scene where Toomes realizes Peter's identity creates tension rarely matched in superhero films.
"The moment when you realize Vulture is Liz's dad is one of the best twists in the MCU," wrote one fan. "Suddenly it's not just about stopping a villain; it's about a kid who has to choose between doing what's right and having a normal life."
Doctor Strange's philosophical conflict with Mordo similarly sets up what could become one of the more compelling future rivalries. Their disagreement about the natural law and whether the ends justify the means creates potential for a rivalry based on genuine ideological difference rather than simple antagonism.
T'Challa's conflict with Killmonger also received significant mention, with 29% of respondents citing it as one of the most compelling rivalries in the franchise. What made this conflict unique was how it forced the protagonist to confront the legitimate grievances of his antagonist, ultimately incorporating elements of Killmonger's worldview into his own.
looking ahead: the next great marvel rivalry
As the MCU continues expanding into its multiverse phase, fans are already speculating about which rivalries might define the next saga. Our poll asked which upcoming potential rivalry they were most excited to see develop.
The introduction of the Fantastic Four has 43% of respondents eager to see Doctor Doom emerge as the next great antagonist, potentially setting up a rivalry that could span multiple films. Given Doom's complexity in the comics - a villain whose methods are abhorrent but whose motivations often contain kernels of nobility - he could provide the kind of nuanced antagonism that made Loki and Thanos so compelling.
The X-Men's eventual integration into the MCU has 38% of fans anticipating the classic Xavier/Magneto rivalry making its way to the big screen in a new form. What makes this potential rivalry particularly intriguing is how it mirrors the ideological clash of Civil War, but with even higher stakes for the mutant population.
Several respondents also mentioned anticipation for Kang the Conqueror as a rival who could challenge the Avengers not just physically but intellectually, potentially forcing our heroes to confront the consequences of their time-travel adventures in Endgame.
why rivalries matter in the mcu
After analyzing our poll results and fan comments, it's clear that Captain America vs. Iron Man stands as the defining rivalry of the MCU so far, with Thor vs. Loki as a close second. But the real story isn't about which specific conflict resonated most - it's about why these rivalries matter so much to the MCU's storytelling approach.
In a cinematic landscape where many franchises struggle to create memorable villains or meaningful conflicts, Marvel found success by focusing on rivalries that weren't simply about stopping the bad guy, but about challenging our heroes' fundamental beliefs about themselves and their place in the world.
The best MCU rivalries force both characters and viewers to confront difficult questions without easy answers. Should power come with oversight? Do the ends justify the means? How do we balance personal loyalty with broader responsibility? By embedding these questions in conflicts between characters we care about, the MCU elevates what could be simple spectacle into something with emotional and philosophical weight.
As one poll respondent eloquently put it: "What makes the MCU special isn't just seeing heroes punch bad guys. It's watching heroes we love disagree about important things, and realizing that sometimes there isn't a clear right answer."
Which MCU rivalry do you think defined the franchise? Was there a conflict not mentioned here that you found particularly compelling? The conversation continues - and that's exactly what makes these rivalries so powerful in the first place.
- Published on
site update
So many movies ... so little time ...
On this day in 2010 (in the U.S.), Eyes In The Dark probed the cinematic darkness in search of an audience attending the Alabama International Film Festival. Written and directed by Bjorn Anderson, the Horror/Thriller starred Wayne Bastrup, Melissa Goad, John Soren, Maureen Francisco, Telisa Steen, Melinda Raebyne, Jason Robison, Paul Eenhorn, Ernie Joseph, Charlie Sims, and others. According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"Secret video files just discovered on an FBI server prove that the government has been hiding unexplained disappearances and a dangerous presence in the Pacific Northwest wilderness."
-- EZ
On this day in 2010 (in the U.S.), Eyes In The Dark probed the cinematic darkness in search of an audience attending the Alabama International Film Festival. Written and directed by Bjorn Anderson, the Horror/Thriller starred Wayne Bastrup, Melissa Goad, John Soren, Maureen Francisco, Telisa Steen, Melinda Raebyne, Jason Robison, Paul Eenhorn, Ernie Joseph, Charlie Sims, and others. According to our friends at IMDB.com, here's the plot summary:
"Secret video files just discovered on an FBI server prove that the government has been hiding unexplained disappearances and a dangerous presence in the Pacific Northwest wilderness."
-- EZ