- Published on
Just to clarify ... no, I'm not gloating.
As I've said several times when I've been asked by fans on my opinion of Star Wars Disney+ streaming series The Acolyte is that I didn't watch it. In fact, I've confessed that I cancelled my subscription after the dismal finale to Star Wars: The Bad Batch, an animated diversion that I enjoyed up until its last season in which creator Dave Filoni kinda/sorta switched dynamics and went in a markedly different direction with the ensemble project. (No, I didn't hate the last episode or two, but I was disappointed.) Since I've never seen so much as a single episode of The Acolyte, I can't effectively comment on it critically.
Now, I can say that I followed a lot of the program's controversy, along with the drubbing it took online from fans. While I'll concede that some of the criticisms were occasionally over the top, I think a good portion of what I saw seemed logical, cogent, and well-conceived. No, I didn't see -- as has been widely reported in the media -- a "bunch of bigots" spouting out their shared hatred of people who look and/or act differently than they do; instead, I watched and listened to thinkers dissecting why scenes and characters and even settings didn't quite work as seamlessly as the way even a modestly produced effort should. Truth can be difficult to swallow, but that doesn't suggest one opinion is any more divisive or ill-founded than others. Reality is likely somewhere in the middle.
But I did see yesterday that word has finally reached the World Wide Web of The Acolyte's cancellation; and I can't say that I'm all that surprised. The show's ratings were not good, and -- ahem -- the way the studio, the stars, and the showrunners were lashing out at anyone who held an assessment contrary to theirs probably didn't exactly win over the vast majority of potential viewers who were 'sitting on the fence minding their own business.' Rarely do such campaigns turn out well, and had any employee with an understanding of history been behind-the-scenes then perhaps a cautionary word or two might've brought a different fate. Again, truth can be difficult to swallow ... but I've already said as much.
At the very least, The Acolyte joins that growing mountain of Science Fiction and Fantasy shows that were fortunate enough to get a single season but not relevant enough to earn a second. That's no testament to quality, frankly, as a great many shows have come and gone in the same fashion, some of the good, some of them bad. Having been around on this Big Blue Marble longer than most, I can tell you my heart, too, has been broken from having suffered alongside fans in the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, and more; so -- if nothing else -- those of you who enjoyed The Acolyte have minimally my understanding and an appreciation for how you're feeling today. Yes, it hurts ... but you'll get over it.
Here's the thing, though ...
History also tells us that just because a studio cancels something that doesn't mean that fandom simply walks away.
Indeed, where would we be if those legendary Star Trek fans -- Trekkies, Trekkers, general Trek enthusiasts, etc. -- had left the Final Frontier behind? Each and every time the television show was up for cancellation, they responded. They bought the adventures of Captain James T. Kirk and his crew a full three seasons; and even then when the show resurfaced in television syndication they kept pushing and pushing and pushing for more. It wasn't all that long before an animated incarnation turned up -- along with novels, fanfiction, and the like -- and then once Star Wars lit the fuse it was inevitable that Paramount followed suit with the franchise of their own.
The Acolyte can live on ... but only if you lift it up.
Yes, it'll take a significant amount of effort. Yes, it's likely going to be an uphill battle. But if enough of you can convince the powers that be -- along with Harvey Weinstein employee Leslye Headland -- that you want more, then you're likely going to get something. It might be a graphic novel or a series of books. It could even be an animated show. The sky's the limit ... but you're going to have to show them that it's worth the investment. That's what scores of folks did back in Trek's days; and if you're willing to roll up your sleeves and do a good day's work then you, too, can seize the day.
Regardless ... The Force can still be with us.
-- EZ
As I've said several times when I've been asked by fans on my opinion of Star Wars Disney+ streaming series The Acolyte is that I didn't watch it. In fact, I've confessed that I cancelled my subscription after the dismal finale to Star Wars: The Bad Batch, an animated diversion that I enjoyed up until its last season in which creator Dave Filoni kinda/sorta switched dynamics and went in a markedly different direction with the ensemble project. (No, I didn't hate the last episode or two, but I was disappointed.) Since I've never seen so much as a single episode of The Acolyte, I can't effectively comment on it critically.
Now, I can say that I followed a lot of the program's controversy, along with the drubbing it took online from fans. While I'll concede that some of the criticisms were occasionally over the top, I think a good portion of what I saw seemed logical, cogent, and well-conceived. No, I didn't see -- as has been widely reported in the media -- a "bunch of bigots" spouting out their shared hatred of people who look and/or act differently than they do; instead, I watched and listened to thinkers dissecting why scenes and characters and even settings didn't quite work as seamlessly as the way even a modestly produced effort should. Truth can be difficult to swallow, but that doesn't suggest one opinion is any more divisive or ill-founded than others. Reality is likely somewhere in the middle.
But I did see yesterday that word has finally reached the World Wide Web of The Acolyte's cancellation; and I can't say that I'm all that surprised. The show's ratings were not good, and -- ahem -- the way the studio, the stars, and the showrunners were lashing out at anyone who held an assessment contrary to theirs probably didn't exactly win over the vast majority of potential viewers who were 'sitting on the fence minding their own business.' Rarely do such campaigns turn out well, and had any employee with an understanding of history been behind-the-scenes then perhaps a cautionary word or two might've brought a different fate. Again, truth can be difficult to swallow ... but I've already said as much.
At the very least, The Acolyte joins that growing mountain of Science Fiction and Fantasy shows that were fortunate enough to get a single season but not relevant enough to earn a second. That's no testament to quality, frankly, as a great many shows have come and gone in the same fashion, some of the good, some of them bad. Having been around on this Big Blue Marble longer than most, I can tell you my heart, too, has been broken from having suffered alongside fans in the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, and more; so -- if nothing else -- those of you who enjoyed The Acolyte have minimally my understanding and an appreciation for how you're feeling today. Yes, it hurts ... but you'll get over it.
Here's the thing, though ...
History also tells us that just because a studio cancels something that doesn't mean that fandom simply walks away.
Indeed, where would we be if those legendary Star Trek fans -- Trekkies, Trekkers, general Trek enthusiasts, etc. -- had left the Final Frontier behind? Each and every time the television show was up for cancellation, they responded. They bought the adventures of Captain James T. Kirk and his crew a full three seasons; and even then when the show resurfaced in television syndication they kept pushing and pushing and pushing for more. It wasn't all that long before an animated incarnation turned up -- along with novels, fanfiction, and the like -- and then once Star Wars lit the fuse it was inevitable that Paramount followed suit with the franchise of their own.
The Acolyte can live on ... but only if you lift it up.
Yes, it'll take a significant amount of effort. Yes, it's likely going to be an uphill battle. But if enough of you can convince the powers that be -- along with Harvey Weinstein employee Leslye Headland -- that you want more, then you're likely going to get something. It might be a graphic novel or a series of books. It could even be an animated show. The sky's the limit ... but you're going to have to show them that it's worth the investment. That's what scores of folks did back in Trek's days; and if you're willing to roll up your sleeves and do a good day's work then you, too, can seize the day.
Regardless ... The Force can still be with us.
-- EZ
- Published on
One of the irrefutable truths about Horrors is that they thankfully come in all shapes and sizes.
In other words, some studios have poured untold millions into the genre, and these projects have either sunk or swum (swam?) on their own merits. Likewise, smaller outfits and/or even independent filmmakers have ponied up smaller budgets and slimmer casts; and they’ve still managed to complete a number of projects that have still ‘met the bar’ and racked up some solid box office returns. Because anyone with a smartphone these days can tinker in the realm of storyteller, there has grown a stronger tendency to see something newly released really being little more than a cheap clone of something that’s come before: the writers, directors, producers, and actors will come together and wind up presenting little more than ‘a riff’ on one of their favorites, giving the audiences not quite what they wanted but perhaps just enough to still transcend the noise. It ain’t easy finding break-out success – what with so many options available to consumers presently – but that never stops an opportunist (or a group of them) from trying.
What this generally means for viewers is that they’re not quite getting works from authentic auteurs but instead they’re forced to endure an increasing number of knock-offs … and, no, I don’t use that word as if it’s a bad thing. In fact, film history is replete with inspired retreads that can be good, vicarious experiences; and that’s about the sum total of my two cents on Hell Hole (2024). While it may not be all that original or offer a even a measure dose of that ‘new car smell,’ it still rather humbly sets out to establish its own universe with enough bells, whistles, and widgets to achieve a modest level of fright. Heck, given that some of what I believe might have been its original muses are a few decades old, it may even convince watchers that it’s in prime shape all on its lonesome. Though I’ve seen it before, others may not have … and that fact alone might earn it a better box office return than it perhaps deserves.
(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 …)
In other words, some studios have poured untold millions into the genre, and these projects have either sunk or swum (swam?) on their own merits. Likewise, smaller outfits and/or even independent filmmakers have ponied up smaller budgets and slimmer casts; and they’ve still managed to complete a number of projects that have still ‘met the bar’ and racked up some solid box office returns. Because anyone with a smartphone these days can tinker in the realm of storyteller, there has grown a stronger tendency to see something newly released really being little more than a cheap clone of something that’s come before: the writers, directors, producers, and actors will come together and wind up presenting little more than ‘a riff’ on one of their favorites, giving the audiences not quite what they wanted but perhaps just enough to still transcend the noise. It ain’t easy finding break-out success – what with so many options available to consumers presently – but that never stops an opportunist (or a group of them) from trying.
What this generally means for viewers is that they’re not quite getting works from authentic auteurs but instead they’re forced to endure an increasing number of knock-offs … and, no, I don’t use that word as if it’s a bad thing. In fact, film history is replete with inspired retreads that can be good, vicarious experiences; and that’s about the sum total of my two cents on Hell Hole (2024). While it may not be all that original or offer a even a measure dose of that ‘new car smell,’ it still rather humbly sets out to establish its own universe with enough bells, whistles, and widgets to achieve a modest level of fright. Heck, given that some of what I believe might have been its original muses are a few decades old, it may even convince watchers that it’s in prime shape all on its lonesome. Though I’ve seen it before, others may not have … and that fact alone might earn it a better box office return than it perhaps deserves.
(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:
“Hell Hole hails from the filmmaking family behind Hellbender and centers on an American-led fracking crew that uncovers a living French soldier frozen in time from a Napoleonic campaign, whose body hosts a parasitic monster.”
I’ve mentioned before that – amongst the fans and fanatics of John Carpenter’s work – I’m in the minority when it comes to choosing his greatest screen effort. A good many – probably the vast majority – cite the writer/director’s 1982 remake of 1951’s The Thing From Outer Space – simply called The Thing – as his highwater mark. While I’ll concede it’s a great film, I’ve often said that I struggled with its pacing, finding the reveals a bit too slow in response to the level of tension the story otherwise ratchets up. My expectations just weren’t met as cleanly or as often as I felt the film promised, and that’s largely why I rank it a bit further down the list. (If you’re really interested, then I insist his crowning achievement was 1981’s Escape From New York, but that’s an argument for another time and another place.)
As hard as Hell Hole tries to chart out different territory, I can assure you that directors John Adams and Toby Poser (both of whom are also credited with scriptwork along with Lulu Adams) really don’t go far enough to distinguish their effort from appearing as anything other than a lukewarm copycat. Oh, no, it doesn’t invest the same kind of splash, splatter, and gore along with Carpenter’s cutting edge utilization of practical special effects with the body-hopping parasitic alien entity; and yet – on a vastly smaller budget – Hole steps into that same alleyway depicting the struggle of its cast of characters walled off from society at large on a fracking installation in the middle of nowhere and cut off by a washed out road. The crew may not be scientists – they’re mostly blue-collar Serbians with the exception of the company leads and a few specialists – but they’re about to turn on one another as the newly-unearthed critter keeps jumping from one host carrier to the next.
“Hell Hole hails from the filmmaking family behind Hellbender and centers on an American-led fracking crew that uncovers a living French soldier frozen in time from a Napoleonic campaign, whose body hosts a parasitic monster.”
I’ve mentioned before that – amongst the fans and fanatics of John Carpenter’s work – I’m in the minority when it comes to choosing his greatest screen effort. A good many – probably the vast majority – cite the writer/director’s 1982 remake of 1951’s The Thing From Outer Space – simply called The Thing – as his highwater mark. While I’ll concede it’s a great film, I’ve often said that I struggled with its pacing, finding the reveals a bit too slow in response to the level of tension the story otherwise ratchets up. My expectations just weren’t met as cleanly or as often as I felt the film promised, and that’s largely why I rank it a bit further down the list. (If you’re really interested, then I insist his crowning achievement was 1981’s Escape From New York, but that’s an argument for another time and another place.)
As hard as Hell Hole tries to chart out different territory, I can assure you that directors John Adams and Toby Poser (both of whom are also credited with scriptwork along with Lulu Adams) really don’t go far enough to distinguish their effort from appearing as anything other than a lukewarm copycat. Oh, no, it doesn’t invest the same kind of splash, splatter, and gore along with Carpenter’s cutting edge utilization of practical special effects with the body-hopping parasitic alien entity; and yet – on a vastly smaller budget – Hole steps into that same alleyway depicting the struggle of its cast of characters walled off from society at large on a fracking installation in the middle of nowhere and cut off by a washed out road. The crew may not be scientists – they’re mostly blue-collar Serbians with the exception of the company leads and a few specialists – but they’re about to turn on one another as the newly-unearthed critter keeps jumping from one host carrier to the next.
The downside to so obvious an inspiration is the Hole – on its own efforts – can’t quite capitalize on either the growing hysteria or make similar use of the resulting paranoia of the group’s isolation. In The Thing, the key players were quite literally sequestered away from mankind in the cruel Arctic location; by comparison, Hole shelters these workers in the black hole of the Serbian mountainside where a somewhat decrepit or condemned factory is about all they can see. Still, they’re all free to move about – scenes take place inside the old structure as well as in some reasonably wide-open spaces – and this works counter to the aesthetic of the central theme. The directors clearly try to keep the bulk of the action contained in smaller places, and yet even they can’t help but toss in far too money aerial drone shots of the blighted factory probably because they thought it was good cinematography.
The other big problem that kills any real forward momentum an otherwise good script develops is that neither Adams nor Posey stage their affair for the cameras with any degree of elegance. Every scene and sequence has a kinda/sorta mechanical feel – characters are often shot individually, and it’s all assembled in editing – so there’s very little dramatic impact between the men and women when they’re arguing with one another (which happens in ample supply as the story wears on). Think what you will, but drama often works better when it’s captured with more than a single character in the frame: this way, there’s a visual representation of the conflict played out on two faces instead of a single one. Clashes are more dynamic – we love seeing the interplay of differing opinions – and that just never happen here. The beauty of photographically putting a good deal of thought into pre-production (i.e. storyboarding, even the chatty bits) usually results in more vivid photography; I can’t help but think that Hole was, largely, put together in-process, and it just never kicks into high gear when it should.
In fact, there’s a whole sequence that’s structured around narrative exposition. The site scientists go to great pains to explain what it is they believe they’ve uncovered about the central creature – a parasite with some similarities between known Earth species – and it’s an incredible slog as it one speech after another shared between four people. When the big reveal of your film requires, say, five-to-seven minutes of various speeches, then it needs to be rendered with some visual flourish somehow … but when that never happens even the least informed viewer realizes he’s in for smooth sailing instead of the much-needed bumpy ride. It’s a huge creative miss that’ll likely put more folks to sleep than it’ll alarm.
The other big problem that kills any real forward momentum an otherwise good script develops is that neither Adams nor Posey stage their affair for the cameras with any degree of elegance. Every scene and sequence has a kinda/sorta mechanical feel – characters are often shot individually, and it’s all assembled in editing – so there’s very little dramatic impact between the men and women when they’re arguing with one another (which happens in ample supply as the story wears on). Think what you will, but drama often works better when it’s captured with more than a single character in the frame: this way, there’s a visual representation of the conflict played out on two faces instead of a single one. Clashes are more dynamic – we love seeing the interplay of differing opinions – and that just never happen here. The beauty of photographically putting a good deal of thought into pre-production (i.e. storyboarding, even the chatty bits) usually results in more vivid photography; I can’t help but think that Hole was, largely, put together in-process, and it just never kicks into high gear when it should.
In fact, there’s a whole sequence that’s structured around narrative exposition. The site scientists go to great pains to explain what it is they believe they’ve uncovered about the central creature – a parasite with some similarities between known Earth species – and it’s an incredible slog as it one speech after another shared between four people. When the big reveal of your film requires, say, five-to-seven minutes of various speeches, then it needs to be rendered with some visual flourish somehow … but when that never happens even the least informed viewer realizes he’s in for smooth sailing instead of the much-needed bumpy ride. It’s a huge creative miss that’ll likely put more folks to sleep than it’ll alarm.
For what it’s worth? Toby Poser – as the script’s biggest player, Emily – does a pretty spiffy job carrying the action. She’s the somewhat hardened crew lead surrounded by a bunch of burly men and yet never flinches away from her responsibility when leadership is required. She’s a welcome distraction to the grim loner that Kurt Russell played in Carpenter’s afore-mentioned The Thing; and I wish a bit more attention could’ve been given to make her the truly commanding force this wild bunch needed in the big finish. As it is, I’m not entirely certain she survives (I suspect she does, but it's unclear), and the film ends without any significant resolution.
Hell Hole (2024) was produced by Not The Funeral Home. According to the supplied press materials, the flick will be available exclusively on Shudder effective August 23rd. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I’ll admit that I still found the provided sights-and-sounds to be pretty exceptional from start-to-finish; there’s some occasional special effects trickery that’s a bit underwhelming, but as often happens with Horrors of this variety it all still comes off as ‘measured charm’ anyway, so don’t make too much of that. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? As I viewed this one via streaming, there were no extras under consideration.
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
I suspect that younger viewers – those largely unaware of, say, the films of John Carpenter, Wes Craven, and/or Stuart Gordon – might find more to enjoy in Hell Hole (2024). While I found a great degree of it derivative, the script occasionally offers up some snappy dialogue, but the somewhat predictable Horror procedural gets anchored in place all too often by some stupefyingly boring direction, staging, and thematic pacing. That and some curiously out-of-place rock music edits try to infuse the piece with some hip, music video sensibilities that seem way off … like the directors and producers were going more for comic effect instead of dramatic tension. The end result is just too uneven for my tastes, but it’s an affair not entirely wasted on this film junkie, either.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Shudder provided me with complimentary streaming access to Hell Hole (2024) 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
Hell Hole (2024) was produced by Not The Funeral Home. According to the supplied press materials, the flick will be available exclusively on Shudder effective August 23rd. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I’ll admit that I still found the provided sights-and-sounds to be pretty exceptional from start-to-finish; there’s some occasional special effects trickery that’s a bit underwhelming, but as often happens with Horrors of this variety it all still comes off as ‘measured charm’ anyway, so don’t make too much of that. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? As I viewed this one via streaming, there were no extras under consideration.
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
I suspect that younger viewers – those largely unaware of, say, the films of John Carpenter, Wes Craven, and/or Stuart Gordon – might find more to enjoy in Hell Hole (2024). While I found a great degree of it derivative, the script occasionally offers up some snappy dialogue, but the somewhat predictable Horror procedural gets anchored in place all too often by some stupefyingly boring direction, staging, and thematic pacing. That and some curiously out-of-place rock music edits try to infuse the piece with some hip, music video sensibilities that seem way off … like the directors and producers were going more for comic effect instead of dramatic tension. The end result is just too uneven for my tastes, but it’s an affair not entirely wasted on this film junkie, either.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Shudder provided me with complimentary streaming access to Hell Hole (2024) 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
One of the quintessential debates throughout the age of mankind always boils down to this: are you cat or a dog person?
I know, I know, I know ... why can't you be both? Well, society in general seems to be okay with it to varying degrees, but the wider motion picture industry always seems to cast aspersions more at cat lovers than they do dogs. Why? Well, there's probably no real central reason, but dogs -- what with their 'man's best friend' descriptor -- seem to be among the favored status. Cat lovers? Sigh. I guess it goes without saying that we have issues, what with the fact that they were once revered and worshipped by Egyptians (from what I've been told). As a consequence of history, we usually get the short end of the stick.
Setting aside the cultural dynamics, there's a new flick coming down the pike that promises to put some of this in a unique perspective: Booger looks to transform the cinematic marketplace by serving up the story of a woman and a cat who might wind up having a bit more in common than they did at the beginning of their complex relationship. I've received the press materials via one of my industry contacts, and I'm doing the respectful copy-and-paste below. Readers are encouraged to check this one out next month when it all comes to light and shadows both theatrically and digitally.
Move over, Cujo. There's a new terror in town. And this tabby is named Booger.
I know, I know, I know ... why can't you be both? Well, society in general seems to be okay with it to varying degrees, but the wider motion picture industry always seems to cast aspersions more at cat lovers than they do dogs. Why? Well, there's probably no real central reason, but dogs -- what with their 'man's best friend' descriptor -- seem to be among the favored status. Cat lovers? Sigh. I guess it goes without saying that we have issues, what with the fact that they were once revered and worshipped by Egyptians (from what I've been told). As a consequence of history, we usually get the short end of the stick.
Setting aside the cultural dynamics, there's a new flick coming down the pike that promises to put some of this in a unique perspective: Booger looks to transform the cinematic marketplace by serving up the story of a woman and a cat who might wind up having a bit more in common than they did at the beginning of their complex relationship. I've received the press materials via one of my industry contacts, and I'm doing the respectful copy-and-paste below. Readers are encouraged to check this one out next month when it all comes to light and shadows both theatrically and digitally.
Move over, Cujo. There's a new terror in town. And this tabby is named Booger.
After Her Dead Friend's Cat Runs Away, Anna Grows Desperate To Find Him, Ignoring The Fact That Her Life (and body) Are Totally Falling Apart.
A Surprising, Grossly Sweet Journey
BOOGER
Written and directed by Mary Dauterman
In Theaters & On Digital VOD
September 13th
A Surprising, Grossly Sweet Journey
BOOGER
Written and directed by Mary Dauterman
In Theaters & On Digital VOD
September 13th
Dark Sky Films proudly announces the release of Booger to select theaters and digital/VOD on September 13th. Booger is the acclaimed debut feature from writer-director Mary Dauterman and featuring a praised performance by Strawberry Mansion's Grace Glowicki.
Booger, the acclaimed debut feature from writer-director Mary Dauterman and featuring a praised performance by Strawberry Mansion's Grace Glowicki, is a one-of-a-kind film blending body horror with comedy in a story of intense female friendship and its tragic loss, all backgrounded by a tale of supernatural transformation.
New Yorker Anna (Grace Glowicki, Strawberry Mansion) has just suffered the sudden and unexpected death of her best friend and roommate, Izzy (Sofia Dobrushin, Mean Girls 2024 ). She's trying to handle this loss when Izzy's cat, Booger, runs away. Anna goes on a desperate search to find him and in the process, she is bitten on the hand by the cat. She soon begins to take on feline characteristics. and her work life and relationship with her boyfriend start to go downhill.
The film also stars Garrick Bernard (Single Drunk Female), Marcia DeBonis (Sometimes I Think About Dying, 13 Going on 30), David Rysdahl (Oppenheimer, Fargo) and indie icon Heather Matarazzo (Welcome to the Dollhouse, Scream 3).
Booger is produced by Lexi Tannenholtz (Shudder’s Bad Things) and executive produced by Neon Heart Productions (Cora Bora), Ley Line Entertainment (Everything Everywhere All at Once), Sanctuary Content, One Two Twenty Entertainment (Joyland) and Lizzie Shapiro (Shiva Baby).
Written and Directed by: Mary Dauterman
Produced by: Lexi Tannenholtz
Executive Produced by: Neon Heart Productions, Ley Line Entertainment, Sanctuary Content, One Two Twenty Entertainment, Lizzie Shapiro
Language: English
Genre: Body Horror, Comedy
Distributor: Dark Sky Films
Run Time: 78 minutes
Cast: Grace Glowicki (Strawberry Mansion, Tito, Until Branches Bend), Garrick Bernard (Single Drunk Female), Heather Matarazzo (Welcome to the Dollhouse, Scream), Marcia DeBonis (Sometimes I Think About Dying, 13 Going on 30), Sofia Dobrushin (WeCrashed)
WHAT THE CRITICS ARE SAYING
Booger, the acclaimed debut feature from writer-director Mary Dauterman and featuring a praised performance by Strawberry Mansion's Grace Glowicki, is a one-of-a-kind film blending body horror with comedy in a story of intense female friendship and its tragic loss, all backgrounded by a tale of supernatural transformation.
New Yorker Anna (Grace Glowicki, Strawberry Mansion) has just suffered the sudden and unexpected death of her best friend and roommate, Izzy (Sofia Dobrushin, Mean Girls 2024 ). She's trying to handle this loss when Izzy's cat, Booger, runs away. Anna goes on a desperate search to find him and in the process, she is bitten on the hand by the cat. She soon begins to take on feline characteristics. and her work life and relationship with her boyfriend start to go downhill.
The film also stars Garrick Bernard (Single Drunk Female), Marcia DeBonis (Sometimes I Think About Dying, 13 Going on 30), David Rysdahl (Oppenheimer, Fargo) and indie icon Heather Matarazzo (Welcome to the Dollhouse, Scream 3).
Booger is produced by Lexi Tannenholtz (Shudder’s Bad Things) and executive produced by Neon Heart Productions (Cora Bora), Ley Line Entertainment (Everything Everywhere All at Once), Sanctuary Content, One Two Twenty Entertainment (Joyland) and Lizzie Shapiro (Shiva Baby).
Written and Directed by: Mary Dauterman
Produced by: Lexi Tannenholtz
Executive Produced by: Neon Heart Productions, Ley Line Entertainment, Sanctuary Content, One Two Twenty Entertainment, Lizzie Shapiro
Language: English
Genre: Body Horror, Comedy
Distributor: Dark Sky Films
Run Time: 78 minutes
Cast: Grace Glowicki (Strawberry Mansion, Tito, Until Branches Bend), Garrick Bernard (Single Drunk Female), Heather Matarazzo (Welcome to the Dollhouse, Scream), Marcia DeBonis (Sometimes I Think About Dying, 13 Going on 30), Sofia Dobrushin (WeCrashed)
WHAT THE CRITICS ARE SAYING
- ""Booger showcases Dauterman’s budding senses as a filmmaker." - ROGER EBERT ONLINE
- "If you don’t gag at least once watching Mary Dauterman’s feature debut Booger, then you’re probably doing it wrong." - IN THE SEATS
- "Dauterman wisely uses genre elements to visualize and augment the often visceral impact of maintaining (and losing) close female friendships." - BLOODY DISGUSTING
- “Dauterman’s feature debut is a must-watch for horror connoisseurs who prefer horror films that make them think” -COLLIDER
- “Equally as funny as it is horrific” - COMICBOOK.COM
- “Mary Dauterman’s sensational debut feature” - THE MOVEABLE FEAST
- “What sets Booger apart are Dauterman’s unique perspective and Glowicki’s amazing performance as a woman teetering on the edge of sanity – and occasionally toppling over” - SCREEN ANARCHY
- Published on
Oh, what parallel lives we lead!
I don't know about you folks, but I've always been intrigued by the idea of other universes. In fact, I think it's easier in some ways to believe that there could be more than a single level of existence to reality because such a fundamental concept might offer a unified theory to things like sasquatch, UFOs, cryptids, ghosts, and the whole spectrum of paranormal phenomenon. If there's another layer -- or even multiple layers -- to consciousness, then who's to say there isn't a means with which to swing a door wide open, allowing for us to go through or even for them -- whatever they may be -- to cross into our world?
Well, this whole premise looks to be the driving force behind a little something-something that's launching both theatrical and digitally just this week as writer, director, and actor Graham Hughes unleashes his little opus Hostile Dimensions onto unsuspecting audiences. I've received a notice of its impending release along with a few of the particulars which I'll be doing the dutiful copy-and-paste below; and I'm encouraging readers of SciFiHistory.Net to check out the trailer. Knowing what a great many of you think of 'found footage flicks' (yes, I realize it may not be to everyone's liking), I'd still suggest this one might be worth the effort as it appears to have garnered a bit of positive praise on the film festival circuit.
Besides: I happen to be pretty fond of the found footage format, especially when the storytellers actually do something interesting with it. May not be fancy. May not be cutting edge. But if it tweaks the imagination in even a small way, I usually dig them. So if I can get my hands on a streaming link, then I'll be giving this one a review. Keep your eyes peeled, kiddies.
In the meantime, you know what to do.
I don't know about you folks, but I've always been intrigued by the idea of other universes. In fact, I think it's easier in some ways to believe that there could be more than a single level of existence to reality because such a fundamental concept might offer a unified theory to things like sasquatch, UFOs, cryptids, ghosts, and the whole spectrum of paranormal phenomenon. If there's another layer -- or even multiple layers -- to consciousness, then who's to say there isn't a means with which to swing a door wide open, allowing for us to go through or even for them -- whatever they may be -- to cross into our world?
Well, this whole premise looks to be the driving force behind a little something-something that's launching both theatrical and digitally just this week as writer, director, and actor Graham Hughes unleashes his little opus Hostile Dimensions onto unsuspecting audiences. I've received a notice of its impending release along with a few of the particulars which I'll be doing the dutiful copy-and-paste below; and I'm encouraging readers of SciFiHistory.Net to check out the trailer. Knowing what a great many of you think of 'found footage flicks' (yes, I realize it may not be to everyone's liking), I'd still suggest this one might be worth the effort as it appears to have garnered a bit of positive praise on the film festival circuit.
Besides: I happen to be pretty fond of the found footage format, especially when the storytellers actually do something interesting with it. May not be fancy. May not be cutting edge. But if it tweaks the imagination in even a small way, I usually dig them. So if I can get my hands on a streaming link, then I'll be giving this one a review. Keep your eyes peeled, kiddies.
In the meantime, you know what to do.
A TWIST-FILLED MULTI-VERSE THRILLER
HOSTILE DIMENSIONS
Sci-Fi/Horror Movie Coming to Theaters and Digital/VOD Platforms
August 23rd from Dark Sky Films
Official Film Synopsis:
A twist-filled multi-verse thriller from Graham Hughes (Death Of A Vlogger), HOSTILE DIMENSIONS follows two documentary filmmakers who decide to investigate the disappearance of a graffiti artist who seemingly ‘vanished’. As they delve deeper into their research, they encounter an ominous freestanding door which leads them on a dark journey through the dimensions behind it. Determined to uncover the truth the pair soon realize they have stumbled across something far more terrifying than they could have ever imagined.
Written & Directed by: Graham Hughes
Produced by: Stephen Beavis, Cedric Gall, Graham Hughes
Language: English
Genre: Horror, Science Fiction, Independent
Distributor: Dark Sky Films
Run Time: 77 minutes
Cast: Annabel Logan, Joma West, Josie Rogers, Paddy Kondracki, Stephen Beavis, Graham Hughes
WHAT THE CRITICS ARE SAYING
A twist-filled multi-verse thriller from Graham Hughes (Death Of A Vlogger), HOSTILE DIMENSIONS follows two documentary filmmakers who decide to investigate the disappearance of a graffiti artist who seemingly ‘vanished’. As they delve deeper into their research, they encounter an ominous freestanding door which leads them on a dark journey through the dimensions behind it. Determined to uncover the truth the pair soon realize they have stumbled across something far more terrifying than they could have ever imagined.
Written & Directed by: Graham Hughes
Produced by: Stephen Beavis, Cedric Gall, Graham Hughes
Language: English
Genre: Horror, Science Fiction, Independent
Distributor: Dark Sky Films
Run Time: 77 minutes
Cast: Annabel Logan, Joma West, Josie Rogers, Paddy Kondracki, Stephen Beavis, Graham Hughes
WHAT THE CRITICS ARE SAYING
- 5 stars: ‘Remarkable…Hostile Dimensions offers something special’ – MOVING PICTURES FILM CLUB
- 5 stars: ‘A true mind-bending movie that keeps you guessing’ – MOVIES REVIEW 101
- 4 stars: ‘Downright terrifying…A must-see’ – THE HOLLYWOOD NEWS
- 4 stars: ‘Like Daniels’ Everything Everywhere All At Once, and a little bit like James Ward Byrkit’s Coherence’ – SCIFI NOW
- 4 stars: ‘Sharp, pacy, inventive’ – ELECTRIC SHADOWS
- 'High-gear lunacy... inventive, exciting, funny and creepy' – THE LONDON HORROR SOCIETY
- 'An original found footage gem' – NIGHTMARISH CONJURINGS
- Published on
As a fan of detective stories, I’ve written before – in this space, even – about my feelings regarding the character of Sherlock Holmes.
Regarded by many as the quintessential deductionist, Holmes has earned worldwide glory through exposure books, films, and television series. He’s one of those characters that – for reasons I’ve never quite understood – comes and goes: he’ll fall out of popularity for some time only to come back into our collective consciousness again, perhaps even stronger and more admired than when he left. Because he’s a fictional creation that’s stood the test of time, producers are apt to tap that well again and again, perhaps gifting him with some new talent or new quirk in order to lend the man an air of freshness … and, yet, all that truly matters most is the investigator’s singular ability to get to the bottom of any affair that requires his urgent attention.
For me, however, I have to admit that I’m rarely enamored with his stories as are so many. While it might be a minor quibble to some, my issue is that going back to the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle far too many clues are hidden from the viewer’s eye – meaning I’m unable to follow along closely and perhaps even solve the case vicariously with the master – and, consequently, I think it’s a bit of a narrative ‘cheat.’ Knowing I’m in the minority, I choose not to make a big deal out of the man’s adventures, but I do give them a spin from time-to-time for no better reason than – as I said – I enjoy a good mystery.
Thankfully, the kind people at Severin Films gifted me a copy of 1962’s Sherlock Holmes And The Deadly Necklace, a German production fraught with some production controversy (as I understand from reading) directed by Terence Fisher from a script rather loosely based on Doyle’s material and penned by Curt Siodmak. If that doesn’t tickle your fancy, then how about this: the great Christopher Lee headlines the picture as the enigmatic resident of Baker Street, joined by the reliable Thorley Walters as his perennial sidekick, Dr. Watson.
(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:
“Sherlock Holmes and Watson do battle with their nemesis, Professor Moriarity, over an ancient necklace attributed to Cleopatra.”
Once, I met a theatre critic, and – just for giggles – I asked him how he ultimately knew he was watching a bad theatrical experience as opposed to something worthwhile. He told me that for him the big giveaway was that he found himself focusing on something usually entirely unimportant – things like set design, props, costumes, or even lighting – that would alert him that the story as presented just wasn’t working. While these things are important (he assured me), they should never be so vivid or captivating that they overwhelmed the original tale.
Well …
Deadly Necklace – as a self-contained Holmesian investigation – is a hodge-podge that never quite rises to the level of interest required to compel an audience to stick with it. I’ve read that not only was the plot – a kinda/sorta back-and-forth between Sherlock Holmes (played by Christopher Lee) and his arch nemesis Professor Moriarty (Hans Söhnker) involving the discovery of Cleopatra’s tomb – hacked together from bits and pieces of the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle novel “The Valley Of Fear” but also it was constantly a work in progress as the Doyle estate kept rejecting scenes shot as they held approvals over the daily production. Suffice it to say, I’ve watched it twice now, and I still can’t make much sense of it.
Regarded by many as the quintessential deductionist, Holmes has earned worldwide glory through exposure books, films, and television series. He’s one of those characters that – for reasons I’ve never quite understood – comes and goes: he’ll fall out of popularity for some time only to come back into our collective consciousness again, perhaps even stronger and more admired than when he left. Because he’s a fictional creation that’s stood the test of time, producers are apt to tap that well again and again, perhaps gifting him with some new talent or new quirk in order to lend the man an air of freshness … and, yet, all that truly matters most is the investigator’s singular ability to get to the bottom of any affair that requires his urgent attention.
For me, however, I have to admit that I’m rarely enamored with his stories as are so many. While it might be a minor quibble to some, my issue is that going back to the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle far too many clues are hidden from the viewer’s eye – meaning I’m unable to follow along closely and perhaps even solve the case vicariously with the master – and, consequently, I think it’s a bit of a narrative ‘cheat.’ Knowing I’m in the minority, I choose not to make a big deal out of the man’s adventures, but I do give them a spin from time-to-time for no better reason than – as I said – I enjoy a good mystery.
Thankfully, the kind people at Severin Films gifted me a copy of 1962’s Sherlock Holmes And The Deadly Necklace, a German production fraught with some production controversy (as I understand from reading) directed by Terence Fisher from a script rather loosely based on Doyle’s material and penned by Curt Siodmak. If that doesn’t tickle your fancy, then how about this: the great Christopher Lee headlines the picture as the enigmatic resident of Baker Street, joined by the reliable Thorley Walters as his perennial sidekick, Dr. Watson.
(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:
“Sherlock Holmes and Watson do battle with their nemesis, Professor Moriarity, over an ancient necklace attributed to Cleopatra.”
Once, I met a theatre critic, and – just for giggles – I asked him how he ultimately knew he was watching a bad theatrical experience as opposed to something worthwhile. He told me that for him the big giveaway was that he found himself focusing on something usually entirely unimportant – things like set design, props, costumes, or even lighting – that would alert him that the story as presented just wasn’t working. While these things are important (he assured me), they should never be so vivid or captivating that they overwhelmed the original tale.
Well …
Deadly Necklace – as a self-contained Holmesian investigation – is a hodge-podge that never quite rises to the level of interest required to compel an audience to stick with it. I’ve read that not only was the plot – a kinda/sorta back-and-forth between Sherlock Holmes (played by Christopher Lee) and his arch nemesis Professor Moriarty (Hans Söhnker) involving the discovery of Cleopatra’s tomb – hacked together from bits and pieces of the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle novel “The Valley Of Fear” but also it was constantly a work in progress as the Doyle estate kept rejecting scenes shot as they held approvals over the daily production. Suffice it to say, I’ve watched it twice now, and I still can’t make much sense of it.
What I can tell you is that the opening of Cleopatra’s burial vault has led to the discovery of riches, the greatest of which appears to be tied to an ornate necklace. As a known expert on such antiquities, Moriarty is naturally interested on getting his hands on this jewelry, and he’ll stop at nothing – yes, including murder – to do so. Of course, all of this draws Holmes, Watson, and even Scotland Yard into the caper, suggesting a somewhat loose ‘race against time’ structure that would see the necklace revealed to the public for its auction house event. Though there’s some great suggestion of heightened tension to all of this, the film is nearly void of any such anxiety.
Thankfully, Deadly Necklace does make solid use of the adversarial relationship between Holmes and Moriarty. (In fact, that’s really the only thriving undercurrent at work here to suggest any kind of dramatic beat.) Though they don’t share too many scenes together, Lee and Söhnker capture a sense of two men secretly locked in mortal combat – Lee is a composed and practical thinker while Söhnker’s mannerisms always hint at a measure of deviousness – and this effect truly should’ve been capitalized on more whenever possible. Also, I’d be remiss if I failed to point out that Lee and Walters also muster up some solid chemistry as the flick’s celebrated pair: though his Watson comes across a bit too clumsy at times, Walters still holds his own opposite the venerable Lee, and their scenes do help to keep the whole mystery from becoming entirely forgettable.
But like my friend the drama critic, I had an increasingly difficult time staying invested in the film, a development I owe to the fact that everything felt a bit too artificial, a bit too forced. No event flows freely from one moment to the next, and Fisher’s direction feels like it might’ve been usurped by elements beyond his control (mainly, whatever efforts the Conan Doyle estate were pushing behind the scenes). In fact, I found myself focusing on scene dressing here and there – would a study really have that many books, and who thought putting a chair over there was a good idea – further pulling me out of the organic experience and thrusting me into corners best left untended.
Sherlock Holmes And The Deadly Necklace (1962) was produced by Central Cinema Company Film (CCC), Omnia Deutsche Film Export, Criterion Productions, and Incei Film. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Severin Films. As for the technical specifications? Wow. Though I’m no trained video expert, I thought that this 1962 flick looked fabulous; sadly, the soundtrack is a bit inferior. (If one’s interested, then there’s some stuff out there in cyberspace about how German production of this era exclusively used dubbing after the fact, and you’re encouraged to read up on it if desired.) Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Well, aside from the usual extras there is a commentary track from film writers Kim Newman and Barry Forshaw: while it’s occasionally interesting, it truly veers into an incredible number of related topics … and, frankly, I found it a bit tiresome after a while. (While I’m no questioning eithers’ expertise, it just could’ve stayed on topic a bit more to my liking.)
Alas … only recommended for either Lee purists or Holmes aficionados.
Sadly, there just isn’t all that much within Sherlock Holmes And The Deadly Necklace (1962) to give it even a complimentary nod. The performances are all a bit predictable – though nice in a few spots – and the story feels unnecessarily spliced together in such a way that none of it feels all that interesting or consequential. Have you ever watched a movie and come away thinking “wouldn’t it have been great if X happened?” Well, Deadly Necklace might be one of those – an unusual assessment given it derived on Holmes subject matter – but that’s about the best that can be said. If it all should’ve been elementary, then this was a bit of a mess.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Severin Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Sherlock Holmes And The Deadly Necklace (1962) 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
Thankfully, Deadly Necklace does make solid use of the adversarial relationship between Holmes and Moriarty. (In fact, that’s really the only thriving undercurrent at work here to suggest any kind of dramatic beat.) Though they don’t share too many scenes together, Lee and Söhnker capture a sense of two men secretly locked in mortal combat – Lee is a composed and practical thinker while Söhnker’s mannerisms always hint at a measure of deviousness – and this effect truly should’ve been capitalized on more whenever possible. Also, I’d be remiss if I failed to point out that Lee and Walters also muster up some solid chemistry as the flick’s celebrated pair: though his Watson comes across a bit too clumsy at times, Walters still holds his own opposite the venerable Lee, and their scenes do help to keep the whole mystery from becoming entirely forgettable.
But like my friend the drama critic, I had an increasingly difficult time staying invested in the film, a development I owe to the fact that everything felt a bit too artificial, a bit too forced. No event flows freely from one moment to the next, and Fisher’s direction feels like it might’ve been usurped by elements beyond his control (mainly, whatever efforts the Conan Doyle estate were pushing behind the scenes). In fact, I found myself focusing on scene dressing here and there – would a study really have that many books, and who thought putting a chair over there was a good idea – further pulling me out of the organic experience and thrusting me into corners best left untended.
Sherlock Holmes And The Deadly Necklace (1962) was produced by Central Cinema Company Film (CCC), Omnia Deutsche Film Export, Criterion Productions, and Incei Film. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Severin Films. As for the technical specifications? Wow. Though I’m no trained video expert, I thought that this 1962 flick looked fabulous; sadly, the soundtrack is a bit inferior. (If one’s interested, then there’s some stuff out there in cyberspace about how German production of this era exclusively used dubbing after the fact, and you’re encouraged to read up on it if desired.) Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Well, aside from the usual extras there is a commentary track from film writers Kim Newman and Barry Forshaw: while it’s occasionally interesting, it truly veers into an incredible number of related topics … and, frankly, I found it a bit tiresome after a while. (While I’m no questioning eithers’ expertise, it just could’ve stayed on topic a bit more to my liking.)
Alas … only recommended for either Lee purists or Holmes aficionados.
Sadly, there just isn’t all that much within Sherlock Holmes And The Deadly Necklace (1962) to give it even a complimentary nod. The performances are all a bit predictable – though nice in a few spots – and the story feels unnecessarily spliced together in such a way that none of it feels all that interesting or consequential. Have you ever watched a movie and come away thinking “wouldn’t it have been great if X happened?” Well, Deadly Necklace might be one of those – an unusual assessment given it derived on Holmes subject matter – but that’s about the best that can be said. If it all should’ve been elementary, then this was a bit of a mess.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Severin Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Sherlock Holmes And The Deadly Necklace (1962) 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
Folks – and I do mean this – you probably won’t find a fanboy who is as faithful to independent cinema as I am.
No, no, and no: this doesn’t mean that I like all or even that much of what I watch. The point I’m trying to make is that I’ve always found a measure of joy in exploring what writers, directors, producers, actors, actresses and more can accomplish on a budget. I’ve seen some truly inspired works – ones that showed so much promise I sincerely hope that those involved were given an even better opportunity to break through the noise with their next production – and I’ve seen some truly insipid garbage. Regardless, both ends of that spectrum have had stories to tell. I may not have agreed with those tales. I may not have given some sterling endorsements. But at the end of the day I find I sleep easier at night knowing that I’m always willing to take a chance if for no other reason that I might find a ‘diamond in the rough’ worth passing along to the readership. It’s just how I’m wired. Always been. Always will be.
Ahem.
Now, don’t take that clarification in any way to imply that Cocaine Werewolf (2024) is something I’m willing to give a thumbs up or throw cold water on. Succinctly, it’s an attempt at capturing B- or even C-Movie glory, and yet … well … it has its issues, meaning that some of those blemishes are probably a bit too big to overcome despite the best efforts of everyone involved. My biggest concern with it is that it never quite finds a tapestry worth spinning – good ideas get held back by either inferior ones or the lack of budget – so let’s accept the fact that this is one attempt that likely will get better once its rediscovered and given a bit more elbow grease in a redux.
(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:
“Cocaine, Cash and a Crew filming a horror movie in the mysterious woods of northern Pennsylvania clash when an unexpected visit from a Werewolf literally enters the picture. Cult film Master Mark Polonia - with nearly 100 film credits on his resume - delivers quite possibly his most entertaining venture to date, with a Gothic Industrial Rock soundtrack (courtesy of Cleopatra Records) perfectly setting the mood for one wild and crazy ‘howling at the moon!’”
It's been suggested that the reason why mainstream audiences kinda/sorta balk at B-Movies is that – ahem – they don’t understand B-Movies. I’ve always found that assessment a lot of bunk because, frankly, it doesn’t take a whole lot of gray matter to comprehend just about anything and everything that’s going on within the limited structure of a B-Movie, so why take a cheap shot at the audience by implying that they’re just not in on the joke? Maybe – dare I say? – they just don’t find it funny.
Such might be the trouble with Cocaine Werewolf. If you show up thinking that you’ve got a B-Movie wolf feature waiting, then you’ll likely be disappointed because – shocker – it isn’t the full moon that drives this haunted man to become an American Werewolf in … well … the greater backcountry of New York State. Here, it’s the china moon. It’s the flake. It’s the sugar. It’s the snow. It’s the snooze. It’s the white rock. It’s the nose candy.
You catch me, homey?
So … basically … it’s the cocaine.
Jack is a stock trader who – well, aside from this current predicament – is living his best life. On his way to the Big Apple in (apparently) the smallest Uber available, he finds his driver dead in some garage in the sticks, where the local werewolf has taken a shine to the apache. The big c. The scotty. The zip. (Still, the cocaine.) So when Jack gets bitten by the lycanthrope, he, too, is suddenly able to shift between man and wolf with little more than a single whiff of the apache, the the love affair, the Mexican Percocet. With no means to complete his journey and collect on those stocks waiting to be traded, Jack instead opts to live out his days roaming the mostly urban countryside in search of good blow and red blood.
See what I mean?
No, no, and no: this doesn’t mean that I like all or even that much of what I watch. The point I’m trying to make is that I’ve always found a measure of joy in exploring what writers, directors, producers, actors, actresses and more can accomplish on a budget. I’ve seen some truly inspired works – ones that showed so much promise I sincerely hope that those involved were given an even better opportunity to break through the noise with their next production – and I’ve seen some truly insipid garbage. Regardless, both ends of that spectrum have had stories to tell. I may not have agreed with those tales. I may not have given some sterling endorsements. But at the end of the day I find I sleep easier at night knowing that I’m always willing to take a chance if for no other reason that I might find a ‘diamond in the rough’ worth passing along to the readership. It’s just how I’m wired. Always been. Always will be.
Ahem.
Now, don’t take that clarification in any way to imply that Cocaine Werewolf (2024) is something I’m willing to give a thumbs up or throw cold water on. Succinctly, it’s an attempt at capturing B- or even C-Movie glory, and yet … well … it has its issues, meaning that some of those blemishes are probably a bit too big to overcome despite the best efforts of everyone involved. My biggest concern with it is that it never quite finds a tapestry worth spinning – good ideas get held back by either inferior ones or the lack of budget – so let’s accept the fact that this is one attempt that likely will get better once its rediscovered and given a bit more elbow grease in a redux.
(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:
“Cocaine, Cash and a Crew filming a horror movie in the mysterious woods of northern Pennsylvania clash when an unexpected visit from a Werewolf literally enters the picture. Cult film Master Mark Polonia - with nearly 100 film credits on his resume - delivers quite possibly his most entertaining venture to date, with a Gothic Industrial Rock soundtrack (courtesy of Cleopatra Records) perfectly setting the mood for one wild and crazy ‘howling at the moon!’”
It's been suggested that the reason why mainstream audiences kinda/sorta balk at B-Movies is that – ahem – they don’t understand B-Movies. I’ve always found that assessment a lot of bunk because, frankly, it doesn’t take a whole lot of gray matter to comprehend just about anything and everything that’s going on within the limited structure of a B-Movie, so why take a cheap shot at the audience by implying that they’re just not in on the joke? Maybe – dare I say? – they just don’t find it funny.
Such might be the trouble with Cocaine Werewolf. If you show up thinking that you’ve got a B-Movie wolf feature waiting, then you’ll likely be disappointed because – shocker – it isn’t the full moon that drives this haunted man to become an American Werewolf in … well … the greater backcountry of New York State. Here, it’s the china moon. It’s the flake. It’s the sugar. It’s the snow. It’s the snooze. It’s the white rock. It’s the nose candy.
You catch me, homey?
So … basically … it’s the cocaine.
Jack is a stock trader who – well, aside from this current predicament – is living his best life. On his way to the Big Apple in (apparently) the smallest Uber available, he finds his driver dead in some garage in the sticks, where the local werewolf has taken a shine to the apache. The big c. The scotty. The zip. (Still, the cocaine.) So when Jack gets bitten by the lycanthrope, he, too, is suddenly able to shift between man and wolf with little more than a single whiff of the apache, the the love affair, the Mexican Percocet. With no means to complete his journey and collect on those stocks waiting to be traded, Jack instead opts to live out his days roaming the mostly urban countryside in search of good blow and red blood.
See what I mean?
Grasping the central premise behind Cocaine Werewolf isn’t all that much a stretch. What I explained above is essentially all one need know … well, that and the fact that this was put together on-the-fly with probably acting talent just a smidge out of reach of small-town community theater’s good graces. No one can act – again, my review, my opinion – and it shows. Terribly, in some places. Horrifically in others. It adds to the atmosphere, delivering some of the flick’s better but probably unintended laughs.
Still, that’s the joy most viewers find in B-, C-, and even D-Movie bargain basement tomfoolery. None of it – or exceedingly little – is meant to be taken seriously. The script – credited to Ford Austin and Tyger Torrez – was likely thrown together over a weekend bender; and Mark Polonia – an auteur with a reputation for such schtick – was probably all-too-happy to slice, dice, and splice whatever budget was necessary to bring this one to life. I’ve absolutely no doubt that a good time was had by all; and, yes, that includes those who got together to assemble it. Don’t be surprised if you learn that they’re all still laughing over it today.
As for the completed project?
Well, as I stated above, I’ve seen more than my share of small and micro-budgeted features.
While Cocaine Werewolf doesn’t quite rise to the level of zaniness I expected from such a title, a scene or two has the occasional vibe that might give it a shelf life beyond a single viewing. Given the literal explosion of low-cost content available online – much of it available for free or nearly so – I’m honestly a bit surprised that something like this was still being attempted. The 1980’s and early 1990’s saw a great deal of it churned out for mass consumption; and a lot of that disappeared as the turn of the century put camcorders in the hands of anyone with a smartphone. Certainly, Cocaine makes use of similar technology – its special effects are a bit laughable and are no doubt the best APP money can buy – but you kinda/sorta know what you’re going to get with a project like this. A few practical creature effects do give it some minor zing, but I suspect those who might enjoy this best are those inebriated by whatever controlled substance tickles your fancy most.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that …
Cocaine Werewolf (2024) was produced by Cleopatra Entertainment. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at MVD Visual Entertainment. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I still found a great deal of the provided sights-and-sounds to be – actually – quite good. If shot digitally (as most things are these days), then this one benefits from looking better than it probably should. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? The disc contains a director’s commentary along with the obligatory image gallery and theatrical trailer for those who like that sort of thing.
Alas … only barely recommended.
Look. I’ll confess to seeing a great deal of independent fare. I’ll also assure you that I’ve experienced perhaps more B-Movies than have many who pontificate about features online these days as most outlets have left the indie scene completely in the dust. Still, it’s hard to get behind a flick like Cocaine Werewolf because – as a story – it just meanders too much from here to there, offering no central performance to wrap one’s head around much less propel an authentic story forward from start to finish. I wanted to like this more than I did … but there’s a slim handful of worthwhile tidbits that I mentioned above. At best? Well, it’s only one hour and seventeen minutes long. And I do like monster movies. So there.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MVD Visual Entertainment provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Cocaine Werewolf (2024) 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
Still, that’s the joy most viewers find in B-, C-, and even D-Movie bargain basement tomfoolery. None of it – or exceedingly little – is meant to be taken seriously. The script – credited to Ford Austin and Tyger Torrez – was likely thrown together over a weekend bender; and Mark Polonia – an auteur with a reputation for such schtick – was probably all-too-happy to slice, dice, and splice whatever budget was necessary to bring this one to life. I’ve absolutely no doubt that a good time was had by all; and, yes, that includes those who got together to assemble it. Don’t be surprised if you learn that they’re all still laughing over it today.
As for the completed project?
Well, as I stated above, I’ve seen more than my share of small and micro-budgeted features.
While Cocaine Werewolf doesn’t quite rise to the level of zaniness I expected from such a title, a scene or two has the occasional vibe that might give it a shelf life beyond a single viewing. Given the literal explosion of low-cost content available online – much of it available for free or nearly so – I’m honestly a bit surprised that something like this was still being attempted. The 1980’s and early 1990’s saw a great deal of it churned out for mass consumption; and a lot of that disappeared as the turn of the century put camcorders in the hands of anyone with a smartphone. Certainly, Cocaine makes use of similar technology – its special effects are a bit laughable and are no doubt the best APP money can buy – but you kinda/sorta know what you’re going to get with a project like this. A few practical creature effects do give it some minor zing, but I suspect those who might enjoy this best are those inebriated by whatever controlled substance tickles your fancy most.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that …
Cocaine Werewolf (2024) was produced by Cleopatra Entertainment. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at MVD Visual Entertainment. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I still found a great deal of the provided sights-and-sounds to be – actually – quite good. If shot digitally (as most things are these days), then this one benefits from looking better than it probably should. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? The disc contains a director’s commentary along with the obligatory image gallery and theatrical trailer for those who like that sort of thing.
Alas … only barely recommended.
Look. I’ll confess to seeing a great deal of independent fare. I’ll also assure you that I’ve experienced perhaps more B-Movies than have many who pontificate about features online these days as most outlets have left the indie scene completely in the dust. Still, it’s hard to get behind a flick like Cocaine Werewolf because – as a story – it just meanders too much from here to there, offering no central performance to wrap one’s head around much less propel an authentic story forward from start to finish. I wanted to like this more than I did … but there’s a slim handful of worthwhile tidbits that I mentioned above. At best? Well, it’s only one hour and seventeen minutes long. And I do like monster movies. So there.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MVD Visual Entertainment provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Cocaine Werewolf (2024) 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
(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:
“Perseus braves the treacherous underworld to rescue his father, Zeus, captured by his son, Ares, and brother Hades who unleash the ancient Titans upon the world.”
Given the fact that 2010’s Clash Of The Titans – a somewhat loose remake of 1981’s popular flick of the same name – earned nearly an astonishing half billion dollars at the international box office, it was only fitting that producers would rush back to the well of inspiration for another go’round. The truth – at least, from what I’ve read – was that they’d always intended their interpretation of the Titans material to be a trilogy of films; so rushing 2012’s Wrath Of The Titans probably did the material no favors. I don’t mean that to say Wrath is an entirely inferior follow-up: its story is a bit tighter, the adventure flows less like an endless stream of action set pieces that the original did, but it ultimately has vastly less sass and sizzle to distract audiences from any narrative weaknesses.
Financially, Wrath wasn’t exactly a disaster. Prequels and sequels can be tricky business, especially given the fact that its predecessor debatably benefited from a positive reputation stemming from the 80’s Fantasy feature. Without a doubt, the hero would be heading into previously uncharted territory; and one need only glance at the diminishing returns of some Marvel spandex mutants to realize successive flicks aren’t guaranteed the same profits their earlier projects showed. On a budget of $150 million, Wrath mustered up a respectable $300 million in global ticket sales … but that’s a pretty significant drop from Clash’s $493 million gross. Allegedly, a third film – one that would’ve completed Perseus’s story – was scrapped, and that, my friends, is all she wrote.
Setting aside that clinical assessment, Wrath opens with Mount Olympus largely having fallen into disarray. Those mere mortals no longer show much interest in worshipping the gods; and – as a consequence – the powers of Zeus (again played by Liam Neeson) have begun to diminish alongside those of his immortal counterparts. Blood in the water naturally brings out the sharks, and Hades (Ralph Fiennes) – god of the Underworld – conspires with Zeus’ son Ares (Edgar Ramirez) in a bid to see our world destroyed with the release of the Titans. This way, Hades can start all over again, remaking everything into his craven image.
Meanwhile … back on Earth …
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Perseus braves the treacherous underworld to rescue his father, Zeus, captured by his son, Ares, and brother Hades who unleash the ancient Titans upon the world.”
Given the fact that 2010’s Clash Of The Titans – a somewhat loose remake of 1981’s popular flick of the same name – earned nearly an astonishing half billion dollars at the international box office, it was only fitting that producers would rush back to the well of inspiration for another go’round. The truth – at least, from what I’ve read – was that they’d always intended their interpretation of the Titans material to be a trilogy of films; so rushing 2012’s Wrath Of The Titans probably did the material no favors. I don’t mean that to say Wrath is an entirely inferior follow-up: its story is a bit tighter, the adventure flows less like an endless stream of action set pieces that the original did, but it ultimately has vastly less sass and sizzle to distract audiences from any narrative weaknesses.
Financially, Wrath wasn’t exactly a disaster. Prequels and sequels can be tricky business, especially given the fact that its predecessor debatably benefited from a positive reputation stemming from the 80’s Fantasy feature. Without a doubt, the hero would be heading into previously uncharted territory; and one need only glance at the diminishing returns of some Marvel spandex mutants to realize successive flicks aren’t guaranteed the same profits their earlier projects showed. On a budget of $150 million, Wrath mustered up a respectable $300 million in global ticket sales … but that’s a pretty significant drop from Clash’s $493 million gross. Allegedly, a third film – one that would’ve completed Perseus’s story – was scrapped, and that, my friends, is all she wrote.
Setting aside that clinical assessment, Wrath opens with Mount Olympus largely having fallen into disarray. Those mere mortals no longer show much interest in worshipping the gods; and – as a consequence – the powers of Zeus (again played by Liam Neeson) have begun to diminish alongside those of his immortal counterparts. Blood in the water naturally brings out the sharks, and Hades (Ralph Fiennes) – god of the Underworld – conspires with Zeus’ son Ares (Edgar Ramirez) in a bid to see our world destroyed with the release of the Titans. This way, Hades can start all over again, remaking everything into his craven image.
Meanwhile … back on Earth …
Perseus (Sam Worthington) has settled into the mortal life he had always wanted except for the fact that Io – after giving him a son, Heleus (John Bell) – has passed away. When these Underworld shenanigans release a hungry Chimera on his seaside village, the demigod again rises to the challenge and kills the marauding beast. Seeking an explanation for why such creatures would be loosed upon mankind, he goes in search of his father only to find the (im)mortally wounded Poseidon (Danny Huston). The god of the sea informs Perseus of Zeus’ predicament, and he offers assistance in the shape of his own demigod son, Agenor (Toby Kebbell), who can aide in the quest to breach the Underworld. Together, the two demigods must assemble the Spear Of Trium – a combination of Zeus, Hades, and Poseidon’s signature weapons – as it is the only known defense against Kronos, the leader of the Titans.
Unquestionably, Wrath benefits from having a clearly defined hero’s quest: Perseus and Agenor must join forces in their bid to both find their respective peace on Earth as well as achieve a kind of symbiotic equilibrium in their father/son dynamics. Also, the script – credited to Dan Mazeau, David Leslie Johnson-McGoldrick, and television network killer Greg Berlanti – somewhat admirably scores points in showing that not all demigods are created equal: Perseus remains the resident screen hunk while Agenor gets cast as the plucky problem solver with only a guilty knack for doing the right thing. The two make an interesting pair – a bit Abbott and Costello mythologically for those who understand the reference – and I’m glad the story dispensed with any pretense of having these two jockeying for screen time with muscles and brawn.
Also, Wrath gets an added layer of masculinity by having young Heleus along for the ride but not monopolizing what could’ve been a distracting father/son sub-plot. Given Perseus’ physical and (chosen) emotional separation from Zeus, the demigod steps capably into the role of ‘dear old dad,’ and Worthington’s efforts here appear to be at ease. Of course, things are apt to get a bit dicey once the young boy gets mixed up with gods and men, but that’s the stuff of good cinematic drama. It all works itself out nicely come the big finish.
Sadly, actress Alexa Davalos was unavailable to reprise her role in the saga, and the part of Andromeda was recast with Rosamund Pike. Clash Of The Titans saw Perseus and the queen parting ways (with a kiss) so that he could pursue a curiously forced entanglement with the aforementioned Io, but Io’s offscreen departure has the door swinging wide open again as Andromeda commands her armies to take up arms against these warring demons released by Kronos when Perseus shows up to make his stand. Alas, Pike and Worthington really muster little screen chemistry (for what it’s worth), and that cheapens what could’ve and should’ve been a wonderful reunion of the heart.
To my dismay, Wrath just doesn’t hold up nearly as well visually as Clash did. Some of this is owed to the various settings – Clash spent a good portion of its screen time in the richly stylized city of Argos, and that’s supplanted here mostly with small villages, forestry, caves, and battlefields – which give the picture as much earthier template. (Wars aren’t fought in lavish cities, it would see, but on open plains.) Even the supposed grandeur of the Underworld never quite amounts to a whole lot of pomp and circumstance, so it does help to temper one’s expectations when comparing this sequel to the opulence of the original. Even Olympus has fallen, you see, so perhaps stylistically these Earthly confines had to follow suit.
Despite the theatrical blemishes here – such as how does this one look so average when the budget increased considerably – Wrath probably shares more in common with those swords and sandals pictures of the 1960’s. In those, the men, gods, and demigods mostly saddled up for action; and they found something rowdy at every turn. Whereas Clash (2010) felt like it was trying to pick up the baton passed off by the 1980’s Harryhausen effort, Wrath goes back a decade or two earlier; and I suspect audiences were disappointed with being thrown back a bit further in storytelling history. While its effects and overall production values are quite good, Wrath can’t escape feeling like a project from an almost entirely cheaper universe … one that had already produced Hercules: The Legendary Journeys in weekly installments on television of the 1990’s.
Bluntly, that wasn’t a good look.
Unquestionably, Wrath benefits from having a clearly defined hero’s quest: Perseus and Agenor must join forces in their bid to both find their respective peace on Earth as well as achieve a kind of symbiotic equilibrium in their father/son dynamics. Also, the script – credited to Dan Mazeau, David Leslie Johnson-McGoldrick, and television network killer Greg Berlanti – somewhat admirably scores points in showing that not all demigods are created equal: Perseus remains the resident screen hunk while Agenor gets cast as the plucky problem solver with only a guilty knack for doing the right thing. The two make an interesting pair – a bit Abbott and Costello mythologically for those who understand the reference – and I’m glad the story dispensed with any pretense of having these two jockeying for screen time with muscles and brawn.
Also, Wrath gets an added layer of masculinity by having young Heleus along for the ride but not monopolizing what could’ve been a distracting father/son sub-plot. Given Perseus’ physical and (chosen) emotional separation from Zeus, the demigod steps capably into the role of ‘dear old dad,’ and Worthington’s efforts here appear to be at ease. Of course, things are apt to get a bit dicey once the young boy gets mixed up with gods and men, but that’s the stuff of good cinematic drama. It all works itself out nicely come the big finish.
Sadly, actress Alexa Davalos was unavailable to reprise her role in the saga, and the part of Andromeda was recast with Rosamund Pike. Clash Of The Titans saw Perseus and the queen parting ways (with a kiss) so that he could pursue a curiously forced entanglement with the aforementioned Io, but Io’s offscreen departure has the door swinging wide open again as Andromeda commands her armies to take up arms against these warring demons released by Kronos when Perseus shows up to make his stand. Alas, Pike and Worthington really muster little screen chemistry (for what it’s worth), and that cheapens what could’ve and should’ve been a wonderful reunion of the heart.
To my dismay, Wrath just doesn’t hold up nearly as well visually as Clash did. Some of this is owed to the various settings – Clash spent a good portion of its screen time in the richly stylized city of Argos, and that’s supplanted here mostly with small villages, forestry, caves, and battlefields – which give the picture as much earthier template. (Wars aren’t fought in lavish cities, it would see, but on open plains.) Even the supposed grandeur of the Underworld never quite amounts to a whole lot of pomp and circumstance, so it does help to temper one’s expectations when comparing this sequel to the opulence of the original. Even Olympus has fallen, you see, so perhaps stylistically these Earthly confines had to follow suit.
Despite the theatrical blemishes here – such as how does this one look so average when the budget increased considerably – Wrath probably shares more in common with those swords and sandals pictures of the 1960’s. In those, the men, gods, and demigods mostly saddled up for action; and they found something rowdy at every turn. Whereas Clash (2010) felt like it was trying to pick up the baton passed off by the 1980’s Harryhausen effort, Wrath goes back a decade or two earlier; and I suspect audiences were disappointed with being thrown back a bit further in storytelling history. While its effects and overall production values are quite good, Wrath can’t escape feeling like a project from an almost entirely cheaper universe … one that had already produced Hercules: The Legendary Journeys in weekly installments on television of the 1990’s.
Bluntly, that wasn’t a good look.
I could go on as Wrath’s problem don’t quite stop there. Bill Nighy shows up in a curiously miscast comic relief role, and the finale’s battle sequences occasionally smack of the requisite digital overload of trying to push too many images into so little space; but those might end up being personal assessments more than truly critical. Naturally, Perseus is triumphant in the battle – this is his story, after all – and his final assault lasts far long on screen than it need be. Such flourishes are natural when playing in the big leagues, though a bit of restraint might’ve elevated some of the hullabaloo by accomplishing more with less. Given Berlanti’s track record in television production, I suspect that was never going to be the case.
Wrath Of The Titans (2012) was produced by Warner Bros., Legendary Entertainment, Cott Productions, Furia de Titanes II A.I.E., Thunder Road Pictures, and Sur-Film. 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 found the feature’s sights-and-sounds to be exceptional from start-to-finish. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? There are a handful of making-of shorts that serve to tickle the fancy, but I found them a bit light on substance and feeling more like bloated advertising than anything else. As I was provided screener copies only, I can’t speak to the materials provided by the complete set purchase, so consider them buyer beware.
Mildly recommended.
Though this may not exactly sound like high praise, I’ll admit to enjoying Wrath Of The Titans (2012) a bit more than I did its predecessor – Clash Of The Titans (2010) – if only because I thought the sequel had a more relatable and coherent story. Visually, it’s surprisingly inferior, especially given the fact that by all accounts producers spent substantially more on bringing it to life and I’m just not quite seeing the spectacle up on the screen this time around. I still question lead star Worthington’s casting choice – his age works better as intended here, at least – as I don’t feel his performance shows he committed to the project, instead taking the route that perhaps screen hunks like Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Dwayne Johnson would’ve done. That just doesn’t work for me stylistically, but again I realize I might be in the minority.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary 4K copy of Wrath Of The Titans (as part of their ‘When Titans Ruled The Earth’ Collection) 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
Wrath Of The Titans (2012) was produced by Warner Bros., Legendary Entertainment, Cott Productions, Furia de Titanes II A.I.E., Thunder Road Pictures, and Sur-Film. 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 found the feature’s sights-and-sounds to be exceptional from start-to-finish. Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? There are a handful of making-of shorts that serve to tickle the fancy, but I found them a bit light on substance and feeling more like bloated advertising than anything else. As I was provided screener copies only, I can’t speak to the materials provided by the complete set purchase, so consider them buyer beware.
Mildly recommended.
Though this may not exactly sound like high praise, I’ll admit to enjoying Wrath Of The Titans (2012) a bit more than I did its predecessor – Clash Of The Titans (2010) – if only because I thought the sequel had a more relatable and coherent story. Visually, it’s surprisingly inferior, especially given the fact that by all accounts producers spent substantially more on bringing it to life and I’m just not quite seeing the spectacle up on the screen this time around. I still question lead star Worthington’s casting choice – his age works better as intended here, at least – as I don’t feel his performance shows he committed to the project, instead taking the route that perhaps screen hunks like Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Dwayne Johnson would’ve done. That just doesn’t work for me stylistically, but again I realize I might be in the minority.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary 4K copy of Wrath Of The Titans (as part of their ‘When Titans Ruled The Earth’ Collection) 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
It grows increasingly difficult to avoid making fun of Walt Disney.
As I've said many, many, many times in this space, I -- unlike a great deal of other bloggers and vloggers -- don't exist to poke mercilessly at any single corporate entity. All of the big studios have had problems here and there over the years, and the Walt Disney Company has certainly fallen to an incredible creative low under the -- ahem -- stewardship of Bob Iger. That last earnings call -- I listened to it via the YouTube Channel of WDWPro and Valient Renegade, thank you very much -- was a curious failure to instill confidence in his vision; but -- in his defense -- what else was there more for the guy to say? Really? When you've reduced a juggernaut with the reputation that the Mouse House once had to practically nothing in a span of just a few short years, what can you honestly placate investors with? His "just hold on, there's something great coming" attitude has worked for a surprising stretch already, and I wonder -- at this point -- if perhaps the man isn't six feet under and the suits are just ushering out some A.I. version in a weak attempt to save face. Stranger things have happened ...
... and speaking of Stranger Things -- that Netflix franchise which kinda/sorta established itself as thematically stepping into territory once occupied by The Goonies ... the Walt Disney Company and Lucasfilm are trying to stake out the same piece of aesthetic land with their forthcoming streaming series. Star Wars: Skeleton Crew comes to the World Wide Web this December, 2024; and, yes, having seen the trailer I can say -- as have so many -- that it looks and feels very much like something that's been done to death before. A bunch of kids go on some heartfelt mission to find themselves; and -- lo and behold -- they find magic in the shape of The Force in a lifetime of adventure.
Sigh.
Creativity is dead, my friends.
I know, I know, I know. I said I wouldn't pick on anyone, and -- in all honest -- I'm not. I don't even mean to. My point is that at a time wherein the galaxy far, far away might need something fresh, vibrant, and different to show that it's an intellectual property that can still play in the big leagues going back to the well and drawing something that looks like it practically could've been ripped off from any reasonably good 1980's flick is a curious strategy. One needn't do a great deal of dissection of what little gets learned from the trailer to suggest that Skeleton Crew's hopes and dreams might be resting on evoking a feeling of nostalgia from what remains of its audience ... and I can't help but point out most of those folks have left the farm for other pastures. Do you really think they're going to resubscribe to your streaming service for something they've already watched and felt elsewhere?
Double sigh.
I've opined before that screen Science Fiction and Fantasy doesn't work as well as it should when you take the ideas, ideology, and aesthetics of our world and try to superimpose them over fictional yarns. It makes little sense to inject mankind's current struggle with pronoun usage into that galaxy a long time ago and far away because instead of lifting us out of the doldrums of our day-to-day existence you wind up reminding us of why we wanted to escape it in the first place. Painting the average Star Wars planet like it could be U.S. suburbia circa 1982 is a risky proposition ... but when you have nothing else in the tank I guess you still go with what you know. My beef here is that I don't think of kids when I think of Star Wars; and, yes, that's a huge creative miss. None of this implies that Skeleton Crew couldn't become a winner -- fingers crossed that it'll give Lucasfilm assassin Kathleen Kennedy the win she wants to retire -- but, again, it doesn't look like Star Wars to me. Neither did The Acolyte. And not much of Ahsoka did, either. I'm already on record as saying that Andor was a Battlestar Galactica clone, so there.
To each his own, as they say.
Trailer is below. You know what to do.
As I've said many, many, many times in this space, I -- unlike a great deal of other bloggers and vloggers -- don't exist to poke mercilessly at any single corporate entity. All of the big studios have had problems here and there over the years, and the Walt Disney Company has certainly fallen to an incredible creative low under the -- ahem -- stewardship of Bob Iger. That last earnings call -- I listened to it via the YouTube Channel of WDWPro and Valient Renegade, thank you very much -- was a curious failure to instill confidence in his vision; but -- in his defense -- what else was there more for the guy to say? Really? When you've reduced a juggernaut with the reputation that the Mouse House once had to practically nothing in a span of just a few short years, what can you honestly placate investors with? His "just hold on, there's something great coming" attitude has worked for a surprising stretch already, and I wonder -- at this point -- if perhaps the man isn't six feet under and the suits are just ushering out some A.I. version in a weak attempt to save face. Stranger things have happened ...
... and speaking of Stranger Things -- that Netflix franchise which kinda/sorta established itself as thematically stepping into territory once occupied by The Goonies ... the Walt Disney Company and Lucasfilm are trying to stake out the same piece of aesthetic land with their forthcoming streaming series. Star Wars: Skeleton Crew comes to the World Wide Web this December, 2024; and, yes, having seen the trailer I can say -- as have so many -- that it looks and feels very much like something that's been done to death before. A bunch of kids go on some heartfelt mission to find themselves; and -- lo and behold -- they find magic in the shape of The Force in a lifetime of adventure.
Sigh.
Creativity is dead, my friends.
I know, I know, I know. I said I wouldn't pick on anyone, and -- in all honest -- I'm not. I don't even mean to. My point is that at a time wherein the galaxy far, far away might need something fresh, vibrant, and different to show that it's an intellectual property that can still play in the big leagues going back to the well and drawing something that looks like it practically could've been ripped off from any reasonably good 1980's flick is a curious strategy. One needn't do a great deal of dissection of what little gets learned from the trailer to suggest that Skeleton Crew's hopes and dreams might be resting on evoking a feeling of nostalgia from what remains of its audience ... and I can't help but point out most of those folks have left the farm for other pastures. Do you really think they're going to resubscribe to your streaming service for something they've already watched and felt elsewhere?
Double sigh.
I've opined before that screen Science Fiction and Fantasy doesn't work as well as it should when you take the ideas, ideology, and aesthetics of our world and try to superimpose them over fictional yarns. It makes little sense to inject mankind's current struggle with pronoun usage into that galaxy a long time ago and far away because instead of lifting us out of the doldrums of our day-to-day existence you wind up reminding us of why we wanted to escape it in the first place. Painting the average Star Wars planet like it could be U.S. suburbia circa 1982 is a risky proposition ... but when you have nothing else in the tank I guess you still go with what you know. My beef here is that I don't think of kids when I think of Star Wars; and, yes, that's a huge creative miss. None of this implies that Skeleton Crew couldn't become a winner -- fingers crossed that it'll give Lucasfilm assassin Kathleen Kennedy the win she wants to retire -- but, again, it doesn't look like Star Wars to me. Neither did The Acolyte. And not much of Ahsoka did, either. I'm already on record as saying that Andor was a Battlestar Galactica clone, so there.
To each his own, as they say.
Trailer is below. You know what to do.
As always, thanks for reading ... thanks for sharing ... thanks for being a fan ... and live long and prosper!
-- EZ
-- EZ
- Published on
One of the trends that I've always enjoyed within the wide, wide world of Star Trek is that it's always been a franchise that has given a great deal of screen opportunities to secondary characters.
It's happened over and over again when some face shows up in an episode -- maybe he or she is even fortunate enough to get a name -- and then maybe an episode of two later the same actor or actress gets a bit more exposure in another adventure ... and then another ... and then another. Granted, he or she may not exactly get a whole lot to do; but it's these little visits that help give life and authenticity to fictional universes. Given that a ship's crew complement might be a reasonably limited number of folks, it was oddly reassuring to see a great many of them pop in to remind us they were there and maybe even score a solid impression with audiences.
For Star Trek: The Next Generation, actress Patti Yasutake -- as Alyssa Ogawa -- was definitely one of these secondary players, and I think she even was fortunate enough to find extra life in fandom because she stayed somehow in crew rotation. IMDB.com reports that her visits to Trek were few -- a lean and mean sixteen episodes -- but then she also served as a respected background player Star Trek: Generations (1994), Star Trek: First Contact (1996), and even the Star Trek: Armada II video game (2001). She definitely earned her stripes in Trek, and I'm thrilled that fans even watched her get promoted along the way.
As for other forays into the realms of the Fantastic?
Again, her IMDB.com profiles indicates that she had a few. Across her career she dipped her artistic toes into such enterprises as Tales From The Crypt, She Spies, Flashforward, BioShock Infinite video game (2013), and Unbelievable (2020). One of her final screen appearances of note wasn't in SciFi or Fantasy, but she graced the small screen in a recurring role aboard Netflix's Beef series.
Alas, none of us lasts forever, and word reached the World Wide Web late yesterday of the actress' passing.
Our warmest prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Ms. Yasutake.
May she forever rest in peace.
-- EZ
It's happened over and over again when some face shows up in an episode -- maybe he or she is even fortunate enough to get a name -- and then maybe an episode of two later the same actor or actress gets a bit more exposure in another adventure ... and then another ... and then another. Granted, he or she may not exactly get a whole lot to do; but it's these little visits that help give life and authenticity to fictional universes. Given that a ship's crew complement might be a reasonably limited number of folks, it was oddly reassuring to see a great many of them pop in to remind us they were there and maybe even score a solid impression with audiences.
For Star Trek: The Next Generation, actress Patti Yasutake -- as Alyssa Ogawa -- was definitely one of these secondary players, and I think she even was fortunate enough to find extra life in fandom because she stayed somehow in crew rotation. IMDB.com reports that her visits to Trek were few -- a lean and mean sixteen episodes -- but then she also served as a respected background player Star Trek: Generations (1994), Star Trek: First Contact (1996), and even the Star Trek: Armada II video game (2001). She definitely earned her stripes in Trek, and I'm thrilled that fans even watched her get promoted along the way.
As for other forays into the realms of the Fantastic?
Again, her IMDB.com profiles indicates that she had a few. Across her career she dipped her artistic toes into such enterprises as Tales From The Crypt, She Spies, Flashforward, BioShock Infinite video game (2013), and Unbelievable (2020). One of her final screen appearances of note wasn't in SciFi or Fantasy, but she graced the small screen in a recurring role aboard Netflix's Beef series.
Alas, none of us lasts forever, and word reached the World Wide Web late yesterday of the actress' passing.
Our warmest prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Ms. Yasutake.
May she forever rest in peace.
-- EZ
- Published on
I kid you not: the trials of Odysseus (or Ulysses, depending upon one’s preference) were one of my first loves in all of storytelling.
It was fifth grade. Our teacher had ordered up this filmstrip series (ask your grandparents, kids) based entirely on Homer’s The Odyssey. Over the course of several days, the audience was enthralled with one adventure after another of the Greek king of Ithaca trying to make his way back home against the machinations of some vengeful gods. Complete with narration, music, and sound effects, these stories truly taught that young version of myself of the power of mythology and what great mythmaking could and should be like. This experience eventually pushed me to discover Bulfinch’s Mythology – along with several other collections – and even had me taking what few mythology courses I could in college.
So it’s easy to imagine that this interest would inspire me to check out any film classics that dealt with these tales. While there are a great many flicks associated with the adventures of Hercules (heck, there’s even been a long-lasting television series or two), none of them really won me over as creative influences tended to push these various yarns more for camp than authenticity. 1963’s Jason And The Argonauts – a classic in its own right – resonated much more, even with its obviously dated effects and some unimaginative casting choices. 1997’s television miniseries event The Odyssey – a favorite of mine – sidestepped a good degree of spectacle by delivering an adaptation that felt more grounded in human characters facing extraordinary circumstances. Zack Snyder’s wholly theatrical interpretation of Frank Miller’s graphic novel 300 was a feast for the eyes, indeed, and I think it embraced both visuals and characterization to the benefit of the widest audience possible.
Of course, I was a (somewhat) child of the 1980’s, so I was more than aware of 1981’s Clash Of The Titans which was directed by Desmond Davis for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Respectably lavish by standards of its day, the big screen incarnation is best remembered for being special effects pioneer Ray Harryhausen’s last hurrah; and I dare you to find a finer example of stop motion effects work incorporating with live action photography. While I thought the picture good, there was still a heavy dose of cheesery incorporated to the storytelling, almost as if even the makers felt it necessary to remind audiences that all of this was based on myth rather than reality. Some sequences felt more akin to a live action cartoon, so I had some quibbles with the way the source material was mildly disrespected. A great film, I still held out hope that someday someone would pick Odysseus up, dust him off, and give it something a bit more intellectually intense.
Flash forward to 2010: Warner Bros., director Louis Letterier, and producer Basil Iwanyk (along with others) picked up that option with their bold remake of the much beloved Clash Of The Titans. Actor Sam Worthington was cast in the role of Perseus, son of Zeus, and this star-studded affair also included such marquee names of Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, Mads Mikkelsen, Liam Cunningham, and Gemma Arterton. Certainly – one would assume – such a production would make use of the best special effects along with the best production techniques to finally serve up a stunning version that would shake the very rafters of even Olympus itself … well, if Olympus had rafters, that is. (It’s all stone and clouds, I believe.)
Indeed, I suspected that the gods would be pleased.
Sadly, I wasn’t.
It was fifth grade. Our teacher had ordered up this filmstrip series (ask your grandparents, kids) based entirely on Homer’s The Odyssey. Over the course of several days, the audience was enthralled with one adventure after another of the Greek king of Ithaca trying to make his way back home against the machinations of some vengeful gods. Complete with narration, music, and sound effects, these stories truly taught that young version of myself of the power of mythology and what great mythmaking could and should be like. This experience eventually pushed me to discover Bulfinch’s Mythology – along with several other collections – and even had me taking what few mythology courses I could in college.
So it’s easy to imagine that this interest would inspire me to check out any film classics that dealt with these tales. While there are a great many flicks associated with the adventures of Hercules (heck, there’s even been a long-lasting television series or two), none of them really won me over as creative influences tended to push these various yarns more for camp than authenticity. 1963’s Jason And The Argonauts – a classic in its own right – resonated much more, even with its obviously dated effects and some unimaginative casting choices. 1997’s television miniseries event The Odyssey – a favorite of mine – sidestepped a good degree of spectacle by delivering an adaptation that felt more grounded in human characters facing extraordinary circumstances. Zack Snyder’s wholly theatrical interpretation of Frank Miller’s graphic novel 300 was a feast for the eyes, indeed, and I think it embraced both visuals and characterization to the benefit of the widest audience possible.
Of course, I was a (somewhat) child of the 1980’s, so I was more than aware of 1981’s Clash Of The Titans which was directed by Desmond Davis for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Respectably lavish by standards of its day, the big screen incarnation is best remembered for being special effects pioneer Ray Harryhausen’s last hurrah; and I dare you to find a finer example of stop motion effects work incorporating with live action photography. While I thought the picture good, there was still a heavy dose of cheesery incorporated to the storytelling, almost as if even the makers felt it necessary to remind audiences that all of this was based on myth rather than reality. Some sequences felt more akin to a live action cartoon, so I had some quibbles with the way the source material was mildly disrespected. A great film, I still held out hope that someday someone would pick Odysseus up, dust him off, and give it something a bit more intellectually intense.
Flash forward to 2010: Warner Bros., director Louis Letterier, and producer Basil Iwanyk (along with others) picked up that option with their bold remake of the much beloved Clash Of The Titans. Actor Sam Worthington was cast in the role of Perseus, son of Zeus, and this star-studded affair also included such marquee names of Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, Mads Mikkelsen, Liam Cunningham, and Gemma Arterton. Certainly – one would assume – such a production would make use of the best special effects along with the best production techniques to finally serve up a stunning version that would shake the very rafters of even Olympus itself … well, if Olympus had rafters, that is. (It’s all stone and clouds, I believe.)
Indeed, I suspected that the gods would be pleased.
Sadly, I wasn’t.
(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:
“Perseus, a demigod and the son of Zeus, battles the minions of Hades and the Underworld in order to stop them from conquering Olympus and Earth.”
I think far too often that fans of specific genres accept that whatever current treatise is being served up is the best they’re ever gonna get.
In fact, I’ve long debated online with readers and the like how critics praise each and every subsequent Marvel release as being ‘the best ever.’ How is that even possible? With well over two dozen titles in existence, any reasonable person could accept that not each and every flick is going to top the previous installment. At some point, something inferior – maybe it’s something as simple as an unengaging premise or a miscast actor or actress – gets into that studio’s seemingly endless stream of entertainment, and it spoils the load. Of course, that doesn’t mean the storytellers won’t find their way again: it’s merely a reflection that quality – by its very nature – isn’t always additive. Occasionally, missteps or miscalculations are made, requiring audiences to at least temper their expectations to reality.
In my humble opinion, this has long been the problem when it comes to Hollywood studios adapting the works of Greek, Roman, Norse, or any other mythology to the silver screen: it’s incredibly difficult to bridge that gap between worlds of the mortal and the immortal. The representation of these existential juggernauts – temperamental folks like Zeus, Gaia, Hercules, Poseidon, etc. – relies typically on finding a narrative equilibrium between human performance and special effects, and that’s a difficult proposition. How much of either is too much? How much of either is too little? Will audiences suspend their disbelief when, say, the God of Thunder is given a decidedly human face, size, and shape? Or will they turn away in laughter? Or disgust? Or disdain?
In order to accept these tales on screen, viewers have had to come to peace with the fact that there may be no happy consensus amongst ‘the best possible approach,’ and this is what I mean when I say that we’ve likely had to compromise with the experience. What I perceive to be godlike – or Godlike – may not necessarily be that which the director, producer, and technicians were able to render. To some degree, I suspect this complexity is why there really haven’t been all that many attempts: after all, when there is no universal acceptance of what some hierarchical beyond looks like, how can we convince ticket buyers around the world that this one is good enough?
In part, this is why I know I struggled to enjoy so much of 2010’s Clash Of The Titans. Far too much of its ethereal substance failed to resonate, so I struggled to make sense of anyone’s plight – mortal and immortal.
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Perseus, a demigod and the son of Zeus, battles the minions of Hades and the Underworld in order to stop them from conquering Olympus and Earth.”
I think far too often that fans of specific genres accept that whatever current treatise is being served up is the best they’re ever gonna get.
In fact, I’ve long debated online with readers and the like how critics praise each and every subsequent Marvel release as being ‘the best ever.’ How is that even possible? With well over two dozen titles in existence, any reasonable person could accept that not each and every flick is going to top the previous installment. At some point, something inferior – maybe it’s something as simple as an unengaging premise or a miscast actor or actress – gets into that studio’s seemingly endless stream of entertainment, and it spoils the load. Of course, that doesn’t mean the storytellers won’t find their way again: it’s merely a reflection that quality – by its very nature – isn’t always additive. Occasionally, missteps or miscalculations are made, requiring audiences to at least temper their expectations to reality.
In my humble opinion, this has long been the problem when it comes to Hollywood studios adapting the works of Greek, Roman, Norse, or any other mythology to the silver screen: it’s incredibly difficult to bridge that gap between worlds of the mortal and the immortal. The representation of these existential juggernauts – temperamental folks like Zeus, Gaia, Hercules, Poseidon, etc. – relies typically on finding a narrative equilibrium between human performance and special effects, and that’s a difficult proposition. How much of either is too much? How much of either is too little? Will audiences suspend their disbelief when, say, the God of Thunder is given a decidedly human face, size, and shape? Or will they turn away in laughter? Or disgust? Or disdain?
In order to accept these tales on screen, viewers have had to come to peace with the fact that there may be no happy consensus amongst ‘the best possible approach,’ and this is what I mean when I say that we’ve likely had to compromise with the experience. What I perceive to be godlike – or Godlike – may not necessarily be that which the director, producer, and technicians were able to render. To some degree, I suspect this complexity is why there really haven’t been all that many attempts: after all, when there is no universal acceptance of what some hierarchical beyond looks like, how can we convince ticket buyers around the world that this one is good enough?
In part, this is why I know I struggled to enjoy so much of 2010’s Clash Of The Titans. Far too much of its ethereal substance failed to resonate, so I struggled to make sense of anyone’s plight – mortal and immortal.
Rescued shortly after birth by a lowly fisherman, young Perseus – the demi-god son of Zeus (played by Liam Neeson) and the human Danae – grows into a young man (Sam Worthington) who longs for nothing more than life on the sea and the love of his adoptive parents. But the gods can be vengeful creatures as one knows, and Hades (Ralph Fiennes) – in the first step of his grand scheme to seize Olympus from his brother’s rule – unleashes the Furies and a violent blast that leads to the death of Perseus’s family. When the god promises even more wrath with the release of the mighty Kraken upon the people of Argos unless they sacrifice Princess Andromeda (Alexa Davalos) ceremonially in ten days, the demi-god finds himself conscripted into service by King Kepheus (Vincent Regan) under command of his general Draco (Mads Mikkelsen). Together, they’re off to see the Stygian Witches who know of the only way to kill the Kraken to stave off mankind’s probable extinction.
As is fairly typical when Hollywood seeks to adapt such intricate tales, Clash winds up working fast and loose with scraps of the legend as written. For example, the infant Perseus is found floating at sea with his deceased mother in the film when – according to the myth – they were both were taken in after washing ashore by a fisherman who ultimately raised the boy into manhood. The script here rather conveniently removes Danae from the equation, seemingly swinging the door wide open for Perseus’ established love interest of Andromeda. However, for reasons I never quite understood, the screenwriters felt it necessary to pluck another player from mythology – Io (Gemma Atherton) – and insert her into the film as a kinda/sorta guardian angel joining our hero on his quest. To complicate matters even more, they chose to make her Perseus’ source of affection, essentially sidelining Andromeda to little more than a passing infatuation who just kinda/sorta happens to intertwine with the demi-god’s desire to one-up the gods and live his life as a mortal. Perseus and Io’s relationship ends up feeling more contrivance than anything else, and even mortals deserve better.
Though I don’t usually get too deeply into casting choices, I’d be remiss if I didn’t sound off on what I felt was a critical misstep: the hiring of Worthington as Clash’s lead.
As a critic, it’s often hard to discern why an actor plays a role a certain way because I’m not privy to any behind-the-scenes information the talent might have been provided by the director, producers, screenwriters, or even peers. Fundamentally, I’m tasked with working entirely with what’s onscreen to inform my opinion of the role; and in that respect Worthington never quite scores any emotional center. The first act, he handles the duties of being torn over the loss of his Earthbound family along with being drafted to serve the people of Argos just fine; and yet his desire to extract punishment on the immortals pretty much disappears as the film progresses. Oh, it comes up in dialogue here and there, but given the fact that his seemingly godlike abilities – fast with a sword without any training as well as mixing it up physically despite seemingly only ever schooled in anything but fishing – I tend to think that no screenwriter, director, or producer really put much thought into the steps necessary for his hero’s arc to make literal sense. Instead, he’s a demi-god, so let’s just let him do this demi-goddery when the time comes.
Furthermore, I hate to point out that – ahem – Worthington was entirely too old to play the part as written and as conceived in mythology.
As best as I can ascertain from the screen material, Perseus – at the time of this adventure – should be in his early 20’s, and I would think that he probably would’ve been a bit younger in the original myth, though that’s something that’s always open to conjecture. According to the best guess I can make based on information available online, Worthington was thirty-three years old at the time of Clash’s production; and – no insult intended – he looks a bit older to these wizened eyes. Clearly, he doesn’t have a young man’s face, and there are even a few wrinkle lines on his forehead. Consequently, the emotional ‘beats’ of these early scenes – the death of his parents, his time in the Argos court, etc. – don’t resemble anything authentic. Indeed, the man delivers much his dialogue with the learned patience of a thirty-year-old actor, robbing most of the scenes of their relevance.
I suspect many might be able to overlook the aesthetic inconsistency by saying that Perseus was justly filled with anger and perhaps it was this anger that had him rushing into adulthood. Still, the story goes to great lengths to portray him as being somewhat young and somewhat impressionable – certainly, if he’s led the hard life on the sea, I can understand the maturity of his physique but not his mind. However, Worthington spends the remainder of the film delivering his lines in an almost hard-boiled Schwarzenegger cadence; and that, my friends, is not the stuff of mythology in any way. It's the Hollywoodization of such grand storytelling; and, yes, it helped sink the whole affair in much the same way Hades had no trouble tossing Spyros’ fishing boat to the bottom of the deep blue sea.
As is fairly typical when Hollywood seeks to adapt such intricate tales, Clash winds up working fast and loose with scraps of the legend as written. For example, the infant Perseus is found floating at sea with his deceased mother in the film when – according to the myth – they were both were taken in after washing ashore by a fisherman who ultimately raised the boy into manhood. The script here rather conveniently removes Danae from the equation, seemingly swinging the door wide open for Perseus’ established love interest of Andromeda. However, for reasons I never quite understood, the screenwriters felt it necessary to pluck another player from mythology – Io (Gemma Atherton) – and insert her into the film as a kinda/sorta guardian angel joining our hero on his quest. To complicate matters even more, they chose to make her Perseus’ source of affection, essentially sidelining Andromeda to little more than a passing infatuation who just kinda/sorta happens to intertwine with the demi-god’s desire to one-up the gods and live his life as a mortal. Perseus and Io’s relationship ends up feeling more contrivance than anything else, and even mortals deserve better.
Though I don’t usually get too deeply into casting choices, I’d be remiss if I didn’t sound off on what I felt was a critical misstep: the hiring of Worthington as Clash’s lead.
As a critic, it’s often hard to discern why an actor plays a role a certain way because I’m not privy to any behind-the-scenes information the talent might have been provided by the director, producers, screenwriters, or even peers. Fundamentally, I’m tasked with working entirely with what’s onscreen to inform my opinion of the role; and in that respect Worthington never quite scores any emotional center. The first act, he handles the duties of being torn over the loss of his Earthbound family along with being drafted to serve the people of Argos just fine; and yet his desire to extract punishment on the immortals pretty much disappears as the film progresses. Oh, it comes up in dialogue here and there, but given the fact that his seemingly godlike abilities – fast with a sword without any training as well as mixing it up physically despite seemingly only ever schooled in anything but fishing – I tend to think that no screenwriter, director, or producer really put much thought into the steps necessary for his hero’s arc to make literal sense. Instead, he’s a demi-god, so let’s just let him do this demi-goddery when the time comes.
Furthermore, I hate to point out that – ahem – Worthington was entirely too old to play the part as written and as conceived in mythology.
As best as I can ascertain from the screen material, Perseus – at the time of this adventure – should be in his early 20’s, and I would think that he probably would’ve been a bit younger in the original myth, though that’s something that’s always open to conjecture. According to the best guess I can make based on information available online, Worthington was thirty-three years old at the time of Clash’s production; and – no insult intended – he looks a bit older to these wizened eyes. Clearly, he doesn’t have a young man’s face, and there are even a few wrinkle lines on his forehead. Consequently, the emotional ‘beats’ of these early scenes – the death of his parents, his time in the Argos court, etc. – don’t resemble anything authentic. Indeed, the man delivers much his dialogue with the learned patience of a thirty-year-old actor, robbing most of the scenes of their relevance.
I suspect many might be able to overlook the aesthetic inconsistency by saying that Perseus was justly filled with anger and perhaps it was this anger that had him rushing into adulthood. Still, the story goes to great lengths to portray him as being somewhat young and somewhat impressionable – certainly, if he’s led the hard life on the sea, I can understand the maturity of his physique but not his mind. However, Worthington spends the remainder of the film delivering his lines in an almost hard-boiled Schwarzenegger cadence; and that, my friends, is not the stuff of mythology in any way. It's the Hollywoodization of such grand storytelling; and, yes, it helped sink the whole affair in much the same way Hades had no trouble tossing Spyros’ fishing boat to the bottom of the deep blue sea.
Similarly, these gods as portrayed by some of the screens critical favorites are – sigh – far too passé far too much of the time. When I think of gods, I don’t imagine earthly men and women with impressive accents merely delivering sentences in a manner that makes them sound affluent; instead, I really needed someone – anyone – in this pantheon to accept the fact that they were created to be bigger-than-frigging-life itself. This lot was far too comfortable just being divine and expended too little effort showing me what divinity looked like, what being a god felt like. The only one who seems to understand that a vast degree of theatricality would be required to portray a deity was Fiennes – his Hades has some wonderful Shakespearean moments – but the fact that he’s surrounded by chosen ones just waxing eloquently but not putting their backs into any of it a real, real disappointment.
Normally, I don’t break up the review with even a mention of a production’s special features because they’re not part of the theatrical experience, but I’m making an exception here just to clarify a point I raised above. Remember what I said about the difficulty between establishing the respective worlds of men and gods, about how challenging that can be to convey in a relatable fashion? Well, the disc includes some deleted scenes and an alternate ending that I believe would have made this production a vastly more impressive engagement. Even in their unfinished format here, there’s enough present to show that far more thought went into exploring the shenanigans of the gods on Mount Olympus, one aspect I felt was in far too short supply knowing what I do about mythology. Perhaps I might’ve been among the few and the proud who would’ve embraced a longer and more storied cut; but without seeing what could have been I guess we’ll never know.
Clash Of The Titans (2010) was produced by Warner Bros., Legendary Entertainment, Thunder Road Pictures, The Zanuck Company, and Moving Picture Company (MPC). 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 thought that the provided sights-and-sounds to what’s reported as a 4K upgrade were nothing short of phenomenal … if not godlike. (snicker snicker) Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? The disc boasts a handful of behind-the-scenes shorts, along with the usual trailer, an alternate ending, and some deleted scenes.
Alas, only Mildly Recommended.
As one might imagine, it pains me to only have to give a modest nod to the world of mythology, but 2010’s Clash Of The Titans just didn’t feel all that titanic. Granted, Letterier sprinkles his Adventure/Fantasy with some good-looking talent, and he definitely paces them respectably through some equally good-looking set pieces. A great deal of the action feels like it was constructed around and for these sequences, giving the picture a deeply and obviously formulaic rhythm. In fact, I’d agree with anyone who suggested that the cinematic treatment so far as visuals go has never been better. Still, far too much of the work revolves around Worthington’s lackluster performance – and a curiously disaffecting hero’s journey that never makes sense – so I’ll continue to hold out hope that, eventually, the material gets another big attempt to raise Heaven and Earth the way stories of gods and men deserve.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary 4K copy of Clash Of The Titans (as part of their ‘When Titans Ruled The Earth’ Collection) 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
Normally, I don’t break up the review with even a mention of a production’s special features because they’re not part of the theatrical experience, but I’m making an exception here just to clarify a point I raised above. Remember what I said about the difficulty between establishing the respective worlds of men and gods, about how challenging that can be to convey in a relatable fashion? Well, the disc includes some deleted scenes and an alternate ending that I believe would have made this production a vastly more impressive engagement. Even in their unfinished format here, there’s enough present to show that far more thought went into exploring the shenanigans of the gods on Mount Olympus, one aspect I felt was in far too short supply knowing what I do about mythology. Perhaps I might’ve been among the few and the proud who would’ve embraced a longer and more storied cut; but without seeing what could have been I guess we’ll never know.
Clash Of The Titans (2010) was produced by Warner Bros., Legendary Entertainment, Thunder Road Pictures, The Zanuck Company, and Moving Picture Company (MPC). 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 thought that the provided sights-and-sounds to what’s reported as a 4K upgrade were nothing short of phenomenal … if not godlike. (snicker snicker) Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? The disc boasts a handful of behind-the-scenes shorts, along with the usual trailer, an alternate ending, and some deleted scenes.
Alas, only Mildly Recommended.
As one might imagine, it pains me to only have to give a modest nod to the world of mythology, but 2010’s Clash Of The Titans just didn’t feel all that titanic. Granted, Letterier sprinkles his Adventure/Fantasy with some good-looking talent, and he definitely paces them respectably through some equally good-looking set pieces. A great deal of the action feels like it was constructed around and for these sequences, giving the picture a deeply and obviously formulaic rhythm. In fact, I’d agree with anyone who suggested that the cinematic treatment so far as visuals go has never been better. Still, far too much of the work revolves around Worthington’s lackluster performance – and a curiously disaffecting hero’s journey that never makes sense – so I’ll continue to hold out hope that, eventually, the material gets another big attempt to raise Heaven and Earth the way stories of gods and men deserve.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary 4K copy of Clash Of The Titans (as part of their ‘When Titans Ruled The Earth’ Collection) 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